<DOC>
[108th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:87703.wais]
THE IMPACT OF THE DRUG TRADE ON BORDER SECURITY AND NATIONAL PARKS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 10, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-19
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
83-959 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Columbia
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas CHRIS BELL, Texas
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota ------
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Peter Sirh, Staff Director
Melissa Wojciak, Deputy Staff Director
Randy Kaplan, Senior Counsel/Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Philip M. Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JOHN L. MICA, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
DOUG OSE, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia Maryland
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee Columbia
CHRIS BELL, Texas
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Christopher A. Donesa, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Nicolas Coleman, Counsel
Nicole Garrett, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 10, 2003................................... 1
Statement of:
Aguilar, David, Chief Patrol Agent, Tucson Sector, U.S.
Border Patrol; Dom Ciccone, Regional Chief, National
Wildlife Refuge System, Region 2, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; William Wellman, park supervisor, Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument, National Park Service; Hugh
Winderweedle, Port Director, Lukeville Port of Entry, U.S.
Customs Service; and James Woolley, Assistant Special Agent
in Charge, Tucson Division Office, Drug Enforcement Agency. 30
Manuel, Edward D., chairman, Tohono O'Odham Nation; and
Joseph Delgado, assistant chief of police, Tohono O'Odham
Police Department.......................................... 10
Salcido, Fern, Tohono O'Odham Nation legislative council
member; Augustine Toro, chairman, Chukut Kuk Boundary
Committee, Tohono O'Odham Nation; Colonel Ben Anderson,
U.S. Army (retired); Jennifer Allen, Border Action Network;
and Reverend Robin Hoover, president, Humane Borders,
Inconsistent............................................... 95
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Aguilar, David, Chief Patrol Agent, Tucson Sector, U.S.
Border Patrol, prepared statement of....................... 33
Allen, Jennifer, Border Action Network, prepared statement of 117
Anderson, Colonel Ben, U.S. Army (retired); Jennifer Allen,
Border Action Network, prepared statement of............... 105
Ciccone, Dom, Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge
System, Region 2, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, prepared
statement of............................................... 44
Delgado, Joseph, assistant chief of police, Tohono O'Odham
Police Department, prepared statement of................... 19
Hoover, Reverend Robin, president, Humane Borders,
Inconsistent, prepared statement of........................ 124
Manuel, Edward D., chairman, Tohono O'Odham Nation, prepared
statement of............................................... 13
Salcido, Fern, Tohono O'Odham Nation legislative council
member, prepared statement of.............................. 97
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 4
Toro, Augustine, chairman, Chukut Kuk Boundary Committee,
Tohono O'Odham Nation, prepared statement of............... 101
Wellman, William, park supervisor, Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument, National Park Service, prepared statement of..... 53
Winderweedle, Hugh, Port Director, Lukeville Port of Entry,
U.S. Customs Service, prepared statement of................ 64
Woolley, James, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Tucson
Division Office, Drug Enforcement Agency, prepared
statement of............................................... 72
THE IMPACT OF THE DRUG TRADE ON BORDER SECURITY AND NATIONAL PARKS
----------
MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Sells, AZ.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:21 a.m., in
the Council Chambers, Tohono O'odham Nation, Sells, AZ, Hon.
Mark Souder (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Souder and Shadegg.
Staff present: Nicole Garrett, clerk; Christopher A.
Donesa, staff director and chief counsel; and Nick Coleman,
counsel.
Mr. Souder. The Subcommittee will come to order. I am going
to read an opening statement, then have a few comments and I
need to clarify a little what we are doing here.
Good morning, and thank you all for coming. Today our
subcommittee returns to continue its exploration of the status
of security and law enforcement along the southern Arizona
border.
Since the summer of 2001, this subcommittee has been making
a comprehensive study of our Nation's borders, including a
field hearing last February in Sierra Vista, AZ. The
subcommittee has focused particular attention on the
effectiveness of the Federal law enforcement agencies entrusted
with protecting and administering our Nation's borders and
ports of entry. Last summer the subcommittee released a
comprehensive report on these issues, but our study continues.
This is the report that was just released. It is a little over
100 pages, it is the most comprehensive study in the history of
the government on the border.
Today's hearing is intended to focus on the problem of
illegal drug smuggling across the southern border, and the
related crime and damage caused by that smuggling. This hearing
is not intended to focus on the related problem of illegal
immigration, which is a much larger and even more contentious
issue. We understand, of course, that the issue of illegal
immigration is bound to come up today as it is so deeply
intertwined with the problem of narcotics smuggling along the
southern border.
This subcommittee also has jurisdiction over INS and
immigration questions, but that is not our primary focus. As
you probably know, Congressman Shadegg and I both have recently
been appointed to the Homeland Security Committee as well. So
we have multiple jurisdictions, but when we look at border
issues, we look at narcotics, but then we also look at trade
questions, we wind up looking at immigration questions and the
more comprehensive--but particularly what we are looking at is
the vulnerability of the southern border. Our primary
responsibility in this subcommittee is oversight of narcotics
questions, as well as authorizing the drug czar office and
those regulations which we are in the process of doing in the
next 30 days.
The southern border is still far more illegal--has far more
illegal activity than the northern border, and it presents
severe challenges for effective law enforcement. The southern
border runs through deserts, mountains and rivers, through
unpopulated areas as well as cities and suburbs, and through
national parks, wildlife refuges, Native American reservations
and even military bases. Questions of overlapping law
enforcement agency jurisdiction can come into play, and we
intend to address those issues today.
The particular problem of illegal cross-border activity in
parks, refuges and reservations is illustrated by several
incidents over the past year. In August 2002, Ranger Kris Eggle
was killed by drug smugglers in Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument. The murder occurred less than a year after the U.S.
Department of Interior's Inspector General released a report
which raised serious questions about how well equipped and
prepared park rangers and other Interior Department law
enforcement personnel were to deal with increasing drug
smuggling and other crime taking place at national parks and
wildlife refuges. In April 2002, marijuana smugglers attacked
four U.S. Customs officers on the Tohono O'odham Nation
Reservation, wounding one of them. The Tohono O'odham Nation
has reported numerous other incidents of cross-border violence,
and even incursions by Mexican military personnel in support of
drug smugglers.
Taken together, these incidents paint a stark picture of
the challenges facing law enforcement and local citizens along
the southern Arizona border. Drug smuggling and related crime
have taken a toll on the environment and the quality of life
for local residents, besides presenting a threat to the entire
country. We are talking today about narcotics, but as we look
at Homeland Security questions and the vulnerabilities you have
when you do not control either of the borders, they are just
incomprehensible. As I was out here yesterday trying to figure
out how we would stop someone if they have a piece of a nuclear
weapon and it becomes catastrophic. Short-term, that is not as
an immediate threat on the south border as it is on the north
border, but long-term, without control of your borders you
cannot have a secure Nation.
These issues are all very important and extremely urgent,
and we look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
ways to address them.
We want to first thank the Tohono O'odham Nation for
agreeing to provide their facilities for this hearing. We
greatly appreciate your courtesy in hosting this event and in
providing four witnesses to testify: the Honorable Edward
Manuel, chairman of the Nation, representing the sovereign
government; Assistant Chief of Police Joseph Delgado,
representing the Tohono O'odham law enforcement community; Ms.
Fern Salcido and Mr. Augustine Toro, private citizens of the
Nation who live in border districts. We look forward to
learning more about the difficulties you face here in the
Tohono O'odham Nation.
We have also invited representatives of the agencies
primarily responsible for dealing with drug smuggling in this
region; namely, the U.S. Customs Service, the U.S. Border
Patrol and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The
subcommittee is vitally interested in ensuring the effective
functioning of these agencies, and we will continue to work
with them and their staff to ensure the continued security and
effective administration of our Nation's borders and its
protection from narcotics.
We also welcome Mr. David Aguilar, Chief Patrol Agent for
the U.S. Border Patrol's Tucson sector, who we have worked with
in previous hearings. Mr. Hugh Winderweedle, Port Director of
the U.S. Customs Service in Lukeville's Port of Entry and Mr.
James Woolley, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the Drug
Enforcement Administration's Tucson Division Office.
As this hearing is particularly focused on the problems
faced at our Nation's parks and wildlife refuges, we are also
pleased to be joined by Mr. Dom Ciccone, Regional Chief of the
National Wildlife Refuge System, representing the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and Mr. William Wellman, Park Supervisor for
the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, representing the
National Park Service.
I am also a member of the House Resources Committee on the
National Parks and on the Fish and Wildlife subcommittees, so I
have had many opportunities to visit our national parks and
wildlife refuges and to meet with Interior Department personnel
who manage them. We hope at this hearing to focus special
attention on the law enforcement issues faced by your agencies,
so we thank you again for your participation.
When examining border policies, we must of course also seek
the input of representatives of the local community whose lives
are directly affected by the changes at the border. We
therefore welcome, in addition to Ms. Salcido and Mr. Toro, Ms.
Jennifer Allen of the Border Action Network; Colonel Ben
Anderson, a retired U.S. Army officer and local resident and
Reverend Robin Hoover, president of Humane Borders, Inc.
We know that these issues can be very contentious, because
they are a matter not simply of the quality of life for those
who live here, but of life and death itself. We hope to have a
courteous but frank discussion of these issues, and we thank
everyone for taking the time this morning to join us for this
important hearing.
It is an honor today to be joined by my friend and constant
advocate for Arizona, Congressman John Shadegg, a previous
member of this committee. As I said, we will be working
together on border issues on Homeland Security. It is great to
be in Arizona.
Mr. Shadegg.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.003
Mr. Shadegg. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman and welcome to
Arizona. We are thrilled to have you here. We know you spent
the weekend here and we very much appreciate your coming here.
I am Congressman John Shadegg and I represent the Third
District of Arizona. I am not a member of the subcommittee any
longer, though I once was, but I have worked on border issues
quite extensively with Congressman Souder. I want to welcome
you here, Mark, and your lovely wife. I want to tell you that
we appreciate your spending time in Arizona and looking at our
issues with regard to the border and all of our issues with
regard to drug enforcement. Mark spent part of his time on
Saturday looking at our HIDTA in Phoenix and it wound up
costing he and his wife their day's plans. So he has spent an
aggressive amount of time here in Arizona working and not doing
any recreation, but I hope we at least provided you with good
weather.
I also want to thank the Tohono O'odham Nation and its
chairman for hosting us here today. I want to explain that in
part some of the groundwork for this hearing resulted from a
visit I made to the border roughly 3 weeks ago, where we went
to Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and looked at the
situation in that park. We looked at the location where Park
Ranger Eggle was murdered, and began to take an accounting of
the problems that we face along the border from Nogales west.
I want to point out--and I note this, Congressman, with
some degree of tongue in cheek--that you and I both, I think,
visited Nogales in January and did an extensive border tour
there, including at that time their new truck facility and a
helicopter tour there. We visited Sierra Vista in February and
spent some time there and night time down on the border,
helicopter work and also some ground work, looking at the new
elevated stations for observing border crossings, and we are
here in March. I wonder if I detect a pattern there? I do not
see August or July in those months. [Laughter.]
Mr. Souder. What you neglect to mention is I have been here
on other business with the parks in the hot season, so I
decided not to repeat that. [Laughter.]
Mr. Shadegg. Oh, I appreciate you inviting me only for your
winter visits.
These issues are in fact very, very important. I want to
note for the record and just make a comment for my friends from
Arizona. Fellow Arizonans, that Mark is singularly devoted to
two issues that I think are very important to us here in
Arizona. One is the border issue in general and the importance
of our Nation's borders and the importance of the security and
law enforcement along those borders; and second, the issue of
illegal drugs. He has worked aggressively on this issue. He has
been around the globe looking at the drug issue. He is very
personally dedicated to and concerned about the devastation of
our young people in this Nation by illegal drugs and the damage
they do. He has looked at interdiction in source countries, he
has looked at interdiction in the transit regions and looked at
our borders and has looked at enforcement within the country. I
think that commends him well and he works very hard. The report
that he has produced is a tremendously valuable asset and it
catalogs the successes and the failures and the needs of our
law enforcement officials at our borders and at our ports of
entry.
I described to him my experience at Lukeville a couple of
weeks ago and the condition of the fence at Lukeville and
provided him with a book of pictures, trying to show to him
some of the concerns. His only comment of note was that I seem
to be in every picture. [Laughter.]
I also explained to him some of the issues here with the
Tohono O'odham, and the very impressive information that the
Tohono O'odham Nation presented to me when we were in Lukeville
and over at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument a few weeks ago
in terms of the trafficking across the reservation, the damage
that is done by that trafficking, the recent upsurge in drug
trafficking across the Nation and the lack of resources that
the Nation has to deal with that problem. I also described to
Mark the genuine concern of the Nation for the fact that we
have now appropriated funds to build an automobile barrier
along the southern boundary of Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument, but we have not done anything to deal with the border
either east of that location--meaning here on Tohono O'odham--
or west of that location on the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife
Refuge. We have tried to give Mark some kind of an inkling of
what he would find when he came here for this hearing.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here. I
believe that this is a tremendous step forward for us to be
able to present this information in a formal congressional
hearing where it will get on the record. I would note that in
his work on border issues and particularly on drug issues, Mark
is acting at the personal request of the Speaker of the U.S.
House, who shares Mark's passion about drug issues and about
border issues because of the issue of drugs. So when you
recognize this hearing and have an opportunity to put this
information in the record, the problems that we face all along
America's southern border, the particular problems we face here
along the Arizona section of our southern border and the unique
problems today that we face here in the Tohono O'odham Nation,
at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and also at Cabeza
Prieta. That information is going into the official record of
the U.S. Congress and is being brought forward in a sense by a
chairman who is working at the request of the Speaker of the
House himself, which means that we have a chance to use that to
try to make our case for the resources we need to deal with
these issues.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for being here and for
taking the time. I thank all of our witnesses and I yield back
my time.
Mr. Souder. Before proceeding, I would like to take care of
a couple of procedural matters. First, I would ask unanimous
consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to submit
written statements and questions for the hearing record, and
that any answers to written questions provided by the witnesses
also be included in the record. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Second, I would like to ask unanimous consent that all
Members present be permitted to participate in the hearing.
Let me make a couple of introductory comments as far as how
a hearing functions. This is not a town meeting. Generally
speaking, even in Washington, often our hearings will have 1 to
2 Members present and maybe 5 to 10 people in the audience. It
is not a participation meeting where people can ask questions,
where they can make comments. There are designated witnesses,
time periods of 5 minutes for a witness, which we try to stay
as tight to that as possible and draw it out in the questions.
Full statements are submitted for the record and additional
material is submitted for the record, because it is a
proceeding where we are building an official record as we work
through different border issues.
Because there are not a lot of field hearings in hard-to-
get-to locations, often people do not understand the difference
between that and a town meeting, and I wanted to outline that a
little bit before we got started with the hearing.
If you have comments that you would like to submit, you can
submit them to the committee. We will work through, as best we
can, to insert them into the record. That is not a uniform
commitment that we will do so, but we will certainly consider
that, and we consider the request, particularly if they go
through the Congressman who represents you, who then can submit
it to the members of the committee and go through--there is a
legal process we have to work through for testimony as well,
because one of the things we do in this committee is swear in
every witness, and with handwritten statements you are not
sworn in the same under oath, so we have to be careful. The
reason this committee does that is we are an oversight
committee. It is the only committee, I believe, in Congress--
the Intelligence Committee may as well--that swears in
witnesses. This committee is the one that does investigations
such as on China and on Waco and the whole range of things like
that, and we have had multiple perjury cases come out of this
committee. So that is why submitted statements and random
questions do not work in our field hearings because the people
have to prepare that and have it cleared, and they should be
prepared to be prosecuted if they give us false statements in a
hearing. I am not threatening anybody, I am just saying as a
factual matter that has happened in the committee. Our job is
to figure out when the government is being effective in
implementing the laws that Congress passed.
In recognition of the courtesy of Tohono O'odham sovereign
Nation in hosting this hearing, we would like to first hear
from their official representative. So would the first two
witnesses, Chairman Manuel and Assistant Chief of Police
Delgado, please come forward and remain standing because we'll
need to administer the oath.
If you will raise your right hands. It is our standard
practice, as I said, to have everybody testify under oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that both witnesses have
responded in the affirmative.
I also want to make sure that I put in the record that we
have talked to a number of Congressmen to alert them of this. I
talked to Congressman Grijalva approximately a month ago that
we were coming. I believe he has representatives here today,
but he was not able to be here. We always make sure that
whatever district we are in, we approach that Congressman as
soon as we have a confirmed date and let them know we are
coming in, even if they are not a member of the committee.
With that, let me again say it is a great pleasure to be
here. I drove through yesterday as we were heading to the park
and back this morning from Ajo. It is absolutely beautiful
country with the flowers and the cactus. It is not green
soybeans like Indiana. It is not nice and flat where you can
see the next two States like we can in Indiana, but what
beautiful country. It is really a great honor to be here among
you, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
STATEMENTS OF EDWARD D. MANUEL, CHAIRMAN, TOHONO O'ODHAM
NATION; AND JOSEPH DELGADO, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE, TOHONO
O'ODHAM POLICE DEPARTMENT
Chairman Manuel. Good morning, Congressman Souder, good
morning Congressman Shadegg and staff persons. Welcome to the
Tohono O'odham Nation. Also, I would like to welcome the public
that are here this morning.
I am honored to appear before the subcommittee today to
share my thoughts on the impact that the drug trade is having
on Tohono O'odham Nation. We have many problems along the
international boundary, such as homeland security,
environmental and illegal immigrants. Today, I will confine my
testimony only to the drug trade due to time limitations.
Let me share some background information on the Tohono
O'odham Nation. The Tohono O'odham Nation is comprised of 2.8
million acres of land, an area the size of Connecticut. O'odham
lands are contiguous to 75 miles of the international boundary
and our Nation has approximately 28,500 members.
Cross-border drug smuggling is one of the most serious
problems facing our community today.
It is important that you understand how the present crisis
was created so that steps can be taken now to address the
situation. We must avoid making these same mistakes in the
future. In the past, the United States initiated several border
programs such as Operation Gatekeeper and Hold the Line aimed
at specific border areas. These initiatives were successful
around the ports of entry, but had the unfortunate effect of
forcing illegal activities away from the ports and
unfortunately onto the land of the Tohono O'odham Nation. A
shifting of resources is costly, time consuming and
ineffective. Our land and our people have suffered
tremendously. They have suffered collateral damages as a direct
result of these policies and practices. We were never
consulted.
Let me share with you some of the impact the drug smuggling
is having on the Nation. In 2001, one of our Tohono O'odham
policewomen, working alone, seized 450 pounds of cocaine with a
street value of $4 million and arrested the two smugglers who
had recently brought their load across the border. Last year,
our police department seized in excess of 75 tons of narcotics.
This level of drug smuggling has seriously strained our law
enforcement resources and put our officers at great risk. Drug
smuggling is big business. The Tohono O'odham Nation Police
Department's drug seizures have resulted in significant
financial losses to those businesses that engage in the
importation of narcotics. We know that it is just a matter of
time before the smugglers start to retaliate. Smugglers are
armed with automatic assault type weapons, have armor-piercing
bullets and have sophisticated communication equipment to
detect our law enforcement presence. Our resources are diverted
away from our community, our community-based policemen.
The people involved in the smuggling business on our lands
come from all over the United States. They are not American
Indians and we do not have legal authority to prosecute them in
our courts. They recruit our children to transport the drugs,
they lure our teenagers to experiment with drugs such as
cocaine, heroin and crystal meth--drugs that never before were
found in our communities. When our kids become addicted, we
have no services to treat them, no residential care, and no
detox beds. All too often, they end up in the intensive care
units of Tucson hospitals.
These are just some of the tragic effects of cross-border
drug smuggling--the question is what can we do? You and I both
know that until demand in the United States for narcotic
products is effectively dealt with, those of us who live and
work along the border will have to deal with the effects of
drug smuggling.
We are told that plans are in the works to build a vehicle
barrier fence along the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument,
along its border. As a stand-alone project, this will simply
divert more smuggling traffic into the lands of the Tohono
O'odham Nation. The Tohono O'odham Nation stands ready to work
in partnership with our neighbors, but it is not right to
implement a project in one area, which only have the effect of
making life worse for our communities and our people.
Protection of America's borders is clearly a Federal
obligation. We hear a lot about homeland security and yet how
secure is our homeland when tons and tons of narcotics cross
our border every day?
I propose that the United States construct and maintain a
road immediately adjacent to the international boundary from
the west end to the east end of the Tohono O'odham Nation, the
entire 75 mile length. Further, I propose that the U.S. law
enforcement resources be stationed directly on the border and
removed from our communities.
I know that these proposals are costly, but we simply must
stop the massive importation of narcotics across the lands of
the Tohono O'odham Nation. We can do this in one of two ways--
either the United States can provide direct and adequate
funding to the Tohono O'odham Nation and we will build and
maintain the road and put our law enforcement personnel on the
border, or the United States can build and maintain the road
and station Federal law enforcement agents on the border. We
must act now--regardless of which option we pursue. We must act
in collaboration with the United States and our neighbors along
the border. Not only does drug smuggling have major negative
effects on the Tohono O'odham Nation, drugs go beyond the
boundaries of the Nation into the Arizona communities and the
United States. The grave danger faced by our law enforcement
and the health and safety of our people in our communities
require that we all work together to effectively address the
issue of border crossing importation of drugs.
Again, thank you. I am pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
Mr. Souder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We would now like to hear from Assistant Chief Delgado.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Manuel follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.007
Mr. Delgado. Good morning, Members of Congress, welcome to
the Tohono O'odham Nation.
The Tohono O'odham Nation has experienced a dramatic
increase in the amount of smuggled narcotics across our lands
from Mexico into other parts of the United States. The increase
is simply beyond the Nation's control and due largely to the
demand for narcotics. Nevertheless, the impact of this illegal
traffic presents a huge cost for the Nations Tohono O'odham
Police Department and prevents the police department from
completing its mission to provide community policing for the
Tohono O'odham communities.
TOPD estimates that it spends in excess of $3.7 million on
interdiction of illegal traffic across the international
border. In other words, fully 60 percent of the TOPD's budget
is devoted to fighting the international drug problem.
During fiscal year 2001, the TOPD seized 45,000 pounds of
illegal drugs. At the end of fiscal year 2002, the TOPD seized
a total of 65,000 pounds. In April 2002 alone, the TOPD seized
a record 15,960 pounds or one-third the total seized in 2001. A
recent analysis by TOPD demonstrates that in 2002, we spent
$642,880 in direct costs associated with international drug
smuggling cases alone. That cost represents only the personnel
time involved in such investigations; it does not include
vehicle and/or other non-administrative costs.
Protecting the border and deterring international traffic
in narcotics is the responsibility of Federal law enforcement
agencies. The scale of the problem indicates a sizable hole in
the border sufficient to threaten homeland security. TOPD
attempts to plug the hole with limited resources, while we
receive no Federal funding support for our efforts. Clearly,
without Federal funding support, the TOPD will remain
overwhelmed by the international border problem, much to the
detriment of the Tohono O'odham members and our communities.
The $3.7 million cost of interdicting narcotics amounts to
60 percent of the TOPD's budget, and an effort which provides
significant assistance to Federal law enforcement agencies.
Other local law enforcement receive some Federal funds for
similar efforts. TOPD should be accorded the same level of
funding and resource allocation, if not more, considering the
size of the international problem occurring on our land of the
Tohono O'odham Nation. Federal funding support would reimburse
both direct and opportunity costs of TOPD's forced involvement
in border-related law enforcement and public safety challenges,
which are a Federal responsibility. Few local law enforcement
agencies face the scale of challenges before the TOPD. Local,
community public safety needs of Tohono O'odham often are put
at risk, if not compromised.
To better address the local need for TOPD's law enforcement
services, while balancing the TOPD's assistance in illegal
trafficking, TOPD requests $3,707,000 in Federal funds.
Currently, operational costs for our efforts amount to $1.8
million, while personnel costs amount to $1.6 million and
indirect costs at $326,790. Federal funding in this amount
would cover personnel, vehicles, support equipment and
operational expenses. Only through Federal funding support can
TOPD continue to meet border-related challenges and protect the
homeland security of the United States. Most important, these
funds will allow TOPD to address the need for community-based
police services.
Thank you. I am pleased to answer any questions you might
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Delgado follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.009
Mr. Souder. Thank you both for your testimony.
Chief Delgado, is your department eligible for equipment
under the drug czar's office--do you know or are you familiar
with that program?
Mr. Delgado. Yes, we are.
Mr. Souder. So you have been able to get Federal equipment
through that?
Mr. Delgado. We get very limited and very little equipment
through them. I believe we got some night vision equipment
once.
Mr. Souder. Have you applied on a regular basis?
Mr. Delgado. We do talk to them.
Mr. Souder. Because that is the primary way we transfer
technology to police departments around the country and we want
to make sure in the legislation that we are doing that you are
eligible. So you are eligible for that, which is the same as
other departments. Are there particular programs where you
think that other--it would be helpful if you could give us
where you believe State and local police departments are able
to apply for Federal funds in drug enforcement that you are
not.
Mr. Delgado. OK.
Mr. Souder. If you can talk to some individuals and maybe
followup with the Tucson Police Department, the Arizona
Governor's Office, could rather than actually complaining,
actually give--I do not mean you, but the Governor's Office,
rather than just complaining, give some specifics of how to
help along the border. We certainly realize that you have one
of the biggest segments of the border and that you ought, at
the very least, have the same ability as everybody else to
apply. It does not even make sense not to have that happen, and
there probably needs to be additional efforts too. And I think
your statement is helpful on that.
Can I ask you another question, on the amount of narcotics
that you have seized, is most of that marijuana?
Mr. Delgado. Yes.
Mr. Souder. Fifty percent?
Mr. Delgado. Probably a little higher than that.
Mr. Souder. And then what is--by higher, two-thirds?
Mr. Delgado. Probably about two-thirds.
Mr. Souder. And then cocaine, the next amount?
Mr. Delgado. Yes and meth after that.
Mr. Souder. Is most of this coming in small back packs or
are you occasionally intercepting groups, have you seen any of
the mule trains that they have seen in other places?
Mr. Delgado. All different things, we have seen mule trains
in conjunction with like 8,000 pounds all the way to maybe 10
pounds, it comes in all ways, horseback. We have gotten reports
of dropping it by airplane in different areas of the
reservation, the airplanes come by and drop it. We got a report
last week. So there are all different ways of bringing it
across.
Mr. Souder. Chairman Manuel, you mentioned about a road.
Would you support a continuation of the fence like is going
through the park?
Chairman Manuel. We looked at the one that they are
proposing in Organ Pipe and believe the two districts that are
adjacent to the international boundary are in discussion now
and if they agree, we will support it.
Mr. Souder. One of the things where we have had some
disagreement over in the Sierra Vista/Douglas zone, as well as
on the north border, is I believe we need to be more aggressive
at the border and as we gradually put the pressure at the
border. But we are also going to need check stations beyond the
border, merely because no matter what we do, people are going
to come through and move toward the major highway areas. And I
know that is controversial in those States, but there just is
not any other way to do it because they will rendezvous. But
the more we can catch at the border, the more difficult we make
it, the better.
Now I am not an expert on this and I know it is an issue
that we are going to talk about later today, but how would you
see addressing a fence in the border regarding, I understand
your Nation is also spread across the international boundary?
Are there ways to track tribal members so that we would know
who--so we would not have a formal border crossing there, but
there would be a way to allow the flexibility within the tribe
so we would still be able to protect American citizens? We have
a similar case up in upstate New York.
Chairman Manuel. We have three entries into the Nation from
the international boundary that our members know about and they
utilize it all the time for transportation for health purposes.
So we are proposing that three remain open.
Mr. Souder. We have had a lot of discussion, less in the
last year but certainly there are going to be discussions about
what we need to do regarding immigration policies and guest
worker policies and I know that you have proposals about
citizenship questions, but at the very least, it would seem
like this would be a way to do a pilot, if not citizenship,
guest passes or maneuverability. Would you be able to identify
who the actual members are on the Mexican side, so that they
could be double-checked if they were, you know, picked up in a
random mix or something, that we would know whether they are
clearly a member of the Nation?
Chairman Manuel. Yes, we have enrollment cards that our
members carry and they cannot be duplicated. So that's how we
know.
Mr. Souder. And they could be matched by name?
Chairman Manuel. Right.
Mr. Souder. Because in my home State where the narcotics
and illegal immigration, whether it comes through here or
through Texas, back in Indiana, as we all know there are tons
of places that make Social Security cards and green cards and
all that kind of stuff and you cannot ask questions. So there
would have to be some kind of a check thing. On the other hand,
if we put a fence up, it divides a Nation, perhaps there could
be flexibility on how to address that, and it would seem to me,
just looking at it on the surface, that this might be a way to
look at the full program to see whether in fact we can monitor
proposals like guest workers and different immigration
strategies that we are looking at at the Federal level.
I will yield to Mr. Shadegg for some questions.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both
of you for excellent testimony, I appreciate it very much, I
think it is very helpful.
Chairman Manuel, I want to begin by asking you about the
drug issue and particularly about the impact of the drug issue
on the Nation itself.
When we met over at Organ Pipe, information was provided to
me about a concern of the Nation that its youth were being
recruited by drug smugglers to take a part in the drug
smuggling activity and being offered presumably large sums of
money to do that. Is that in fact occurring and are you aware
that it is a concern of the Nation?
Chairman Manuel. Yes, it is happening. I believe the
individual that was at the Organ Pipe meeting was one of the
District Chairs and one of the comments that she made was that
she had a daughter who has a friend and this friend had a new
vehicle with sophisticated scanning and communication equipment
in the vehicle and so she told her daughter not to associate
because she does not have a job and to have that kind of
gadgets in her vehicle. It is happening to members of the
Nation, especially our young people because of the unemployment
that is very high here on the Tohono O'odham Nation. So it is
very lucrative when they get the money that they can get by
doing that, but not realizing the consequences that they can
get into when they are caught. So that is a problem.
And the person is here today if anybody wants to ask her
any questions about that. We also know that there are other
people that are involved.
Mr. Shadegg. Assistant Chief Delgado, I noticed that in
your prepared testimony, you mentioned that this diversion of
so much of your financial resources to patrolling the border,
dealing with illegal crossings, dealing with drug smuggling,
dealing with other crossings that are illegal, diverts you from
community policing. Are you also aware of an increasing
tendency of your young people to be recruited or other damage
being done here to the Nation itself and to the people of the
Nation?
Mr. Delgado. Yes. Predominantly out west, in the western
part of the Nation, we have seen an increase in younger
juvenile, even ages 12 and up, 14, 15, they are being recruited
to be lookouts, watchouts, to watch for us, Police and Customs
and other departments that are coming. We are also seeing
younger drivers. There was a report that there was a kid as
young as 13 years old that started running drugs at the age of
13--we have seen that.
Mr. Shadegg. Speaking of drug runners, I presume that while
some drug smuggling can occur in a backpack fashion, other
smuggling occurs by vehicle crossing. Is it a concern to the
Nation, and have you begun to look at how serious it would be
if a vehicle barrier were built along the southern boundary of
Organ Pipe, that that would drive vehicles bringing drugs
across over here on the Nation?
Mr. Delgado. Yes, it would be a great impact, just like
that operation when they close down the borders in Nogales and
other places creates a funnel to our Nation.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that you have
three crossings that members of the Nation use to go back and
forth. I believe that when I was in Organ Pipe or Lukeville
with you, there was some concern expressed that perhaps the
Nation wanted to close, I do not know if it is one of those
three or one of the more informal crossings, because of concern
about trafficking across the border of either drugs or
illegals. Is that in fact--is one of the Districts concerned
about that issue?
Chairman Manuel. The community that is I think about a mile
from the border, the members were at the meeting at that time
and they did propose that they close that gate, but I told them
that it is really up to the District and they have to work with
the District if they want to close that, because there are
members that come back and forth for health purposes.
Mr. Shadegg. Just one more question on the drug issue and
then I want to move a little bit to homeland security for a
moment. In terms of quantities of drugs, the statistics you
have given us show a rather dramatic increase. Do you have
reason to believe that increase is going to continue, and in
stopping or interdicting any of the drugs, do you sometimes
find drug drop points here on the Nation where drugs are
brought in and then dropped and left and they could be found by
members of the Nation or by youth of the Nation? Is that a
concern?
Mr. Delgado. Yes, it is. There are different ways they
bring the drugs up. A lot of times, they store them at the
locations and washes, in and around communities, around the
houses and different areas. So we have had reports that people
have found drugs and even some young people have found drugs
and will call us and we will go out and pick them up. So it is
a great concern.
Mr. Shadegg. Do you get cooperation on those issues from
DEA or Border Patrol or other Federal agencies?
Mr. Delgado. Yes, we do, we work real well with Border
Patrol and U.S. Customs, we all work together.
Mr. Shadegg. In the materials that I was provided over at
Organ Pipe, there was information about the issue of crossings
not just by Mexican nationals, and there was this ticket that
was explained. Since in part our focus here is homeland
security, could one of you explain--I believe this is a ticket
that showed a crossing not by a Mexican national, but rather by
a individual with a Middle Eastern name. Are you seeing
increase in crossing by non-Mexican nationals and can you
explain to us exactly what that ticket was about and your
concern on that particular issue?
Mr. Delgado. That was an airline ticket, I believe?
Mr. Shadegg. Yes, an airline ticket.
Mr. Delgado. I believe it was an airline ticket that was
found.
Mr. Shadegg. I should have said this in the question--an
airline ticket found last August for an individual by the name
of Youssef Abdul Covare, that I believe you found just
abandoned here on the reservation.
Mr. Delgado. Yes, it was southwest of here along some of
the trails where people with drugs and also illegal aliens come
across. We turned it over to the FBI.
Mr. Shadegg. And you have evidence--this is my last
question and I will yield back to the chairman--you have
evidence of increasing crossings by non-Mexican nationals in
this area?
Mr. Delgado. I am not sure, you may have to talk to Border
Patrol.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Manuel. I am not aware of it, but it is a concern
for homeland security purposes.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Mr. Souder. I wanted to followup with the chairman's
testimony. You said that ``The people involved in the smuggling
business on our lands come from all over the United States.
They are not American Indians, so we do not have legal
authority to prosecute them in our courts.'' What happens if
you apprehend someone?
Chairman Manuel. If they are not Indians, they are turned
over to Customs or the FBI.
Mr. Souder. And do you have--and I know we will get into
this on the second panel that is going to be focused on the
entire border, but this will be an opportunity to focus on the
Nation in particular. Do you have agents that are close by or
do they have to come from Tucson or where do they come from? If
you apprehended somebody and you cannot prosecute them in your
courts and you need to turn them over, what, in a practical
way, happens here?
Mr. Delgado. It just depends, because they are also
overwhelmed with these same issues we are overwhelmed with on
this border. So sometimes if they are close by, we have a 10
minute ETA. The other night we had something like 75 we had to
house in our department and it took them approximately an hour
to get here. Sometimes there's extended ETAs because like I
said, they are overwhelmed. So it could be anywhere from a 5-
minute to a couple hour timeframe to come and respond.
Mr. Souder. And it is the Border Patrol that always
responds?
Mr. Delgado. On illegal immigrants. On drugs, we work with
Customs, U.S. Customs Service.
Mr. Souder. Does that vary whether they just come across
the border or they are further in, or is it just assumed that
they have come across rather recently, if they are in your
Nation?
Mr. Delgado. It is assumed they have come across very
recently, depending on where we get them at. We have got them
all the way as far as 40 miles up from the border, all the way
up to Casa Grande area, all the way up by Silver Barrel Mine,
and that could take a couple of days to get there.
Mr. Souder. On the south border--and pardon my ignorance on
this--are there any other sovereign Indian nations along the
border that have a similar problem, that you have talked with?
Chairman Manuel. Not that we are aware of, I think we are
the only one. There is only one other tribe in California that
has land similar to the Nation, but I am not aware whether they
face similar problems. But we do have Customs at the substation
here on the Nation's land, so they are here 24 hours a day.
Mr. Souder. I guess we definitely need to look at even in
housing, make sure there is--often in the law, we have to
specify Indian Nation separate on these different things for
law enforcement questions, for when we have people overnight,
not to say that there is a lot of money, every single
jurisdiction along every border crossing says they do not have
enough to cover, but there needs to be some kind of focus.
Do you find that--you said you had 75 one night in your
prison?
Mr. Delgado. Yes.
Mr. Souder. Did they take them somewhere then or----
Mr. Delgado. We housed them in our police station.
Mr. Souder. I mean after Border Patrol arrived, what
happens?
Mr. Delgado. They take control. I believe they brought a
bus up and picked them and took them for deportation.
Mr. Souder. If you find narcotics and they are not part of
your Nation, what jurisdiction do you have to seize narcotics?
Mr. Delgado. Ourself and Customs works together and whether
they are tribal or non-tribal members, we will seize them, we
will also arrest them and present the case to the U.S.
Attorney's Office for prosecution.
Mr. Souder. And if they are non-tribal members, do you have
to wait until a Customs person arrives?
Mr. Delgado. Yes and no. We do work with them, usually we
are working hand-in-hand, so it is not a long wait for them, or
we can start the case ourselves, we have our own narcotics
team, and it is a two-man team that works with Customs. They
have radios with Customs and I believe they are cross
certified.
Mr. Souder. In the testimony, and we have also heard
informally, about concerns that Mexican law enforcement or
military have come across the border actually aiding the
narcotics smugglers. Does this happen very often, is this
confirmed or just the type of thing people are saying? What
specificity do you have?
Mr. Delgado. I believe it is confirmed. They show up with
Mexican military or Mexican, whatever they are, but they are
dressed in uniforms. We have had numerous incidences with them
along the border. One of our rangers, they came up to him on
our side, we just had a case about a month ago I believe it
was, where we had a stolen vehicle and it went across the
border. The Mexicans came across and were seen loading the dope
from one side to the other side. So it does happen.
Mr. Souder. Pardon again my ignorance, on the Mexican side
of the border, is there an organized Indian Nation and do they
have lands or is it not set up exactly the same way? I am sure
it is not exactly the same way, but how much of your parallel
would there be and how many people are there and how
intermingled?
Chairman Manuel. We have about 90 members on the other side
in Mexico, they are recognized as Mexican citizens.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Chairman, I have a few followup questions.
First of all, to your question about the Mexican military
incursions, Chief Delgado, Chairman Manuel, when I was in Organ
Pipe, we were presented this list of I believe five different
incidents of Mexican military incursions that are recited by
the tribe of incidents that were documented where Mexican
military personnel came across. Is that an accurate list of at
least some of those incidents?
Mr. Delgado. Yes, it is.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Chairman, perhaps we should put that in
the record. It lists the date and the particularities
surrounding the particular incursion.
I have just one other question, and Chief Delgado, you may
be able to answer it. In the Arizona press, particularly in
Phoenix, there has recently been very high profile coverage of
incidents where INS was not able to respond or Border Patrol
was not able to respond, following an apprehension; that is, a
couple of incidents where EPS had apprehended large numbers of
individuals, they had good evidence that they had crossed
illegally. I do not believe either of the incidents involved
drugs, but they were high profile incidents where INS was
called and maybe Border Patrol was called, I am not sure,
perhaps even some other Federal agencies were called, and in
those instances the Federal agencies simply said we are too
busy, we cannot respond, and the individuals were let go.
Have you had here on the Nation any incidents where you
have called for Federal assistance but the Federal authorities,
due to workload and other obligations elsewhere along the
border have simply been unable to respond to your request for
help?
Mr. Delgado. Yes, it has happened in the past.
Mr. Shadegg. Is that a frequent and ongoing problem? And
Mr. Chairman, I know you seemed to want to respond to that as
well, I will be happy to afford both of you an opportunity to
respond.
Chairman Manuel. Usually what their policy is, if it is a
small amount of narcotics, they do not want to wait their time
on it.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Souder. Let me make sure I get a couple of other
questions in the record. Is the Nation participating in the
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area as part of the border
HIDTA?
Mr. Delgado. Yes.
Mr. Souder. You are. It is our understanding that stringent
environmental regulations have hampered your ability to patrol
certain areas along the border. Is that true, and do you think
those questions could be resolved if we had a certain zone of
possibly 2 miles in from the border that was a zone for
security purposes?
Chairman Manuel. I guess one of the reasons why we wanted
the Border Patrol and Customs presence along the international
boundary is because right now there is no presence because
there is no road to travel back and forth along the
international. Presently a lot of immigrants will come in
through when a lot of the trust members are coming through, but
we are also aware that some of them may still get through and
we are aware that there will probably still be a need for
Border Patrol in different areas of the Nation's land and I
think that can be accommodated, it is not a problem. The
problem right now is no protection of the international
boundary.
Mr. Souder. On the question of environmental regulations,
is part of the problem along the border, environmental
regulations?
Chairman Manuel. It is a problem because there is a concern
on the environmental part because the people that come through,
we do not know what they carry in backpacks or on their shoes
and that is a major concern because of the damage that can
create on our wildlife, on our plants, on the animals,
domesticated animals, especially our cattle. And that is a
major concern for our ranchers.
Mr. Souder. Let me pursue one other question, and I know
this is a controversial question and we are going to hear from
the third panel as well. One of the problems--and this is the
huge dilemma because when illegal immigrants come through, it
is partly because there is employment all over the United
States that pays so much better, including in my home State,
and we have to address the immigration question. Another is the
narcotics that come through with a certain percentage of those
illegal immigrants, who my guess is that in the last 2 weeks,
we have had more people killed in Fort Wayne, IN with illegal
narcotics that have come through the Arizona border than you
have had people killed on the border. In other words, it is not
a harmless matter that we have 30,000 deaths in the United
States because of narcotics, 67 percent of which is coming
across the U.S. and Mexican border. So it is a murder rate,
related to murder rates all over the United States. We clearly
have a compelling reason. We also have a huge problem with the
people who themselves are often being victimized. They either
are becoming dehydrated and dying or they are mugged along the
borders or there is a safety question there. We have heard
stories there about how Phoenix is just over the mountain, all
sorts of things.
Two part question. One is some of the rescue groups have
put water in to try to solve the third part of the problem, but
the question is does that aggravate the problem, the second
part of the problem, which is more illegals come in, more
narcotics come in and therefore more people die. What is your
opinion on that, particularly if it does not go through your
Nation as a process. And second, are you doing or has the U.S.
Government done anything in your area like is starting to be
done in the park area that gives you explicit warnings--no
water, rattlesnakes, you know, you are not close to Phoenix?
Chairman Manuel. Again, we believe the solution is to
intensify the surveillance along the border, that would
decrease a lot of these people coming through and getting in
the desert. So if we can get a lot more people along the
international boundary, or some people at least along the
international boundary, that would decrease a lot of the
activity on the mainland of the Nation. But I think the overall
issue is the border policy, that needs to be changed, because
you are going to have these problems all over unless the policy
is changed in some way to address this problem.
Mr. Souder. Is there a formal way people can come if they
want to try to help address it through the Nation, to talk to
you directly rather than coming and doing it independently?
Chairman Manuel. I guess one of the problems that we are
experiencing is the amount of activity that is created within
ranches and if the people are not home, the people that come
through help themselves to the food, even to the telephone. It
is my understanding that one individual had a phone bill that
came in for $500 for calls that were made to other parts of the
country. That means these people came into their house at that
particular time and made phone calls throughout the country.
So these are some of the things that we are hearing on a
daily basis. And that is one of the reasons why our members do
not agree as far as enticing, in some way enticing people to
come this way because we will help them. Our members always
help people who are in distress and they care for people. If
they need help, they will help them, but the problem is when
you have so many people coming through and some people are not
home and they help themselves to whatever they need and that is
a major problem.
So those are some of the concerns that they raise to me.
Not only that, but also the drug problem that our kids are
experiencing in the community because of drugs being available.
So those are some of the concerns that we have.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Chairman, I have a brief followup on that
last question. We are going to get good testimony on the third
panel, but Mr. Chairman, when I was at Organ Pipe with you, you
explained to me much of what you said today; that is, that from
a humane standpoint if you become aware of people crossing, you
want to assist them, you do not want people dying on the
reservation, dying of thirst or dying for lack of resources. At
the same time, I was told by you and by officials of the Tribal
Police Department that inducing people to cross the reservation
and encouraging them to do that does not--is not consistent
with tribal policies, that in fact the more people who cross,
the more environmental damage there is, the more property crime
there is and therefore the tribe has actively sought to work
with groups who are concerned on the humanitarian side, not to
encourage crossing of the reservation lands for those reasons;
is that correct?
Chairman Manuel. That is correct.
Mr. Shadegg. And that is because you have seen property
crime, drug issues and other environmental damage as a result
of the volume of people who are induced to cross the border.
Chairman Manuel. Yes.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much for your testimony, this
helps bring attention that when we address and respond to an
urgent problem that is created at Organ Pipe, we have to make
sure that we do not complicate your life and that the U.S.
Government and people have a long time of being less than
conscientious in respecting the rights of Indian people and
Native American people and in this case, we have an obligation
to do so and we will do what we can to help. Everybody wants
more money than they get, but we will certainly do what we can.
If we can target in some of the equipment programs, high
intensity areas that are under particular stress, we will do so
and we appreciate your willingness to sacrifice and help
protect the rest of America with your tribal funds. I thank you
on behalf of the people of Indiana for doing what you do.
With that, we will move to the second panel, thank you very
much.
Chairman Manuel. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Souder. If the second panel could come forward, Mr.
David Aguilar, Mr. Dom Ciccone, Mr. William Wellman, Mr. Hugh
Winderweedle, Mr. James Woolley. And if the Chief of Aviation
Operations for Customs, Mr. Dennis Lindsay, could come up as
well, I need to swear you in at the same time because I am
going to have some questions although you do not have
testimony.
If you will remain standing, if you could each raise your
right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that each of the witnesses
have answered in the affirmative.
OK, Mr. Aguilar, good to see you again. Go forward with
your testimony.
STATEMENTS OF DAVID AGUILAR, CHIEF PATROL AGENT, TUCSON SECTOR,
U.S. BORDER PATROL; DOM CICCONE, REGIONAL CHIEF, NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM, REGION 2, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE; WILLIAM WELLMAN, PARK SUPERVISOR, ORGAN PIPE CACTUS
NATIONAL MONUMENT, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; HUGH WINDERWEEDLE,
PORT DIRECTOR, LUKEVILLE PORT OF ENTRY, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE;
AND JAMES WOOLLEY, ASSISTANT SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, TUCSON
DIVISION OFFICE, DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman,
committee members, welcome back to Arizona.
Mr. Chairman, and distinguished committee members, I am
pleased to appear before you today to talk about the Tucson
Border Patrol sector's initiatives to secure the border here in
Arizona. My name again is David Aguilar and I am the Chief
Patrol Agent for the Tucson sector of the recently established
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection [BCBP], at the
Department of Homeland Security.
First I would like to thank you and your colleagues for
providing BCBP and the Border Patrol with the support, funding
and resources required to bring better control and increased
security to our Nation's borders. The challenges we face are
significant, but we are confident that the creation of the
Department of Homeland Security and including the Border Patrol
in the new agency will help us to use those resources more
effectively to secure our borders and protect the homeland.
In 1994, the U.S. Border Patrol developed a strategy to
deter illegal immigration, the principal goal of which is to
bring the border areas with the highest level of illegal
activity under manageable control incrementally and
effectively.
Forward deployment of resources is the key to our success
in implementing this strategy, which we have now named
Operation Safeguard in the Tucson sector.
The Tucson sector covers 261 miles of Arizona's border with
Mexico. We have eight Border Patrol stations in four counties
in southern Arizona and 1,701 Border Patrol Agents who cover
the main Arizona corridors--Nogales, Douglas/Naco and the West
Desert corridor.
Smuggling organizations exploit border communities in the
Tucson sector as primary staging areas and transportation hubs
to move their illicit cargo, including illegal drugs and
unlawful migrants. To counter their activities we employ an
operational philosophy that can best be described with three
terms--gain, maintain and expand.
In the gain stage, we deploy resources to areas of highest
activity to establish a foundation of operations and gain
control. We then maintain the integrity of the controlled area
by leaving sufficient resources in place as we then expand our
focus outward from populated areas and highways leading away
from the border.
This approach flushes criminal elements out of their
comfort zones and away from areas most easily and profitably
exploited.
The Tucson sector's operational response to illegal entries
in more remote areas combines uniformed line presence, mobile
interdiction, Special Response Team operations, Border Patrol
Search, Trauma and Rescue Teams and Anti-Smuggling and Disrupt
Unit operations. These agents and units respond to intelligence
and reports from other law enforcement agencies and citizens in
those areas.
The key asset in the Border Patrol's Operation Safeguard is
the Border Patrol agents themselves. I am extremely proud of
these men and women for their diligent efforts, commitment and
professionalism in implementing the safeguard strategy. Their
efforts continue to make a positive difference in the Arizona
communities we serve.
Our agents' efficiencies and effectiveness are directly
proportional to supporting enforcement infrastructure. The
Tucson sector applies a mix of resources to support Operation
Safeguard including surveillance technology, all terrain
vehicles, horse patrols, vehicle barriers and other equipment.
In addition, we have developed and applied deterrence
technology in support of primary line teams and maintain
deterrence in more active areas with fewer personnel.
Operation Safeguard was initially implemented in Nogales,
AZ in December 1998 and the results have been dramatic. By
February 28, 2003, reported attempted illegal entries were down
in the area by 72 percent and local arrests have decreased by
70 percent.
We have also achieved substantial enforcement gains along
the border in Cochise County in the Douglas/Naco corridor.
Incremental operational expansion since late 1999 has brought
manageable control to a large part of this corridor's border
area. This was achieved with an aggressive and sustained
forward deployment of personnel and the strategic use of force-
multiplying deterrence equipment and technology.
Recorded attempted entries in the Douglas/Naco corridor
through the first 5 months of fiscal year 2003 were 103,000
down 74 percent from the 397,576 recorded during the same
timeframe in fiscal year 2000, which was the peak year for the
corridor. Arrests in that corridor are currently at an 8-year
low.
The West Desert corridor is Tucson sector's largest
corridor and remains our greatest challenge. It includes 120
linear miles of border with Mexico, and compares in size in its
entirety to Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Jersey combined.
The sheer magnitude of the corridor's terrain, insufficient
road access and lack of deterrence technology and
infrastructure, lead to illegal incursions that degrade
environmentally and culturally sensitive lands. Increases we
have seen in drug and immigrant smuggling in this corridor
highlight our successes in the Douglas/Naco and Nogales
corridors, but also indicate that great challenges lie ahead in
the West Desert corridor in the future.
The best way to meet these challenges and establish
deterrence in the West Desert corridor will be to create a
certainty of detection and interdiction. To do this, we have
adjusted our operations and redeployed assets and are working
more closely with Mexican and Tohono O'odham Nation
counterparts and are enhancing our air surveillance operations.
Taken in combination, these steps should help us to gain
the foothold we need to establish better control over the West
Desert corridor.
We can safely say that the U.S. Border Patrol has achieved
a number of successes in the Tucson sector, but that much work
remains to be done. I am confident that with the necessary
resources and the continued support of the Congress, our State,
local and Federal partners, we will continue to expand
manageable control of the border and enhance homeland security
in Arizona.
Overall, Operation Safeguard has netted significant
operational gains in the Tucson sector. We have achieved a
reduction in arrests of 52 percent since 2000 and with the
exception of a drop in activity immediately following the
events of September 11, 2001, arrests in the entire Tucson
sector are at an 8-year low.
I thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony
and I look forward to answering any questions that you might
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aguilar follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.017
Mr. Souder. I thank you. And let me just say here because
it is not going to come up during the questions, that in our
organization meeting in Civil Service, it is one of our
priorities this year to do the law enforcement part to the
Border Patrol, which has been neglected for so long, but we are
committed to trying to get that done legislatively as soon as
possible and also I believe and we hope, working with Secretary
Ridge, that we can deal with some of the pay inequities. We had
been dealing with it appropriations last year and it was
blocked in the authorizing, but I think now we might have more
luck appropriating it and authorizing it. Obviously the budget
is tight, but we have had severe problems with the additional
recruitment in the Border Patrol when so many agents are
applying to much better paying jobs at TSA and other places,
and it is unrealistic for the American people to think and
demand out of Congress that we are going to be able to maintain
our borders when it is difficult to maintain the men and women
of the Border Patrol because they are treated inequitably in
the pay system. And we are trying to address that question.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, sir. On behalf of the men and women
of the Border Patrol, thank you.
Mr. Souder. I am not sure who is next--Mr. Dom Ciccone. Did
I say your last name correctly?
Mr. Ciccone. Ciccone [pronouncing].
Mr. Souder. Ciccone, OK, I'll make sure I get it. Thank
you.
Mr. Ciccone. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss our agency's current efforts to protect the visiting
public, natural resources and staff on national wildlife
refuges located along the Arizona/Mexico border. I am Dom
Ciccone, Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System for
the Southwest Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
With me today are the three refuge Managers of the refuges
along the Arizona border. Mr. Roger DiRosa supervises the
Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Mr. Wayne Shifflett is
the manager of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and
Mr. Bill Radke manages both the San Bernadino and Leslie Canyon
National Wildlife Refuges.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is experiencing significant
and lasting environmental damage caused by smuggling and
illegal immigration across refuge lands throughout the
southwest. Illegal activities pose a serious threat to the
safety of refuge employees, volunteers, the public and our law
enforcement officers. As enforcement efforts are increased
around populated areas and ports of entry, there has been a
dramatic shift in smuggling and undocumented alien crossings
onto remote lands. Correspondingly, the amount of illegal drugs
smuggled across refuges and other Department of Interior lands
has skyrocketed in recent years, as has illegal immigration.
The Service has 21 refuge officers along the southwest
border to cover over 1 million acres and 153 miles of border
from California to Texas. Clearly, we have limited staff
resources to conduct a very difficult and dangerous job. Refuge
officers are routinely involved with drug and undocumented
alien interdiction through their normal patrol activities. Only
through effective coordination with other agencies are we able
to meet officer safety requirements. Unfortunately, resource
damage continues to be a huge problem and the ability to
achieve our agency conservation mission is severely
compromised. We are also being forced to restrict public use
programs along the border due to safety concerns and access
issues.
The Service has identified a need for an additional 33
refuge officers on the border.
Ongoing drug seizures and undocumented alien apprehensions
on refuges in the southwest underscore the need to increase our
level of preparedness along the U.S./Mexico border. At the end
of 2002, over 100,000 pounds of marijuana, 508 pounds of
cocaine and 22 pounds of methamphetamine were seized as they
passed through border refuges. In addition, 100 vehicles were
recovered, which was an increase of over 300 percent from 2001.
The number of undocumented aliens apprehended increased 400
percent from 2001, totaling 86,000 in refuges in Arizona and
Texas alone. In fact, Mr. Chairman, only a week ago, refuge
officers assisted U.S. Customs and Bureau of Land Management
officers in the seizure of drugs and transport vehicles that
had traveled across the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge
and into the Air Force's Barry Goldwater Range. A total of
6,340 pounds of marijuana and three vehicles were seized. The
drivers and occupants fled and were not apprehended; however,
left in the vehicles were pouches for night vision goggles and
radios for monitoring law enforcement transmissions.
Impacts on natural resources are also troubling. Hundreds
of new trails and roads have been created in crossings on
refuge lands. This proliferation of trails and roads damages
and destroys cactus and other sensitive vegetation, disturbs
wildlife and causes soil compaction and erosion. At Cabeza
Prieta Refuge, sensors placed by the U.S. Border Patrol on
known routes recorded 4,000 to 6,000 undocumented alien
crossings per month during the busy migrating months of April,
May and June. Between 20 and 30 abandoned vehicles litter the
refuge at any given time. During 2001, the Border Patrol
apprehended more than 400 undocumented aliens each month on the
Buenos Aires Refuge. This trend accelerated in 2002 as other
traditional crossings became less attractive due to increased
security. At Buenos Aires, there have been 25 burglaries of
staff residences over the past few years.
In a 5-year period on San Bernadino and Leslie Canyon
National Wildlife Refuges, there have been 37 human-caused
wildfires attributed to undocumented alien crossings.
In summary, even though we have increased the deployment of
our available law enforcement resources along the southwest
border, we are struggling to meet our obligations regarding
public safety and resource protection. Like many other
agencies, the Service will have to use available resources more
efficiently to improve our law enforcement program. Reviewing
and managing our priorities, identifying problems and seeking
out creative solutions that involve neighbors and partners will
go a long way to protecting our refuges.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, I would be happy
to answer any questions that you and other members of the
subcommittee have on the issue. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much for coming over today, and
also bringing the different refuge managers. We know it is a
tremendous threat to the resources and I look forward to asking
some additional questions.
Mr. William Wellman. Bill, thank you for hosting us and
touring much of the park yesterday, it was very informative and
we learned a lot about the park as well as about your
particular challenges along the border.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ciccone follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.024
Mr. Wellman. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity
to present the efforts being made by the National Park Service
to protect visitors and resources in national parks and to
mitigate the impact of illegal drug trafficking in border
parks.
Protecting national parks along the Mexican border is no
longer about simply protecting landscapes, plants and animals.
Today, national park rangers are helping fight for America's
security in a battle posed by illegal drug smuggling and
illegal immigration. At stake is the safety of our citizens,
our agency's own employees as well as the health of some of our
Nation's unique national treasures.
Recently, there has been a lot of emphasis on what is
happening in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, largely
because of the death of Ranger Kris Eggle. This problem is not
unique to Organ Pipe, it affects all of the National Park
Service areas along the Mexican border. We have seven areas
from west to east--Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument,
Coronado National Memorial, Shamizar National Memorial, Big
Bend National Park, Amistad National Recreation Area, Palo Alto
Battlefield National Historic Site and Padre Island National
Seashore. Altogether this comprises 365 miles of international
border and 72 miles of seashore.
To give you some idea of what has happened over the last
few years, in 1997 at Organ Pipe, the park rangers interdicted
less than 1,000 pounds of marijuana. Last year, with basically
the same staffing, park rangers interdicted over 14,000 pounds
of marijuana. At Amistad National Recreation Area, in 2000,
1,300 pounds of marijuana was interdicted. By 2002, that number
was up to 5,000 pounds. This year in January in Big Bend
National Park, 6,000 pounds of marijuana was interdicted, which
is more than the total for the previous year.
Because of what is happening in the parks in damage to our
resources and threats to our visitors, the Park Service has
made a commitment to strengthen our protection programs in the
border parks. This fiscal year, using money appropriated by
Congress, we are going to add nine rangers to the staff at
Organ Pipe, which more than doubles our protection staff.
Seven million was also appropriated for a vehicle barrier
along the entire 30 miles of boundary in Organ Pipe and 1 mile
at Coronado National Memorial. We feel the place to start is by
stopping the vehicles. In Organ Pipe, there are over 150 miles
of illegal roads that have been created. The most dangerous and
most damaging traffic that crosses the border comes by vehicle.
In addition to that, we are increasing our ability with remote
sensors.
At Amistad, although money was not appropriated this fiscal
year, our regional office is providing funding for four
additional rangers to deal with the increasing situation there
as well as funding for additional seasonal rangers at Big Bend
National Park.
One of the problems that we have not discussed yet along
the border is the lack of communications. We are in very remote
areas and communication is often a problem, not only between
agencies, but with our own officers. This year, the National
Park Service received appropriation to greatly improve our
communications in southern Arizona with additional repeaters
and radio equipment. That appropriation will also allow us, by
the end of this year, to have 24-hour dispatch service
available.
Dealing with illegal immigration and border problems is not
the primary mission of the National Park Service. The primary
mission of the National Park Service is to protect park
resources and provide safe enjoyable visits for the citizens
that come to our parks. But with the level of illegal activity
coming across the border in border parks, we cannot achieve our
primary mission without being engaged in border protection
activities.
We know we cannot do this alone, we look forward to working
with the new Department of Homeland Security. In the past, we
have worked closely with the Border Patrol, Customs,
Immigration, State and county law enforcement agencies. To
correct problems along the border will take the efforts of all
of law enforcement agencies along the border. We intend to do
our share.
The National Park Service has a statutory and moral
obligation to protect our resources in the parks. Visitors and
employees in the parks should be able to expect that if they
need help, help will be available. We are trying to work toward
those ends.
I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wellman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.032
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much. As I said at the
beginning, the full statements will be in the record. I would
also like to make sure that I put in the record at this point,
after I hear testimony, a map that you gave me that shows the
informal crossings and the patterns of how they go around the
stations as well as a chart that documents some of the changes
that you said. So I would like to have that after the National
Park testimony.
We also have a similar map for the Wildlife Refuge to the
west that we would like to have reduced down and put into the
record as well, showing that the concept of traditional border
crossings is nigh on to irrelevant when you are trying to deal
with it. I mean you have to have a basic point for those who
are following the law, but there are whole networks of passages
through the resources. It is very difficult to protect
resources when people are tromping through them illegally and
thousands of numbers.
Next, Mr. Hugh Winderweedle, is that----
Mr. Winderweedle. Winderweedle [pronouncing], that is
correct.
Mr. Souder [continuing]. The Port Director for the
Lukeville Port of Entry for the U.S. Customs Service. Thank you
for joining us and we look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Winderweedle. Thank you, Chairman Souder, for the
opportunity to address this committee and for the opportunity
to appear before you today.
My name is Hugh Winderweedle and I am currently assigned to
the Port of Entry at Lukeville, AZ as the Port Director for the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. I am accompanied today
by Mr. Steve Minas, who is the Special Agent in Charge for the
State of Arizona and Mr. Dennis Lindsay, who is the Special
Agent in Charge for Air Operations for U.S. Customs and Border
Protection for the State of Arizona.
I would like to discuss the efforts of the Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection to address the impact of the drug
trade on border security at the Port of Entry at Lukeville, AZ
and the challenges that exist along the U.S./Mexican border in
the Lukeville area.
The Port of Lukeville is located on the U.S./Mexican border
between Lukeville, AZ and Sonoyta, Sonora. The Organ Pipe
National Park lies adjacent to the port of entry on the west,
north and northeast, separated only by an 80-acre tract of
privately owned land with limited commercial development.
Sells, AZ and the Tohono O'odham reservation are located 60
miles to the east. The Port of Lukeville is remote, and aside
from a small commercial development at the border and Organ
Pipe National Park, the area is mostly undeveloped and
inaccessible within a 50-mile radius in all directions. The
remoteness of the area and proximity to a State highway lead to
the area's appeal to drug traffickers and undocumented
entrants.
The Port of Entry at Lukeville services travelers from 6
a.m. to midnight via three traffic lanes. The port is situated
on State Route 85 and is the gateway to the Mexican resort area
of Puerto Penasco, also known as Rocky Point. The port services
442,00 vehicles arriving from Mexico each year, with a total of
1.5 million passengers or pedestrians arriving via the port of
entry. Although the great majority of arriving persons are
vacationers and compliant travelers, a startling number of
extraordinary incidents occur at or near the Port of Entry at
Lukeville. We in the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
and our colleagues in the Department of Interior and the Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, are working together
with our Mexican counterparts not only to secure our Nation's
borders, stop or prevent illegal activity, but also to serve
and help the citizens and travelers of Mexico and the United
States.
The Port of Lukeville intercepts large amounts of narcotics
and a number of fugitives each year. For example, during
calendar year 2002, the port intercepted over 5,000 pounds of
marijuana. The interception of drugs and fugitives can often
erupt into violence when desperate individuals resort to
violent measures in an attempt to circumvent or evade
authorities. In August 2002, a National Park Service ranger was
shot by a Mexican national who had entered the Organ Pipe
National Monument. On December 30, 2002, Mexican police were
involved in a shootout with drug smugglers 50 yards south and 1
mile west of the port of the port of entry. On February 13,
2003, an inspector fatally shot a driver of a vehicle arriving
from Mexico at the Lukeville Port of Entry. The subject fought
with the officer, grabbing and dragging him with the vehicle in
an attempt to run the officer over. As you can see, this
violence sometimes ends in tragedy.
However, close working relationships and coordination among
Federal, State, local and Mexican authorities have prevented
many potentially violent incidents from escalating. The
training and dedication to duty has allowed our officers to
respond appropriately during crisis and contain situations that
otherwise may have resulted in greater injury or loss. Our
hearts weigh heavy for those officers lost in the line of duty,
but we stand fast and ready to continue protecting the American
people by securing our borders. The Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection has addressed the situation at Lukeville on
many fronts. We maintain a vigorous training program to prepare
our officers for the increasing challenge of anti-terrorism,
the drug trade and border security. Technology also plays a key
role in our efforts to secure the border. We currently use
imaging systems, video surveillance, radio communications.
Additionally, our officers are now wearing radiation detection
devices to intercept sources of radiation that may be
associated with weapons of mass destruction.
The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and many law
enforcement agencies at Lukeville and the surrounding southern
border, have orchestrated many special operations through the
coordination of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
Center. These intense operations are crafted to consolidate law
enforcement resources to gather intelligence, disrupt smuggling
organizations and displace the activities of drug trafficking
operations. HIDTA operations conducted with Federal, State and
local agencies have successfully intercepted and disrupted
smuggling activities.
One striking aspect of these operations has been the
displacement of smuggling activity. Increased law enforcement
efforts and presence in one area, such as the Port of Entry at
Lukeville, can redirect smuggling activities and cause an
increase at another location, such as Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument. Increased drug smuggling and violence can
present very challenging circumstances for all the officers in
these locations.
One component of the new Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, the former U.S. Customs Office of Investigations,
currently has offices located in Sells, Three-Points and Ajo,
AZ. Additional resources from the five other offices in Arizona
are deployed in this area when operational needs dictate. This
integrated interdiction/investigative team has experienced
tremendous success in the area surrounding the Lukeville Port
of Entry, to include the Tohono O'odham Nation. During calendar
year 2002, this team was responsible for interdicting 103,000
pounds of marijuana entering the United States from Mexico. The
success is enhanced by our close working relationships with the
Department of Interior law enforcement agencies, the U.S.
Border Patrol, and our State, tribal and local law enforcement
partners.
The increasing level of violence in the border region is of
concern to us all. Officers involved in shootings and high-
speed pursuits, which often involve law enforcement vehicles
being purposely rammed by violators in their efforts to escape,
are all too common. Because the surrounding area is remote,
emergency services are not readily available. Frequently
persons requiring emergency medical services are transported
hundreds of miles from Puerto Penasco, Mexico to Phoenix
through the Port of Entry at Lukeville. Helicopter Medivacs are
not uncommon as the only means of reaching adequate medical
care in time.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I want to thank you
for the opportunity to testify about the unique challenges of
protecting this remote, yet important part of our Nation's
border. I can assure you that staff, management and every
employee of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection is
fully dedicated and fully qualified to continue to protect our
Nation's borders and the 280 million residents of the United
States.
I will be happy to answer any questions that you might
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Winderweedle follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.037
Mr. Souder. Thank you for your testimony. As you may know,
John Stanton from Customs is currently serving as a fellow with
our subcommittee and occasionally he acknowledges other
agencies involved in these efforts. It is great to have a
Customs expert on our staff helping us with these issues.
Our last witness on this panel is Mr. James Woolley,
Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the Tucson Division
Office, DEA.
Mr. Woolley. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Souder,
Congressman Shadegg. I am pleased to have this opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the role of the Drug
Enforcement Administration [DEA] regarding the impact of the
drug trade along the Arizona/Mexico border. My name is James
Woolley, I am the Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the
Tucson office of the DEA.
At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not
preface my remarks by thanking both you and the subcommittee
for your unwavering support of the men and women of the DEA and
our mission.
As a single mission component of the Department of Justice,
the DEA is the world's premier drug law enforcement
organization.
It is important to remember that we are an investigative
law enforcement organization whose primary duty is to disrupt
and dismantle the world's most sophisticated drug distribution
networks. For us, the interdiction of drugs is often the
beginning of an investigation, rather than the end.
Arizona has the unique role as both an importation and a
transportation area out the southwest border and a metropolitan
distribution center. Because of the substantial cooperation
needed between the Federal, State and local law enforcement
efforts, the collaboration of task forces help to define the
responsibilities and improve the focus of the investigative
efforts.
Mr. Chairman, the DEA has found that cartel leaders are
combining their loads and working together to smuggle their
narcotics. We see this in Arizona and we know about it in Texas
and southern California as well. The Sonoran/Arizona border has
no one cartel controlling the smuggling activity. However,
numerous Mexican drug trafficking organizations, not looking to
compete for specific cartel territories, consider Sonora as a
prime smuggling route.
The unique character of the Sonoran/Arizona border creates
an important tier of ``Gatekeeper'' organizations, with
corridors through Yuma, Lukeville, Nogales, Naco and Douglas.
These ``Gatekeepers'' are smuggling organizations that
specialize in exploiting their areas for the sole purpose of
getting drugs across the border and into the Tucson and Phoenix
areas. The ``Gatekeepers'' can be characterized as well
organized groups extended across the border communities that
use their local ties to create a transportation infrastructure.
They also maintain an intelligence apparatus along the border
that targets the ports of entry as well as the areas in
between.
Once the drugs are smuggled across the border, they are
taken to ``stash houses'' for distribution throughout the
metropolitan Tucson or Phoenix areas.
As I previously mentioned, DEA is primarily an
investigative agency, not an interdiction agency. Our
investigations allow us to share information with other law
enforcement agencies, which is a vital responsibility of the
DEA. It is the only way that we can effectively combat illegal
narcotics. Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight the
collaboration of numerous partners at the Federal, State and
local levels.
One of DEA's main functions is to coordinate drug
investigations that take place along America's 2,000-mile
border with the Republic of Mexico. This effort, known as the
Southwest Border Initiative, involves thousands of Federal,
State and local law enforcement officers. Our strategy is
simple: attack major Mexican-based trafficking organizations on
both sides of the border by simultaneously employing
intelligence which is enhanced by enforcement initiatives and
cooperative efforts with the Government of Mexico.
The El Paso Intelligence Center [EPIC], serves as the
principal national tactical intelligence center for drug law
enforcement. It has a research and analysis section as well as
a tactical operations section to support foreign and domestic
intelligence and operational needs in the field.
EPIC manages a highly effective Watch Program, to provide
timely tactical intelligence to the field. This coordination
brings together in one place the data bases of every one of the
participating agencies. EPIC also has its own internal data
bases which, combined with other agency information, provides
the single most responsive, direct conduit available for the
tactical intelligence center supporting every law enforcement
agency in the Nation.
Another example of how DEA interrelates with the other
agencies along the border is our participation in the High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Area [HIDTA] program, whose goal is
to reduce drug trafficking activities in the most critical
areas of the country. The HIDTA program develops partnerships
among Federal, State and local drug control agencies in
designated regions by creating enforcement task forces and
investigative support centers where they can synchronize their
efforts. Arizona belongs to the Southwest Border HIDTA, along
with southern California, New Mexico, west Texas and south
Texas.
The DEA considers one of its greatest assets the State and
local task forces with whom we work. Participating State and
local agencies have a tremendous amount of input and are
actually force multipliers, adding additional resources to DEA
efforts. We participate in more than 210 task forces and have
over 1,900 task force officers on board nationwide. These
officers are able to access DEA's Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs
Information System for data base checks. Those assigned to the
task forces are deputized as Federal law enforcement officers,
enabling them to follow leads and conduct investigations
nationwide.
Drug trafficking organizations operating along the Arizona/
Mexico border continue to be one of the greatest threats to
communities across the Nation. The power and influence of these
organizations is pervasive and continues to expand to new
markets across the United States.
In conclusion the DEA is deeply committed to intensifying
our efforts to arrest the leadership and dismantle these
organizations that are trafficking.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today and I would be happy to answer any questions
that you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Woolley follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.041
Mr. Souder. First, let me thank all of you for your long
time efforts and make sure you extend that on behalf of the
Congress to your employees.
Second, we are certainly going to go through multiple
rounds of questions here because this is a tremendous
opportunity for us. First off, we are not getting buzzed every
5 minutes to go vote and we can actually focus on the issues
and having all of you in one place is a tremendous opportunity.
I am going to go through some of the different--each one of
you--I am going to ask Mr. Lindsay some questions on the air
after we kind of establish a little bit of a baseline.
So let me first start with the Border Patrol, Mr. Aguilar.
One thing for my own clarification, the Yuma sector starts
where, is it west of the wildlife area where the range is--I do
not know where that is.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir, it actually starts at the Yuma
County line, which it takes in a part of the Barry Goldwater
also.
Mr. Souder. Takes in part of what?
Mr. Aguilar. The Barry Goldwater firing range.
Mr. Souder. OK, so your sector goes to the edge of the
wildlife area?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes.
Mr. Souder. Do you have any presence in the wildlife area
at this point?
Mr. Aguilar. In the Cabeza Prieta and the Organ Pipe; yes,
sir, we patrol those areas on a daily basis.
Mr. Souder. Can you give your reaction to the concept of
fencing in the Tohono O'odham and also a road along the border?
Mr. Aguilar. First of all, Mr. Chairman, the accessibility
and mobility along the immediate border is absolutely essential
to our effective and efficient patrolling of the border out
there. The fencing that we speak about today, I believe relates
to border barrier that is being looked at by the Organ Pipe out
there. And that of course, will stop the vehicular traffic, but
it will not stop the pedestrian traffic. So I just wanted to
make sure that I clarified that point.
Upon setting up that border barrier, we also, from an
enforcement perspective, need to have a capability to access it
and be mobile in and around the area, in order to attempt to
address any kind of breaching that may still be attempted out
there.
From an enforcement perspective, it would be of tremendous
assistance wherever that is placed, as long as we have the
capabilities to be able to be responsive to any continuing
attempts to breach it, as I said.
The criminal element will in fact look to evade that border
barrier. So it is important that we as an enforcement family
take that into consideration and make the proper plans to
address any resultant impacts of an immediate placement of
either border barriers or fencing along our Nation's border.
Mr. Souder. If we put a fence in this area, we are going to
put more pressure on this part of the aisle.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Souder. And we have to be thinking a step ahead.
So you feel that--if I can make sure that I get it in the
record and understand myself--when you get over 50, it gets a
little harder sometimes--that if we did fencing beyond the
Organ Pipe in either direction, there would need to be an
access road along that as well or the fence would be irrelevant
because somebody could cut it and you would not be able to get
to it.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, an access road in order to patrol that
area, to continue patrolling and continue that deterrence
presence of not only the Border Patrol agent or the Customs
officer that is going to be out there, but in addition to that,
when our airplanes are flying over it and they spot something,
they can vector our people into any kind of breaching that is
occurring out there. In addition to that, of course, there is
what we refer to as an enforcement model along our immediate
border that takes in either border barrier, fencing, sensors,
remote video systems--a combination of that type of
infrastructure that will overall create that certainty of
deterrence in order to maintain that deterrence posture along
our Nation's border.
Mr. Souder. As a practical matter, what does it mean if we
restrict vehicular traffic but not pedestrian traffic? Does
that mean that they cannot penetrate as far in, so they have
farther to walk, so is it a deterrent in that sense; not as
many people can be transported?
Mr. Aguilar. It depends on the area. In the area that we
are referring to today, I think it would be a two-pronged
result. One is that the vehicular traffic would not be able to
drive in, but at the same time, pedestrian traffic would
probably continue. And in those areas, as you have seen over
the weekend and I believe you have gone over this area in the
past, there are really remote areas, tremendously hot during
the summer, so it would cause some other problems out there in
the area of continued efforts to get through those areas.
What the smugglers of narcotics, smugglers of people, are
looking for are a means of egress away from the border. What
they are shooting for is in fact those highways leading away,
leading to highway 10, leading to highway 8 into Phoenix or the
staging areas that I think all of us have basically spoke about
this morning.
Mr. Souder. Would you agree that most of the narcotics and
people move at night?
Mr. Aguilar. I do not have a percentage on that, sir. A
large percentage of it would, but in this area out here, we
have seen a lot of trafficking during the day also.
Mr. Souder. Let me then--this is an important assumption,
let me throw in a couple of things. Would you agree that most
that cross the border immediately are at night and then they
are still moving in the desert areas during the day, or are you
saying many even cross the border during the day?
Mr. Aguilar. They cross the border during the day also and
movement is continual.
Mr. Souder. Two-thirds at night, one-third in the day or
50?
Mr. Aguilar. The best way I can probably answer that, sir,
we split our resources for addressing the border, we have a 20/
40/40 split, if you will--80 percent of our assets are deployed
at night, the border patrollings, if you will, because that is
when we see an upswing on the activity.
Mr. Souder. Do you sense that varies some depending on
whether there is a fence--in other words, if we put a shield up
at Organ Pipe and you have a road and you have agents
patrolling, you are going to push it to where people can
disguise themselves more. In the area like Tohono O'odham where
it is unprotected, would it matter night or day other than the
temperature?
Mr. Aguilar. By placing up the fence barrier and the
supporting infrastructure, by maintaining that presence,
whether it be physical by way of high profile, high visibility
or electronic surveillance capabilities, I think the impact out
of this part of the country would be pretty much 24 hours a
day, because of the remoteness and because of the hardship that
it would be to get to the remainder of the United States. But
again, this is including an entire enforcement package as close
as possible to the border; yes, sir.
Mr. Souder. Now you have put together an impressive jerry-
rigged system that was more mobile with cameras and other types
of things over in the Douglas/Sierra Vista sector. Has that
been picked up in other places, do you see that being able to
give us more mobility to find people?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir, especially out of this part of the
Tucson sector. The technology that you are referring to is part
of that deterrence technology that I spoke about earlier. The
skywatch is where we basically go up into the air, give us a
hydraulic platform to have a lot more visibility and 24/7
visibility on the border, across the border, to see what's
coming our way and things of this nature. From a deterrence
posture, people have basically learned that when those
platforms are up in the air, that in itself is a deterrent.
We are progressing beyond that in that we are working with
the Nation for some of these border barriers that the chairman
spoke about earlier, and things of that nature.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. Mr. Shadegg.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Aguilar, let me begin with you because I am curious.
Your testimony before us today seems to suggest that the Tucson
sector is a huge success and maybe it did not go quite this
far, but it seems to report that you have had a great deal of
success there, reduced the number of arrests and made progress
there. And I have been aboard Operation Skywatch, I have been
aboard a helicopter over the Nogales area, I have been in
helicopters perhaps with you in the Sierra Vista area. It seems
to me that the corridor here on the west side is just wide
open. To me, it looks like we have got a dramatic amount of
resources from perhaps Nogales east and nowhere near that level
of resource from Nogales west. Is that accurate?
Mr. Aguilar. That is accurate, sir. The achievements that I
spoke to earlier during my testimony related to those areas in
the Nogales, Sonora area of operation and the Douglas/Naco
area. In this area, what we refer to as the West Desert area,
is an area of about 120 miles and that is just Tucson sector,
that is not----
Mr. Shadegg. Let me stop you because I want to understand
these terms. West sector area is from Nogales west, does it
start in Nogales?
Mr. Aguilar. The western corridor--the Border Patrol report
refers to the west as a corridor, basically starts at the
Sasabe area----
Mr. Shadegg. OK, Sasabe.
Mr. Aguilar [continuing]. Maybe a little bit east of there.
And continues on out to the Yuma County line.
Mr. Shadegg. All the way to the California line, or just
the Yuma County line?
Mr. Aguilar. Yuma County line. The Yuma sector of the
Border Patrol takes in the remaining desert area of the desert
out there.
Mr. Shadegg. So from the Yuma County line west, that is not
the area we are talking about, we are talking about from Sasabe
to the Yuma County line.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir, and within that area, of course is
the Tohono O'odham Nation with approximately 78 miles.
Mr. Shadegg. Start at the west side of that, with regard to
the Barry Goldwater range, are your operations restricted in
the area with regard to the Barry Goldwater range?
Mr. Aguilar. They are restricted in the sense that every
time we go in there, sir, we call the range and advise them
that we have a need to go in there. They work with us very
closely. We get approval from them to go in there and work the
situation that we need to work, whether it be an operation or
something that we have intelligence on.
Mr. Shadegg. Does that apply to both going in by ground
vehicle and by helicopter?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shadegg. You are allowed to go in by helicopter?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shadegg. But only after you have obtained permission.
Mr. Aguilar. After we notify them that we have need to go
in there and they will give us certain limitations. If their
aircraft are flying at a certain level, we have to stay below
or we have complete access if it's not an active range day.
Mr. Shadegg. At the pace we are continuing to improve your
resources, how long will it take with the same level of
intensity of enforcement to the area from Sasabe to the Yuma
line that we have from Sasabe east?
Mr. Aguilar. I would hesitate to give you an answer on a
time line for that, sir, because of course, that's dependent on
when we got the resources that we have gotten on some of the
other corridors. Out here in the West Desert corridor, one of
the things that is going to be critical is going to be
infrastructure such as border barriers, the fencing, the
technology that we referred to. And of course, all that depends
on the procurement and things of that nature.
Mr. Shadegg. Safe to say it does not look good right now
for obtaining the resources to do to the west what you are
doing to the east. We are way short of resources to do that,
are we not?
Mr. Aguilar. We are short of resources, sir, but as with
the other corridors, we continue to get built up in the area of
technology and infrastructure; yes, sir.
Mr. Shadegg. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, I was at the
Lukeville Port of Entry a few weeks ago and saw the fencing in
that area. I also noticed the roads in that area. On the
southern side of border, where we were, and we were east of
Lukeville, on the Mexican side of the border, there is a very
good road, well-maintained, you can drive it--it was a dirt
road, but you could drive it at 30 or 35, maybe even 40 miles
an hour, access it pretty easy. On the Arizona or U.S. side of
the border, where the fence was built, there is a pathetic road
that you could perhaps do 2 or 3 miles per hour on. And the
same is true of the road west of where we were, west of
Lukeville, and not far west of Lukeville, you have of course,
Mexican Highway 2 with very high speed traffic.
I am curious, my friends in Congress talk about fencing. I
think they are clueless about the degree of lack of fencing
that we have, and for example, the information we gathered down
there about fencing being stolen and moved south and how
actually the fencing that has moved south does more good than
the fencing that is right on the border, because the fencing
that is on the border gets cut so quickly. Would we be better
off, speaking of your point about infrastructure, to simply
build a high-quality gravel road all along the U.S. side of the
border in this west sector so that we could move agents up and
down that border and we could watch footprints and simply have
access where we do not have that access now.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir, that would certainly help quite a
bit, but I feel like I need to clarify also that immediate
accessibility to the immediate border is not only critical, it
is absolutely essential. In addition to that, there is
supporting infrastructure that is required with that border
road. For example, one of the challenges that you spoke to
indirectly there are the environmental concerns that we deal
with in a lot of this area out here. A smuggler will go through
the desert, will go through the Organ Pipe, will go through the
Barry Goldwater range. We are restricted in actually following
these people out there unless it is an emergency situation. In
a tragic situation like when Ranger Eggle got shot out there,
of course, we disregard all that. But at all other situations,
we have to follow the statutes and regulations and policy that
impact our ability to patrol the border out there.
So that immediate border road, absolutely. But that is the
reason I used the terminology a little bit ago about the need
for an enforcement model. We have a need also for what we refer
to as a sign cutting capability, which basically gives the
ability to track anything that may have breached that primary
road, in order to access anything that has breached that first
road or that first deterrent posture on the line. That can and
should be very compressed to the border, so that immediate
deterrence impact is as close as possible on the border as is
required in order to maintain the security of our borders.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Chairman, I would probably have a followup
question along the lines of what you asked to the chairman of
the Tribe, as to whether you believe you need exemption from
certain environmental requirements in a zone along the border.
I think I heard the answer to that question as yes. I think I
also heard that you may need clarified authority with regard to
environmental protection to track individuals who are further
in the United States than that; is that right?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shadegg. I yield, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. And the fencing that we are talking about for
Mr. Wellman is not like the fencing that is there currently. I
believe there is a terminology difference between a barrier and
a fence, is that correct?
Mr. Wellman. Yes, we are strictly looking at a vehicle
barrier and it will not be able to stop pedestrians.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Chairman, maybe I could ask a followup. I
would like each of the witnesses to testify on the question
that I asked and that is would a road--given limited resources,
would a high-speed access road that would let you access the
border be, in the short run, a more valuable tool than yet
another fence or vehicle barrier.
Mr. Aguilar. Is that for me, sir?
Mr. Shadegg. I think you answered it, you said the road
would be very helpful. I was interested in what the other
witnesses have to say.
Mr. Ciccone. From Fish and Wildlife Service perspective, I
see how the road would help. I would be concerned about
creating a road like that without some type of barrier or fence
with that road.
Mr. Wellman. Actually as part of the vehicle barrier, the
road that you saw will be improved somewhat. It will not be a
high-speed road, but it will be improved considerably over its
current condition.
Mr. Shadegg. I do not think you could build that fence that
I saw designed without building a better road.
Mr. Wellman. You are absolutely right.
Mr. Souder. Did you not say they are going to have to fly
in parts of it though?
Mr. Wellman. There are some parts on the steeper slopes
where we will not build a road and would like to fly the
barrier in and place it on the surface.
Mr. Souder. Because we are not talking about a flat area.
When we look at that whole border, some parts are amenable to
roads and some parts are not.
Mr. Wellman. And some parts are not. In the area that is
not, there will be a road that will go around so that you can
control the whole border in Organ Pipe.
Mr. Souder. Is that true in the Wildlife areas too?
Mr. Ciccone. There are definitely some very rugged areas,
yes.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Wellman.
Mr. Wellman. To finish answering your question, improving
the road will help, but given the limited numbers of people, I
would agree with the Chief, we need the barriers as well. A
barrier will work 24 hours a day and it is unlikely in the near
future we are going to be able to have that entire section of
border manned 24 hours a day.
Mr. Winderweedle. Congressman, as to the road, of course
the road and barrier has no direct impact or influence over the
port of entry. But I would offer the comment that you are
talking about two what should be concurrent infrastructure
developments and one is merely of no value without the other.
Mr. Woolley. From the DEA perspective, I would say that
anything that would facilitate a law enforcement presence in
the area certainly would help, but it would have to be combined
with the barrier and additional resources to do the patrolling.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. Mr. Ciccone, I wanted to try to
figure out a little bit more about your challenges.
Currently, is there any presence of Federal agencies along
the border other than the refuge--in your refuge?
Mr. Ciccone. Other Federal law enforcement officials?
Mr. Souder. Yes.
Mr. Ciccone. Well, yes, we do have cooperation with Border
Patrol, with Customs, with other State and local authorities
that help, that we work with, and who assist us on the refuge.
Mr. Souder. You do not have any official crossing in your
refuge?
Mr. Ciccone. Border crossings?
Mr. Souder. Yes.
Mr. Ciccone. No official ports of entry.
Mr. Souder. And there is no road along the border currently
that you are allowed to go on, as opposed to illegally go on?
Mr. Ciccone. There is no road right along the border that
is open to the public and the roads that are along the border
are very rough.
I should clarify, we do have on our Buenos Aires Refuge, we
are adjacent to the Sasabe Port of Entry, but nothing that is
right within the refuge.
Mr. Souder. And does the Border Patrol have a presence
along the not very passable road?
Mr. Ciccone. The Border Patrol does use those roads, as do
our refuge officers and I am sure other law enforcement
agencies.
Mr. Souder. And you testified that you had significant drug
seizures, you had lots of illegal--in fact, was it in your
testimony that you said it was predominantly in 3 months, that
you thought that the biggest months were February, March,
April?
Mr. Ciccone. There was a period of time of I believe April,
May and June where the indications from the Border Patrol
sensors on I believe the Cabeza Prieta Refuge that between
4,000 and 6,000 undocumented alien crossings per month during
the months of April, May and June. I cannot say for sure if
those are the busiest months, but those were----
Mr. Souder. Let me ask a couple of general questions and
then when I come back, I have very specific questions for the
Wildlife Refuge. Is it true, because often what we hear in
Congress are numbers extrapolated based off the highest month,
that there are periods of the year where this is more intense
on the Arizona border or is it uniform across the year? Do you
know, Mr. Aguilar?
Mr. Aguilar. Specific to illegal aliens?
Mr. Souder. Yes.
Mr. Aguilar. Or narcotics smuggling?
Mr. Souder. I was going to ask narcotics smuggling as a
separate part of the question.
Mr. Aguilar. Basically it varies throughout the year. At
the beginning of the calendar year and on through about the
month of April or May, is when we typically see an increase in
illegal alien activity crossing the border. And then what we
refer to as harvest season, unfortunately, for the marijuana
crop where during certain times of the year, we see an increase
because the smugglers attempt to bring it in as it is being
harvested.
So there is a little bit of a cyclical activity, if you
will, throughout the year.
Mr. Souder. And is there also a cyclical--you know, for the
individuals who may be coming back and forth a couple times of
the year for certain jobs, which is a different type of threat
to the system, do they get counted multiple times, are they in
and out one time illegals who are coming to the United States
and leaving their family back in the country--should they be
taken out of that system of guest worker numbers? I get these
phenomenal numbers and the numbers do not gibe with the
practical numbers that we hear from each subsection.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir, what you are referring to there is
what we refer to as recidivists--speaking to the illegal
immigrants now--recidivists, we do have a recidivism rate that
varies along the southwest border. I do not have the most
immediate figures for my sector, but the last time I looked at
them was about a couple of months ago and at that point it was
varying anywhere from 18 to 20 percent, depending on what month
of the year we are looking at, things of this nature. We have,
as an example, individuals that we will catch, we will
apprehend 10, 12 times, they will be crossing. There are
certain thresholds that will be met in situations like that.
And then we have intelligence sources south of the border that
tell us that people are turning around, going back home because
after 15, 20, 30 times they have tried, they have either been
apprehended, turned back, deterred; so again, we have an ident
system, I believe you are familiar with that system, that
captures every--I should not say every--close to every arrest
that we make, we capture biometric information in order to try
and track that recidivist rate.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Woolley, is the drug pattern at all
cyclical--two part question. Is the drug pattern cyclical
depending on the marijuana harvest season or does it tend to
stay kind of uniform through the year, whereas immigration may
be somewhat in flux. And then, the second thing is, what is
your estimate of--just rough--and Mr. Aguilar and others, if
you have any input into this--what percent of the illegal
immigrants are carrying at least small doses, if not large
doses. Clearly the largest quantity of drugs come in the big
interception of a huge load. But you have all sorts of things,
like we saw yesterday, a painted jug, which was comparatively a
small amount. But what percentage of the illegals, 10, 20, 30,
does it vary by time of year; if there are more coming in the
spring, do a lower percentage have narcotics because narcotics
are going to move other than the harvest season. Some insight
if you have it.
Mr. Woolley. Yes, sir, thank you. I would agree
historically with what the Chief Patrol Agent said about the
marijuana trafficking, it was a harvest season type trafficking
pattern. But in the last several years, we have seen that there
is really no slowdown in the amount of at least marijuana
coming through the borders. The only time we see kind of a dip
is around Easter time, for whatever reason. But our
intelligence indicates that not only is the harvest fully
functional, but that there are stockpiles and they are able to
stockpile the marijuana and then if there is a slowdown through
the harvest completion, that they go into the warehouses and
bring it across there.
When you talk about methamphetamine or cocaine, there is no
shelf life, so that can come across at any time and it is
coming across in increasing numbers.
To answer your question about percentage on illegals
carrying narcotics, I would not venture a guess on that, but
what I would say is if they are coming up here looking for
employment, that I know there is an increased monetary
incentive for those folks to backpack across. And seeing the
seizures and the weights of some of the backpacks, several
hundred pound loads. I am very impressed that these folks can
walk extended miles carrying these types of loads. So I know
there is a monetary incentive, but I would not venture a guess
on the number of illegals that are actually employed in that
capacity.
Mr. Souder. In your arrests at the border, Mr. Aguilar, do
you have a rough percentage how many have narcotics on them?
Mr. Aguilar. No.
Mr. Souder. They can dump that. Is it different in the east
sector of Arizona from the west?
Mr. Aguilar. Probably the best way for me to answer that,
sir, is the following--from the beginning of the fiscal year
through yesterday, the 9th, there were 741 Border Patrol
incidents of interdiction--741. Now within each one of those,
we have had 10, 12, 15 people involved in each incident,
accounting for 188,000 pounds of marijuana. The total
apprehensions year to date right now in this sector is 122,000.
So I am giving you those numbers, it is a small percentage of
the people we encounter being involved with narcotics. Of the
people that we do encounter involved in narcotics, I would have
to say that the vast majority of them are in fact illegal in
the country, employed, as Mr. Woolley said, backpacking, muling
the stuff into the United States, getting it across and into
the United States.
Mr. Souder. Basically the data on the percent that have
narcotics on them at the time they are apprehended is less than
1 percent?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir, I would say that is about correct.
Mr. Souder. I will come back to Fish and Wildlife.
Mr. Shadegg. I would like--Mr. Ciccone, I would like to
give you or Mr. DiRosa an opportunity, since this map is now in
the record of this hearing, to describe what it depicts and to
give the committee, in terms of testimony, some information on
what these lines mean, what the blue symbols mean and the
degree of environmental damage that is being done by what they
depict. Do you want Mr. DiRosa to do that?
Mr. Ciccone. Yes, sir, I would like to defer to Mr. DiRosa.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. DiRosa, you will need to come forward and
we will need to swear you in.
Mr. Souder. Would you raise your right hand?
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Souder. The witness responded affirmatively.
Mr. Shadegg. If you could just put into the record some of
the information describing this and what it tells the
committee.
Mr. DiRosa. If you will look in the left hand corner, you
will see a legend which depicts the various symbols and color
designations which you see on the map.
The red north and south lines are clandestine roads created
by smugglers--both people and drug smugglers.
Mr. Shadegg. If I could interrupt, those roads are all
illegal?
Mr. DiRosa. They are all illegal. The only legal roads for
public use is a corridor that runs east and west and then one
part of it goes north about--further to the west, a little
more. Those are public use roads. There are some other roads
called administrative roads that can be used by law enforcement
and that we can use, but this is a designated wilderness area
and we have to do what is called work with minimum tools. We
ourselves do not have the capability to use those
administrative roads whenever we want, because of the
wilderness designation. Illegals coming through the refuge, of
course, are paying no respect to any regulations of any sort.
The amount of damage caused by these roads is extreme.
You will notice the little blue symbols, vehicles, little
blue vehicles, they indicate abandoned vehicles, those vehicles
that have been abandoned by mostly drug dealers, they have
gotten stuck, they have broken down, sometimes they will stash
their loads in the area and we will find it. We have to get
those vehicles out of the wilderness area which causes
additional damage as well.
Other symbols that you will see there are points where
there have been a number of deaths, there are points where much
of our border fencing has been stolen and now we are getting
ingress from Mexican domestic stock. There are points showing
drug apprehensions.
This is a drop in the bucket really, this is only what we
can gather. There are additional data that are coming that we
will put on the map. The map is a living document.
Mr. Souder. I wanted at the same time to have Mr. Wellman
to give matching testimony, similar roads in the park. You told
me yesterday that one of the things you had done on one of the
roads is put some trenches to the side and that you have
disabled quite a few vehicles. Could you describe that, and how
many roughly?
Mr. Wellman. Well, as you saw yesterday, this is typically
very open country, so it is difficult to stop vehicles. We have
had success two places, one along South Puerto Blanca Drive,
but we made the ditches considerably deeper, approximately 3
feet deep. In the first year after we did that, we trapped over
20 illegal vehicles in the ditches.
On one of the illegal roads that you see that goes to a
very tight wash, we were able to take Jersey barricades, the
type you see on the side of the highway, and put them in the
narrow point of the wash and have actually stopped use on that
route. That is probably the only 100 percent effective thing we
have done and it is probably the only one that will be 100
percent effective until they can figure out some way to go
around it.
Mr. Souder. You also use some strips?
Mr. Wellman. We do use tire replacement devices on a fairly
regular basis, usually when vehicles are fleeing back to Mexico
at high rates of speed.
Mr. Souder. And how many cars have you found through the
use of that.
Mr. Wellman. Year before last, we successfully spiked 17.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. DiRosa, I just wanted to point out,
immediately north of the entire refuge is the Barry Goldwater
Range, is that correct?
Mr. DiRosa. That is correct, and to the west side as well.
Mr. Shadegg. So anybody transitting the refuge would either
have to enter the Range, dangerous territory, or a second
concern that I believe I understood to be expressed was that
they transit the wildlife refuge and then once they are further
north, go back over into the park and do damage in the park, is
that correct?
Mr. DiRosa. That is correct. We are really not the area of
choice that smugglers like to use because we are so remote and
then when smugglers get through us, they have to negotiate a
gunnery range. They tend to try and move back to the east to
access the highway. The reason they are now using the refuge is
because of the greater enforcement that Border Patrol has been
showing to our east and also with Park Service beefing up, we
are going to get much more activity in that respect.
Mr. Shadegg. When you say they are not the area of choice
and they like to get back into the national monument, that
would explain the reason for all of these roads over here on
the eastern end?
Mr. DiRosa. That is correct.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you very much.
Mr. Souder. Let me followup with some additional questions
on this refuge. The refuge was created for bighorn sheep? What
was the original--and what are your predominant featured
species?
Mr. DiRosa. The refuge, if you will look at the enabling
legislation for the refuge, it did not specifically mention
bighorn sheep, however, if you follow the information,
legislation that led up to that point, it spoke very heavily
about bighorn sheep. So that really was one of the reasons the
refuge was created. And then it goes on to say for the
resources of that time, it mentions grazing resources, which is
a moot point now. That is not part of our mission any more, we
are not jointly managed with the BLM, we are a full national
wildlife refuge.
So species of concern for us regarding the illegal traffic,
that will probably have the most impact is the endangered
Sonoran pronghorn, also called antelope; the long-nosed bat, we
have already documented maternity nests that have been
abandoned directly because of smuggling activity. And just the
overall natural resources of the refuge. It is very hard to
quantify.
Mr. Souder. Is there something unique in this area, where
the species are at, have they tried to move to the west?
Mr. DiRosa. Many of the species cannot flee. The Sonoran
pronghorn are a very mobile animal, however they do tend to
congregate in the eastern portion because that is where the
resources are. we get approximately 8 to 9 inches of rain on
the eastern portion, only 3 inches to the west. And these
animals will follow the forage and the water resources.
Interesting comments are received from the public that the
illegals or smugglers have much more access to the refuge than
the citizens of the United States do, because we have to shut
down some of these areas because of the endangered nature of
the pronghorn, say for instance in the fawning season this
year, we will prohibit people from recreating in the refuge,
yet the illegal traffic is continuing to escalate and both the
traffic and the law enforcement activity damage the resources.
Mr. Souder. My understanding is that in the park, while
there has been damage to cactus, it is not substantial, is that
because it is not endangering the Saguaro or the Organ Pipe,
although theoretically because of the fewer Organ Pipe, it
could. And if you could also elaborate on--I am floundering for
the term, but whether it be cactus, flowers, other things,
habitat that supports both in the monument and in the refuge,
the impact of increasing traffic, both human and narcotic and
if there is a narcotics nexus, clearly there are random
incidents with narcotics, but I am not sure narcotics is the
primary threat to the resources.
Mr. Wellman. The Organ Pipe Cactus is not endangered. We do
lose cactus to illegal activities, particular vehicles coming
into the park running over cactus. When sleeping sites are
cleared under trees, they clear out cactus seedlings. So we are
losing a substantial amount of resources, but not to the point
that it is endangering the existence of the cactus.
Probably a bigger impact on our wildlife, and I suspect it
is the same in Cabeza, in Organ Pipe, there are only two
permanent water sources and one happens to be right on the
border, one is about in the middle of the park. Beyond those
two springs, all of the water available for wildlife in Organ
Pipe is found in tanahas, in catchment basins.
Our legal visitors are not allowed to use that water. As
rare as water is in the desert, we want all of that for our
wildlife. We know that several of the tanahas, and actually
even one of the springs was completely drained by illegal
traffic. Probably most of that was illegal aliens rather than
drug smugglers, but they both take water that our wildlife
needs.
The other thing, particularly the Sonoran pronghorn, pygmy
owls, some of the shier wildlife, there is a tremendous
disturbance factor because the traffic in the park is pervasive
now. Typically we have visitors in the winter, the pronghorn
are usually west of the park in the winter and move into the
park in the summer. Traditionally when they would come back to
the park, they would pretty much have the whole place to
themselves. We do not get a lot of visitors, a few German
visitors, in the heat of the summer. But now we have the
illegal traffic going through, so there is a disturbance to the
wildlife year-round, which is a new phenomenon and something
they are not very well adapted to.
Mr. Souder. Do the traffickers, the illegals move toward
water resources? Is it stressing your water resources that are
limited already?
Mr. DiRosa. Many of the people coming through do not know
where the water resources are. Those that are providing guide
service in some cases do know where the water resources are,
but they do not tell the people that they are guiding because
they want to maintain full control. That is why we have a
number of deaths on the refuge.
I would like to emphasize that the people that are trying
to negotiate the refuge in that regard are not border citizens,
they are coming from very far south Mexico, central Mexico,
South America, etc. They get up this far, they are pretty well
committed and we are going to put signs to warn people, the
Border Patrol does not expect those signs to help much, because
they are committed and once they get into the refuge, if they
do not find the water, they are in real big trouble. Most of
our water is very difficult to find unless you know it is
there.
Mr. Souder. One of the things we talked about yesterday was
one of the two trails that both of you mentioned that illegals
have more access to the resources than the citizens who paid
for the resources have. But one of the biggest attractions of
Organ Pipe is occasionally endangered merely because it may not
be as safe or as open, and one of the goals of the National
Park Service in this new border protection is to try to secure
areas where visitors come to Arizona who want to see these
tremendous resources, is that not correct, and could you
explain that?
Mr. Wellman. Yes. The Sweetwater Pass area is a peak area
of Organ Pipe and has been listed as one of the best hikes in
Arizona. Right now, because of the tremendous amount of illegal
traffic through Sweetwater Pass, we do not recommend visitors
use that area, particularly overnight. Keno Valley, Keno Peak,
which is almost the center of the park, is one of the most
spectacular places in the Sonoran Desert, if you decide to
backpack into Keno Valley and spend the night, there is almost
a 100 percent probability you will have people walking through
your campsite that night. We have had visitors go in, set up
their tents, get up in the middle of the night and leave
because of the amount of traffic coming through.
Mr. Souder. It is a frustrating process here, and part of
the reason to have this discussion is obviously with the deaths
related to narcotics. People dying at the border areas and
concern about homeland security are huge issues. But we have
had past cases inside the National Park Service, I am sure to
some degree in Fish and Wildlife as well, where the government
sets aside an area to be protected and for one reason or
another, either people went and stole the artifacts, degraded,
whether it be through grazing or other things, resources such
that the thing we went to preserve gets destroyed. And we are
seeing this not just here, but our drug habits in the United
States are wrecking the Amazon Basin. When you fly above, you
see whole areas where the Amazon River Basin has cocaine
chemical going down through the river, wildlife is gone,
cutting down trees so they can put the stuff in. The drug
problems are becoming an environmental disaster as well as a
human disaster and it is important for us to understand also
the need to balance.
Now let me ask another question about the fish and wildlife
in the park area. Because this is, obviously as you all know,
an explosive question whenever you deal with wilderness or
other environmental protections. If we had a 2-mile waiver for
homeland security for land and a 5-mile for air surveillance,
do you believe that would enable us to get better control along
the borders over time? Say we are looking at this in a 5-year
or longer term period, and protect the resource more than the
way we are currently doing it and trying to have people go
through and not much intercept and potentially pushing more. In
other words, we do not have a lot of options here, we can put
up a perimeter, but then everybody is moving through and it is
a wider zone. We can try to put more pressure in the middle or
we can really concentrate heavily on the border, or we can just
say hey, we do not care, we are going to cover the rest of the
United States but if terrorists come through this border or
drugs come through this particular area, we are not going to
patrol it. This is a tough dilemma and a conflict between
legislation that Congress has to deal with and I wonder how you
feel about what kind of slots would give us the flexibility,
and I want to ask the patrol agencies the same question.
Mr. Wellman. I will go first. In Organ Pipe, we do not have
the military airspace of the park, so we do not have the
problem that the basin has. The problem we have is there are no
aircraft to patrol. And yes, having air surveillance along the
border would be a great benefit.
The second question is tougher. Along the international
border, and probably 2 miles is a pretty good distance, a lot
of the more violent crimes tend to happen within that first 2
miles. We need some different rules of engagement, if nothing
else for the protection of our rangers and other law
enforcement officers along the border.
Mr. Souder. How do the Wildlife people feel about it?
Mr. DiRosa. I think it sounds good in theory. It is
certainly preferable to stop all the activity at the border and
if I were going to be asked where would I do it and invest my
resources, it would certainly be at the border. I think it
would be problematic, it would be very expensive, we have 56
miles of very remote border that is very difficult to access.
It would be easier if we could access it from Mexico on Highway
2 and obviously that is not practical.
To give what might be carte blanche for a 2 mile segment
that is currently wilderness would be difficult for me to
accept without sitting down and perhaps going through
negotiations, etc. So it is a difficult question to answer.
There would be any number of non-governmental organizations
that would weigh in on this as well, as I am sure you suspect.
But again, I think the border is the place.
Mr. Souder. There are variations you could have: You could
theoretically have a road and a fence or border barrier and
then a hot pursuit rule up to 2 miles unless there is
endangerment to go more, you could have some exceptions in that
area if it was a particular endangered species that would be
extra, although what you are going to do, wherever you put
these exceptions, you are going to drive the traffic to that
exception, which is what happened on the California border.
They had a nesting area and also one type of snail and they
just trampled it because if you say you cannot go through here
and the Border Patrol had orange cones that said you cannot go
through here, there became a run to that area and in one area
alone, I saw 900 people massed to go over the fence in 1 night,
which is standard, around 1,000 a night, heading for the
endangered species areas. Because when you mark them
specifically, hey, if we cannot go there, then that is where
they go. This is a huge dilemma to try to address it without
actually endangering the zones more.
But I do not think the American people assume right now in
the terrorism angle, that the greatest threat are Arab
nationals, but that is not going to remain the case. As soon as
they figure out that we stopped that group, just like any other
type of thing, you go to a different profile and contract with
other people and it is clear we cannot have borders where
thousands of people are coming through a night, it is just not
going to be tolerated. And so we have to figure out what is the
best way to do it.
Since you have suggestions and work with it--I am not
trying to put you on the spot today, but these have to be
addressed and I would like to hear Border Patrol, DEA, Customs
responses also. And let me ask one other question. What about
the 5 miles for air surveillance?
Mr. DiRosa. Would you repeat that?
Mr. Souder. Let me have--at this point before I go to the
next--Dennis, what is your last name?
Mr. Lindsay. Lindsay.
Mr. Souder. Yes, could you come forward? One of the things
that I understood from John on our staff is that there was a
proposal to have like a tunnel where air patrols could go
through. The range is blocking this because some of this is
very rugged. If you cannot get a road to the barrier,
theoretically the air patrols would be able to help to some
degree.
Could you elaborate a little bit on what the discussions
are on that and how we could do air patrol on the border?
Mr. Lindsay. Yes. Currently right now, we have had some
limited success when we have an officer call for assistance,
bringing a helicopter in. But that does not allow us to do
routine patrol and use some of the sophisticated technologies
they have aboard those aircraft to combat the number of
vehicles that are coming across. That is what we want to do.
So in essence, what we want to create is a road in the air
that is 5 miles wide up to 9,000 feet where we can put some of
this technology to look for aircraft and vehicles that are
coming across. We currently do not have that. We have been in
negotiation with the Air Force since September of last year and
so far, we have been denied that corridor to actually put
aircraft in there.
Mr. Souder. Are airplanes actually ever down in that zone,
and if so, how would they know where the border is?
Mr. Lindsay. To answer your question, they should not be
down in that zone, I do not know how they would know where the
border is.
One of the things that came out of this discussion with the
Air Force was they wanted to be sure that we could provide
aircraft separation. Currently they did not have a clear radar
picture of the aircraft that were working the bombing ranges.
Our radar facility that belongs to Customs in Riverside, CA can
provide them that data, so we can assure them aircraft
separation which should alleviate that obstacle that they
brought up to us.
Mr. Souder. And is it something that would have any impact
on the resources in the refuge if there were regular----
Mr. Lindsay. I would think that any time you have some jets
flying over the refuge, the noise would be a problem,
especially at a low level.
Mr. Souder. So a Customs plane would be nothing compared to
that problem?
Mr. Lindsay. No. Now one of the problems is that their low
level deck we think is about 20,000 feet at the border. They
should not be below 14,000 feet, so we provided an adequate
buffer from 9,000 to 14,000, we thought.
Mr. Souder. Any other comments or anybody see any reason
why that would not be helpful?
[No response.]
Mr. Souder. Thank you. Is there anything else you want to
add with that? I felt it was really important to get that into
the record, that there are proposals in how we run into and
counter conflicts sometimes among the agencies in trying to
address it.
Mr. Lindsay. I have a map of the corridor we propose that I
would like to enter into the record.
Mr. Souder. Yes, thank you very much.
Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if you are asking if we
have any more input into what you just brought forward, I would
like to say that hearing from an enforcement perspective and
homeland security concern, I appreciate you asking that
question because my answer to that zone, as you call it, would
be a resounding yes, it would help tremendously, in order to
give us something that would allow us to work efficiently out
there, effectively to create the deterrence posture that we are
looking for. I firmly believe that if we deploy the corridor in
as efficient a way as we can, as effective a way as we can, it
is going to ultimately protect that environmental concern that
we have throughout those entire areas out there.
A further clarification--earlier Congressman Shadegg spoke
about the successes we have had in the sector. I very quickly
came back and talked about the achievements that we have had,
because I want to make sure that there is an understanding that
yes, we have made some dramatic achievements in Douglas/Naco
and Nogales, but we are still in a gain mode out there, we are
not finished yet in those areas of operation. One of the things
that is very impacting in those areas of operation where we are
still very assertive and very aggressively expanding our
operation from an enforcement perspective, relates exactly to
what you are pointing out here, that we are deploying in such a
way as to work around these parameters, statutes, policies and
regulations that have an impact on our capability to deploy
them on the immediate border.
So again, in citing that, it is important that it would
be--my answer would be a resounding yes, it would help
tremendously, fully recognizing that we need to be very careful
with some of the environmental and cultural treasures that are
out there. But from an enforcement perspective, yes, it would
help tremendously.
Mr. Souder. Any other comments on that?
[No response.]
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Winderweedle, you
have had experience across the whole Arizona border, I think
you have been stationed in several different locations.
Mr. Winderweedle. Yes, sir, I have, with the exception of
Nogales.
Mr. Shadegg. I am curious as to just your comments about
the conditions that you face or that you faced when you were in
the eastern sector versus the conditions that you faced in the
western sector. I also want to ask a followup question. The
chairman of the Tohono O'odham Nation testified about the three
crossings that they have where members of the Nation go back
and forth across the border. As a Customs official responsible
for cross border traffic, are you concerned about those three
crossings and about the fact that they are functional but not
monitored by your department. So if you could address those two
questions.
Mr. Winderweedle. OK, just a point of clarification,
Congressman, you say what conditions that we face. Conditions
as they pertain to where?
Mr. Shadegg. The degree of cross border activity you see,
either drugs or individuals or goods that you were able to
seize and maybe even the level of cooperation that you have
across the border in the two different areas, and just
contrasting the two different areas.
Mr. Winderweedle. Well, I think what you are going to find
with Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, at least as far
as the ports of entry are concerned, that there is consistency.
Certainly there is consistency at Lukeville. And certainly the
levels of cooperation at Lukeville and it has been my
experience, in Arizona as well that the cooperation inter-
agency is absolutely excellent.
Mr. Shadegg. What about cross border cooperation?
Mr. Winderweedle. I have not always worked in a position to
be involved in cross border cooperation, I can say that cross
border cooperation at the port of entry at Lukeville at this
particular point in time is quite good. My counterpart and I
probably speak every week or 10 days on some topic of mutual
concern. And that relationship seems to be building and
solidifying.
Mr. Shadegg. And the other part of the question, what about
the three crossings on the Tohono O'odham Nation. Is there
commercial traffic going across there?
Mr. Winderweedle. No, sir, there has been no commercial
traffic, any legitimate commercial traffic. There may have been
attempts, but I think that Mr. Aguilar has had some of his
staff involved in that and those attempts have been directed to
the port of entry.
I know there are issues with the Tohono O'odham Nation that
the legalities of all this are in front of the Congress right
now in legislation that was proposed by Congressman Grijalva.
Do we have an immediate binding concern on that? Since it
is outside of the port of entry, it would be appropriate for me
to defer to Mr. Minas on that topic.
Mr. Souder. I would like to ask a couple more of this
panel, and I appreciate your tolerance and those who are
planning things after this, but this is why we are here.
Mr. Woolley, a couple of things. You mentioned that we are
going to be doing a hearing in El Paso next month and working
some on the Texas border, we tend to have in the U.S.
Government, things pretty organized by usually Arizona area,
here is the New Mexico area, here is the Texas area, here is
the California area. In the cartels and those who are trying to
smuggle the large volume of narcotics over, do they tend to
work--I know they are not set up on our State system, but does
the eastern side of Arizona tend to flow more toward New Mexico
and El Paso; the Yuma side more toward California, or in fact
is there a corridor that comes up through Arizona? What are the
networks of how the cartels are distributed?
Mr. Woolley. As you point out, they are very well organized
and there is a focus in the southern Texas and western Texas
area, the Juarez cartel has that pretty well taken care of and
their narcotics flow into and up to Chicago and the midwest. We
see some of the San Diego based Tijuana traffickers that have
established a very good route there through Tijuana, coming
further east. And we have very well established cartel members
from central Mexico coming up through Nogales.
But like the panel pointed out, if you exert influence in
one area, it is like squeezing a balloon and if you squeeze in
one area, it has a tendency to pop out elsewhere, so law
enforcement initiatives both south of the border and here have
a tendency to influence the trafficking patterns. Competition
being as it is, there are a number of transportation cells and
smuggling cells here in southern Arizona that will sell their
services to the highest bidder, so competition will be
something that will influence what organization gets used.
Mr. Souder. Do they have earmarked zones where they--in
other words, how flexible are they in fact to move across
borders, if you are a cartel? And can you go into another guy's
zone, can your transportation guy go into another guy's zone?
Or in fact is it kind of marked and does our structure reflect
their structure or does our structure affect our political
structure?
Mr. Woolley. Well, you would not go into somebody else's
established neighborhood without some concern by that
particular group. But if there is some influence, say one of
the members get assassinated or the families break down or
whatever, there would be probably incentives to try to get in
and take over that very lucrative trafficking pattern.
Mr. Souder. What are the predominant patterns you see in
trafficking changes, is a high percentage of what is
intercepted in your sector, taking Phoenix and Arizona as a
whole, is it moving more and more toward large quantities or is
it breaking up into smaller where they consolidate into
truckloads farther up into the State?
Mr. Woolley. Both of those things, sir. As you pointed out
earlier, the estimate is between 60 and 65 percent of the drugs
coming into the United States is crossing through the southwest
border. I would say Arizona has certainly their predominant
share of that, 25 to 30 percent. They will shotgun the border
with various vehicles, the cottage industry with secret
compartments in cars and trucks can contain significant amounts
of narcotics--cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana. Trucking
business as it is and the border being open to trade, that is
certainly a concern of ours. So they shotgun, they use small
loads, they use larger loads. It comes in across the border, is
staged in southern Arizona, Tucson, gets up to Phoenix and then
it is distributed to the various cities in the United States.
Mr. Souder. I was flabbergasted yesterday--and you can
explain what in the world that area is across the border at
Lukeville, where you have all those trucks and cars on the
Mexican side that are impounded, most of which are relatively
new, which would suggest there is--if they are in fact saying
those were illegal, was it licensing, was it drugs, was it--
what in the world is going on there? I mean why are they not
being sold in auto salvage--I mean, it goes for an extensive
area and there are tons of trucks in there.
Mr. Winderweedle. It is my understanding that those
vehicles have been seized and confiscated by Mexican law
enforcement agencies. As far as what their ultimate and final
disposition is, I do not know, I have no knowledge of how they
get rid of them or if they ever get rid of them, but those are
all from Mexican law enforcement agency seizures and
confiscations, apparently for violations of laws that were
committed in the Republic of Mexico.
Mr. Souder. There was one fire there where people had been
sleeping and it almost looked like it could be a low-rent motel
zone. Do you see that much along there?
Mr. Winderweedle. We do not have a good view of that
through the Port, but that area is transitted literally over,
under, around and through. Our counterparts on the other side
have made some efforts as far as securing that area. They
recognize and understand their responsibility toward that
property that is contained in there, but it is a difficult
task.
Mr. Souder. Do you have very many legitimate use trucks
coming through, is it a major trucking port? Do you see an
increase when they put pressure on at Nogales or Yuma?
Mr. Winderweedle. As it stands currently, we are very
limited use as far as commercial importation and exportation
activity. Our predominant use is with the north and south-bound
legitimate compliant travelers--tourist, trade, people
transitting through the area on their way south and north.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Woolley, do you see much coming in by air,
small planes landing, clearing the whole border area?
Mr. Woolley. Yes, sir, we have intelligence information
that in fact is happening. Again, my colleagues would probably
have better information on that. Up in Tucson, we do not see
that too much.
Mr. Souder. Do you sense that if we put more pressure on
the border as far as other things, that if you were taking
narcotics or weapons of mass destruction, you might go that
route as opposed to people?
Mr. Woolley. Absolutely.
Mr. Souder. Any other comments that anybody would like to
put into the record before we move to the third panel?
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Woolley, I am a little bit surprised by
your last answer on cross border flights. When I was in the
Arizona Attorney General's Office, we were aware there was a
great deal of cross border flying and random dirt airstrips all
over the State. I recall being aware of a number of incidents
involving airstrips in Mojave County. Do you know--that was
obviously a number of years ago, say 10-13 years ago. Is it
your belief that there is ongoing drug trafficking across the
border in small airplanes and landing strips further north in
Arizona?
Mr. Woolley. I do not think particularly, sir, that is
happening now with the increased diligence that we have since
September 11th, that everybody is very attentive to that and
from your experience, I am sure you know about the spotters
that used to be out there and we have seen a decrease in that,
although we do know that there are places down at the border
area, there are still some strips that are at least up in the
other areas in Arizona, but I do not have any information that
those are being used for smuggling.
Mr. Shadegg. No information that planes are coming across
at low altitudes, we have essentially deterred that activity?
Mr. Woolley. I have no information along those lines, but I
would be happy to check and get back to you.
Mr. Souder. I am confused. You do not have it farther up in
Arizona, but you do along the border?
Mr. Woolley. Yes.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
Will the members of the third panel please come forward--
Ms. Fern Salcido, Mr. Augustine Toro, Colonel Ben Anderson, Ms.
Jennifer Allen and Reverend Robin Hoover. And will you remain
standing so I can administer the oath?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that each of the witnesses
responded in the affirmative.
I would appreciate it if those who have conversations would
take them outside and show respect for the witnesses who are
here.
Ms. Salcido, we will start with you.
STATEMENTS OF FERN SALCIDO, TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION LEGISLATIVE
COUNCIL MEMBER; AUGUSTINE TORO, CHAIRMAN, CHUKUT KUK BOUNDARY
COMMITTEE, TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION; COLONEL BEN ANDERSON, U.S.
ARMY (RETIRED); JENNIFER ALLEN, BORDER ACTION NETWORK; AND
REVEREND ROBIN HOOVER, PRESIDENT, HUMANE BORDERS, INCONSISTENT
Ms. Salcido. Good afternoon, Members of Congress and
welcome to Tohono O'odham Nation. My name is Fern Salcido.
I am very honored to speak before your subcommittee today.
The issue of cross-border narcotics smuggling is one that I am
very concerned about. I am a member of the Tohono O'odham
Legislative Council elected by Gu Vo District. I live in the
community of Meneger's Dam about a quarter of a mile from the
border and just a few miles east of the Port of Entry at
Lukeville. I have lived in Meneger's Dam all of my life and I
am a mother and a grandmother and I care very deeply about my
family, my community and my Nation.
Drug smugglers travel through our village day and night.
They are very open about their business; they recruit our
children, 8 and 9 year olds, to watch for approaching law
enforcement agents. They pay our children in drugs. It is
common that when a law enforcement officer comes across these
smugglers, they chase them at high rates of speed through our
villages and communities. It is truly a miracle that none of
our children or elders have been run over by either the
smugglers or the law enforcement agents. Many years ago, we
asked the Bureau of Indian Affairs to install speed bumps in
our villages and communities. We were told there were not
enough funds for speed bumps.
I want to share with you two incidents that happened to me
and perhaps you will better understand my concerns.
Late in 1999, at about 7 p.m., well after dark, someone
knocked at my door. I opened the door and found a man dressed
in a Mexican military uniform carrying a machine gun. A Humvee
vehicle was parked in my front yard and four other uniformed
and heavily armed men stood next to the vehicle. The man at the
door asked for a man I did not know. It was obvious to me that
the men at the door were looking for a lost drug load. My
children were in the house and I was very scared for our
safety.
Last summer, Federal agents and the Tohono O'odham Police
Department surrounded my neighbor's house about 200 yards from
my house. As the law enforcement officers moved in on the
house, a drug runner tried to escape driving out of the
property at a high rate of speed. The man was shot by Custom
agents and crashed his vehicle into my shed. Several shots were
fired in the direction of my home. Again, I was very fearful
for the safety of my children, my grandchildren, myself and my
community. Unfortunately, incidents like these two occur
regularly in our community and they put us all at grave risk.
The Gu Vo District is bounded on the west by the Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument. I am deeply troubled by the plan to
put a vehicle barrier fence along the Organ Pipe border. This
will most surely result in even more drug smuggling traffic
into my community and in the Gu Vo District. If any of the
Organ Pipe border area is fenced, then my community is of the
opinion that the vehicle barrier fence should continue east the
length of Gu Vo District. I understand our neighboring
District, Chukut Kuk, is current discussing their position on
the vehicle barrier fence. The Gu Vo District is committed to
working in partnership with our neighbors and the United States
to deal with cross-border drug smuggling, but we need help and
we need it now.
I support Chairman Manuel's proposal that the United States
build and maintain a road immediately adjacent to the border
and that the Federal law enforcement officials be stationed on
the border. Our elders and our children and our families and
our communities need protection.
Thank you and I will be pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
Mr. Souder. Thank you for your willingness to come forward
and testify today. Mr. Toro.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Salcido follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.044
Mr. Toro. Good morning, Members of Congress, welcome to the
Tohono O'odham Nation.
I am very honored to speak before your subcommittee today.
I live and work on our family ranch which is located 12 miles
north of the international boundary in the Chukut Kuk District
on the Tohono O'odham Nation. My family has lived on this land
since the late 1800's.
I serve my community as a representative on the Chukut Kuk
District Council and serve as the chairman of the Boundary
Committee for the District. The Boundary Committee is comprised
of five representatives from the Council who work closely with
Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies to address
many issues; for example, to make sure that the Chukut Kuk
District fencing remains secure along the international
boundary. This is important to ensure that our cattle and
horses remain in our District boundaries. And also to protect
our environment and our sacred sites from unwanted intrusions.
Fifty miles of the Chukut Kuk District is contiguous to the
international boundary.
Not so long ago, many ranchers from both sides of the
border worked together to resolve our common problems. Today,
our fences are regularly cut by drug smugglers and our cattle
strays south of the border. Our sacred environment is
desecrated by vehicles driving over our pristine desert.
Our family ranch is located in a very remote area at least
1 hour from the nearest law enforcement officials. Sometimes
people come to our ranch asking for food and water. We see they
are carrying large bundles and know that they are transporting
drugs.
I am very concerned about the safety of my family and other
community members that reside in the Chukut Kuk District.
Recently, the Chukut Kuk District and Tohono O'odham Nation
entered into an agreement with the Border Patrol to build a
joint use facility in our District close to the border. I
believe this unique collaboration to be the first of its kind
anywhere in the United States.
We must act together with our neighbors and the United
States to effectively address the issues of border crossing for
importation of drugs.
Thank you again and I am pleased to answer any questions
you might have.
Mr. Souder. Thank you for coming forth with your testimony
as well.
Now, Colonel Anderson.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Toro follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.045
Colonel Anderson. I am Ben Anderson, a retired U.S. Army
Colonel. I am a resident of Cochise County and for almost 30
years as a soldier and officer in the Army. I spent a
significant portion of my career planning and executing the
defense of other people's borders. We are the world's experts
at border security.
So far today, it would appear that we have heard a litany
of all the problems we have and why things are not going right,
and maybe we are going in the wrong direction and that given
the funding that might be considered, it will take far too long
to get the problem solved. I do not see this as a means to a
solution.
I wish to make three points immediately.
First, your letter that you issued to us stating that
``Substantial progress on these issues has been made since the
attacks of September 11.''
We in Cochise County see no basis for such a positive
statement. Cochise County does not even have any Border Patrol
checkpoints in operation. Illegal aliens of whatever ilk who
get past the initial porous line of sparse Border Patrol
presence are free to drive direct to anywhere in the United
States. This unique tactic surely does cut down on the number
of apprehensions or arrests and improves statistical numbers
for bureaucratic reporting, but surely does not solve the
problem.
Second, it is difficult to separate people smuggling from
drug smuggling to terrorist smuggling. All are intertwined and
mutually supportive.
Third, there is far too little attention being paid to the
danger of exotic human and animal diseases resulting from the
ingress of large masses of medically unscreened illegal
aliens--illegal aliens--from the Third World's under-developed
countries.
The situation in Cochise County is out of control.
Briefings by Border Patrol authorities do not reflect reality.
The measure of success is now how many illegal aliens are
caught, but how many illegal aliens successfully get through.
The arrest/apprehension rate has decreased from 1 in 5 to 1 in
10, it could be zero out of 200. There is no known measurement
standard that calls 10 percent or less a passing grade.
There continue to be a series of gambits to assuage the
concerns of the border citizens. The standard ploy is to ask
for more funding to offset the costs of medical care or prison
incarceration costs or whatever. It is not the money that is
needed, it is the military. We do not want other taxpayers'
money, we want the problem stopped. Attempts to regularize--
which is amnesty--or institute some guest worker programs, so
as to appease those who profit from cheap slave labor, are mere
political gambits.
Recently we had two Border Patrol or official government
agents murdered, one south of Naco and Kris Eggle. I mean if
Border Patrol agents or National Park agents can be murdered,
what message does that send to drug traffickers, smugglers, the
Mexican Government and what message does it send to the
ranchers in the area--they are terrified. What measure of
safety does a lone rancher or property owner feel?
The general mantra at all levels is the lack of funding.
Caught in the middle are the ranchers, property owners and the
families who live along the border and who must escort their
children to the local bus stop to catch a school bus because
illegal aliens are hiding in the undergrowth awaiting their
rides to the north. Families find drug stashes on their
property awaiting pickup by drug traffickers. They fear being
charged as drug traffickers themselves.
It is wrong that American high school boys and girls must
go about their ranch chores armed at all times. Children have
been threatened and attacked by illegals over 30 miles from the
border. Others have been co-opted into being drivers and
suppliers for coyotes and drug traffickers. The lure of
enormous amounts of cash for little effort is overwhelming.
They become high school dropouts and may never be recovered to
a proper way of life.
The environmental and economic costs to the ranching
communities have been overwhelming. Ranching families have been
forced into bankruptcy, others are on the verge of bankruptcy.
Land values have plummeted.
As a result, citizen groups have been formed to take the
matter into their own hands. Three groups are already formed
and operating, a fourth out-of-state group, is forming now. Gun
dealers in Cochise County are unable to keep up with the surge
in demand for both guns and ammunition. Citizens are arming
themselves. They feel that bloodshed is on the horizon. All
fear it will take a major bloodletting to get relief or to get
the ball rolling.
Last week, Fort Huachuca apprehended 90 illegal aliens on
the military reservation, 180 previously. The full total is
unknown. Fort Huachuca is the U.S. Army's Intelligence Center,
is a closed military installation.
No amount of funding or manpower increases or realignment
can fix the Border Patrol in a timely manner. It cannot be
grown to the task in time.
However, our military is structured, manned, funded,
trained and capable of quickly accomplishing the mission. It
has decades of experience in border security missions all over
the world. The American military is the world's expert at
protecting other nation's borders. Safeguarding ours is a snap
given interior lines of communication.
There is no need for large military units or heavy
equipment or tracked vehicles such as tanks, artillery or
armored personnel carriers; or heavy weapons or any equipment
that might be ecologically destructive. Light forces with rapid
helicopter mobility can cover large remote areas with minimal
assets while freeing up the limited Border Patrol assets to
concentrate on congested urban areas or where their particular
expertise is needed.
In southeast Arizona, where the main concentration of
illegal alien and drug traffic exists--upwards of 1.5 million
illegal aliens per year successfully cross into Cochise
County--the stationing structure already exists. Fort Huachuca
provides a perfect location for border operations of any needed
military units.
Military engineer units from the active and reserve can
rapidly emplace requisite fencing. Units can be rotated to
maintain the operational temp of DOD. The task is simple and
requires very limited training. Standard rules of engagement
suffice.
Concurrently, INS and Border Patrol forces can take on
their mandated task of searching out illegal aliens and drug
traffickers within the country and repatriating them to their
country of origin or prosecuting them.
I strongly urge consideration of a military option in
Arizona, if not across the entirety of the U.S./Mexico
international border.
Attempts to deny----
Mr. Souder. Sir, you are over your time. Can you submit the
rest for the record?
Colonel Anderson. I surely can, a much larger version was
already submitted.
Mr. Souder. OK, can you summarize then?
Colonel Anderson. I would state that the attempt to use the
posse comitatus argument as we are using why not to, is invalid
because it is a matter of national security, not law
enforcement.
I thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
Mr. Souder. Yes?
Mr. Shadegg. The gentleman's testimony was I think very
helpful and useful for this hearing. He indicated it had
already been submitted. We do not have a copy. Can you be
sure--I just checked with the committee staff and they say they
do not have a copy.
Colonel Anderson. There is the electronically submitted
copy and I have about 50 copies here. I have 10 more to give to
you.
Mr. Shadegg. We want to make sure we have one in the
record.
Colonel Anderson. I will do that.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. The staff came to Arizona sooner to do the
backup, so anything that came in, we would not have seen it
yet.
Ms. Allen.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Anderson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.054
Ms. Allen. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you
all today. It is a great honor. My name is Jennifer Allen, I am
the director of the Border Action Network. We were founded in
1999 and we are a grassroots organization that works with
Arizona/Mexico border communities to protect our human rights,
civil rights and the Sonoran Desert.
On a Federal level, there has been no distinction between
drug enforcement, immigration enforcement and border
enforcement. Drug war funds and resources have blended almost
seamlessly into border enforcement and immigration efforts. As
a result, immigrants looking to improve their lives or unite
with family, U.S. citizens and legal residents that live on the
border are subjected to what has become an essentially lawless
and de-Constitutionalized zone where our rights and civil
liberties have been undermined. Adding insult to injury, these
same enforcement strategies are clearly failing.
Last summer's 130-plus deaths of men, women and children
who were looking for work, joining their families or coming to
better their lives in the United States is the clearest and
most devastating consequence of current U.S. border policies
and strategies. The militarization of the border has
essentially turned this region into a war zone with solid steel
walls, stadium-style lights, 30-foot surveillance towers,
underground surveillance, armed military troops, military
equipment and tactics, and inter-agency task forces that are
not trained to operate on domestic soil.
History should have taught us that building walls to divide
countries and people has consistently failed and subsequently
been torn down. Nevertheless, we have proceeded with a
militarization strategy that has now backfired. The goal of
deterrence has failed. In fact, this approach has served to
further sophisticate and professionalize the same smuggling
networks. For this reason alone, the government's approach to
border enforcement should be drastically changed.
A lesser discussed issue in the region, but of equal
importance, are the civil rights and human rights consequences
of current border policies. From our work and discussions with
immigrants and border communities, we want to draw your
attention to: The impact of Border Patrol buildup in border
communities; the lack of oversight or investigation into the
Border Patrol; the growing anti-immigrant movement in Arizona;
and the increasing criminalization of immigrants and its
devastating impacts on their lives and families.
Border enforcement efforts along the southwest border
account for over 70 percent of the INS' budget and over 90
percent of their staffing power. According to the General
Accounting Office, the Border Patrol has had enormous employee
turnover rates. The result is over 1,200 agents in the Tucson
sector alone who show great disregard for the rights and
dignity of the people that live on the border--citizens, legal
residents and undocumented immigrants alike.
Examples include: In May 1999, Arizona Border Patrol agents
Matthew Hemmer separated a 21 year old Salvadoran woman from
her friend and drove her to a remote location where he tied her
hands together, forced her to kneel on the ground and raped
her. Agent Hemmer was arrested in August 2000, charged with
kidnapping, sexual assault and sexual abuse. He pled guilty to
merely aggravated assault and for transporting the woman
without her consent. If he completes 36 months probation, his
record will only show a misdemeanor.
A mother that lives in Pirtleville, a small community
outside Douglas, tells of Border Patrol agents driving 80 miles
an hour over narrow dirt neighborhood streets chasing suspected
immigrants. The dust plume from the speeding vehicles
aggravates her children's asthma and the parents fear to let
their children play outside.
Another woman from Sasabe described how a Border Patrol
agent interrogated her young niece and drove her to tears as
she was on her bicycle on her way to the grocery store.
As of February 2002, Agent Matthew Sheffler, the prime
suspect in the murder of his girlfriend and fellow agent in
2000, continued to work at a Border Patrol checkpoint near
Douglas.
Other stories include incidents similar to this of agents
shooting the people and in some cases killing people, running
people over with their vehicles and sexually assaulting women.
Our sources are from people that live in the communities as
well as investigative reports and government reports.
Adding insult to injury, most people in border communities
report that they do not know how to file a complaint against an
agent. And those that do, express doubt that anything would
result other than retaliation against them. The Office of the
Inspector General is responsible for investigating criminal
complaints; however, the office's seven investigators monitor
more than 1,200 Border Patrol agents in the Tucson sector
alone, plus thousands of other INS, U.S. Marshals and Bureau of
Prison employees in Arizona and Nevada.
Clearly the system that exists for monitoring the Border
Patrol and ensuring fair and expeditious review of cases and
complaints is not working. As the budgets of what was the INS
and the Department of Defense, who is playing a greater
physical role on the border, budgets that reach nearly $20
billion, it is critical that the impacts of these activities on
communities be addressed.
Another key area of concern is the growth of anti-
immigrant, white supremacist groups along the border. These
groups, like human rights and community groups also see the
failure of U.S. border enforcement efforts. They, however, are
exacerbating the violence and fear that U.S. strategies have
created. In December 2002 we released a report entitled Hat or
Heroism: Vigilantism on the Arizona-Mexico Border, that we have
submitted as evidence, and we would appreciate if you could
take time to look at it.
These are neither individual acts nor isolated events, the
activities of the border vigilante groups; they are organized,
unlawful and are receiving significant media attention.
Nonetheless, they continue. What is equally disturbing is that
local law enforcement and the Border Patrol tout their support
for these groups even in the face of national INS concern about
these groups and their activities.
The State and Federal Government's inaction and failure to
stop these groups and rights violations is a tacit approval, a
green-light for violent, anti-immigrant groups to continue
harassing, kidnapping and holding immigrants at gun point.
These are just snapshots of the many, many lives who have
been lost, destroyed and threatened by the current U.S. border
policies and enforcement strategies. The Federal Government is
responsible for protecting the rights of all people that call
this country home. Our border policies are in fact undermining
the principles and values that we espouse.
I thank the subcommittee for taking the time to hear from
us today and hope that you all will take up the responsibility
of carrying our voices and stories to Washington and converting
them into safe and just policies that neither waste our money
nor our lives.
Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you and we will put your full statement
in the record; thank you for abbreviating.
Ms. Allen. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Reverend Hoover.
[Note.--The Border Action Network report entitled, ``Hate
or Heroism, Vigilantes on the Arizona-Mexico Border, December
2002,'' may be found in subcommittee files.]
[The prepared statement of Ms. Allen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.059
Rev. Hoover. Congressman Souder and Congressman Shadegg,
thank you for the opportunity to testify. My verbal remarks are
slightly different from my written testimony at the request of
the committee and I will provide copies of my spoken words.
I began working in the area of migration policy during the
Salvadoran exodus to the United States in the 1980's and I hold
a 1998 Ph.D. narrowly focused in political science of the area
of migration.
To begin, Humane Borders, Inc. and its member organizations
wish to acknowledge that we support the underlying premise of
law enforcement of all the agencies all along the border. That
is, that the government has the absolute sovereign right to
determine who crosses the U.S./Mexico border, when, where,
what, with what and under what circumstances. The member
organizations of Humane Borders support the presence of law
enforcement efforts to reduce the scourge of cross-border
smuggling. I and volunteers on two occasions have been in the
desert during operations when smugglers were apprehended with
fully automatic weapons and we were asked to leave the area.
The violence related to this traffic is escalating and it
has already claimed far too many lives of persons on both sides
of the U.S./Mexico border. Additionally, drug smuggling
contributes to environmental degradation in many ways each and
every day, particularly with vehicular traffic, as you have
heard.
While law enforcement officers and various public
administrators, particularly the land managers, etc., focus
primarily on questions of efficiency and effectiveness of
policy, we are a faith-based organization, particularly
concerned with equitable questions. We do not find though that
these differences place us at odds with those that are trying
to implement current policies.
However, all that said, U.S. border policies are
collectively very fatally flawed. They result in totally
unacceptable annual death tolls. Social scientists, both in the
academy and in public service confirm that the buildup of
personnel and technologies has continued to intentionally move
the migration and consequently the drug smuggling into more and
more inhospitable, precious pristine areas of the desert,
resulting in more deaths. In southern Arizona alone, the death
toll in the desert is now 25 times as high as it was just 6
years ago.
In our judgment, two things need to be addressed. Of
course, in the long term, the inexorable flow of humanity from
south to north needs to be moved back to the ports of entry
where migrants are documented, inspected and cleared for
security and otherwise processed in order to contribute to the
security of citizens of the United States.
Moving the migration back to the ports of entry would
radically change the ratio of law enforcement officers to the
number of persons seeking to enter the United States without
inspection and change their assumptions about those that they
encounter in the desert. BCBP personnel between the ports would
be more justified in assuming that they were encountering a
felon rather than a person merely in administrative violation.
In our judgment, the long-term political solution to the
migration is actually more relevant today than prior to
September 11th.
In the short term, law enforcement in southern Arizona
should continue to work with various land managers and with
non-governmental organizations like Humane Borders, Inc. to
reduce the number of deaths in the desert. Fortunately, there
are a number of low-cost, low-environmental impact
technologies, including those proposed currently by law
enforcement yet to be employed.
Simply count the staff time and count the dollars. Time and
money spent on search and rescue operations, provision of
medical transportation and services, supervision, media
relations, community relations, other activities could be
significantly reduced if death were substantially taken out of
the immigration equation. Failure to do so will continue to
demoralize BCBP personnel and further increase concern within a
significant segment of the resident population.
Additionally in the short term, absent a comprehensive
change in border policies and absent a border law enforcement
buildup of several times as many personnel, border crossing
enforcement through deterrence and apprehensions can only be
improved incrementally, as we have heard. In fact, we may reach
the time when dollars spent on this side of the line would be
more effectively spent on the other side.
In June 2001, more than 20 people gathered, representing
Humane Borders and various Federal, State, county and tribal
authorities on two occasions in Ajo, AZ. A consensus was
articulated that land managers should not act unilaterally
through deterrence and other measures, because to do so would
only push cross-border traffic onto adjacent property,
increasing environmental degradation there and potentially
contributing to the further loss of life.
In conclusion, we acknowledge the depth and the breadth of
this border problem. Absent a complete overhaul of the U.S.
border policies, incremental changes in enforcement practices
will only shift the migration around, contribute to more deaths
and further degrade the environment.
Thank you for the opportunity to share this analysis and I
would welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Rev. Hoover follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.062
Mr. Souder. Thank you all for your testimony. As you can
see all day we have heard from a wide range of opinions.
Let me start with Mr. Hoover. Do you favor any limitations
on the number of immigrants?
Rev. Hoover. Limitations on?
Mr. Souder. The number of immigrants. In other words, you
define different ways--guest workers, illegal aliens and so on.
Do you favor any limitations?
Rev. Hoover. That is our right to choose to do that and I
think that we would be better served to exempt Mexico from the
worldwide quota of visas, precisely because empirically they
are already here, we already have the cross-border traffic. Our
current enforcement practice is attracting the huge number of
people here.
Mr. Souder. A large percentage of that people coming
through the south border are in fact not Mexican, as we have
heard, they are Salvadoran, Honduran and Central American.
Would you limit them?
Rev. Hoover. Yes, I would. About 98 percent are Mexican
national right now crossing.
Mr. Souder. That is disputed, but I agree it is the
overwhelming majority. Of course, the policy that we have seen
in other places like Canada on the north, is that system would
depend on Mexico having it. Even if I granted that premise,
that you were not going to limit Mexico, that depends on their
citizenship criteria because all that would mean is you would
have to move into Mexico if it was 6 months 1 year in 5 years.
Libya is doing this and the Caribbean Islands, establishing
European citizenship when their European islanders are coming
in under European common market rules for immigration, and that
is one of our big focuses on terrorism right now.
How would you not have absolute chaos on the south border
if there were not limitations and that was seen as a carte
blanche once you made it into Mexico?
Rev. Hoover. We have absolute chaos on the border. And if
you were to inspect folks and check them out and so forth, give
them documentation, make an opportunity to come here legally,
you would have more port of entry entrants that you would know
was here.
Mr. Souder. I am not necessarily disagreeing with the guest
worker or changes in numbers, what I am trying to establish is
that we will never have, nor will we ever agree to completely
open borders.
Rev. Hoover. Sir, a border exists, our question before us,
even when we named our organization is we have a border, the
question is how do we make it humane.
Mr. Souder. Would you support then if someone had a guest
worker privilege and they overstayed it, immediate deportation,
tough penalties if they came back?
Rev. Hoover. I fully believe that someone needs to probably
have a little grace period, but yes, you go home. A tremendous
number of the folks who are here are folks who have overstayed
and from other places other than Mexico.
Mr. Souder. My point being is that would that person then
not go through the port of entry the next time?
Rev. Hoover. It all depends. There are so many variables in
that scenario.
Mr. Souder. I believe with modifications of immigration
strategy, we can have some percentage, higher percentage moving
through the port of entry, but I do not think it is realistic
to think that only drug felons or others would be moving in the
illegal zones. We are always going to have to have a Border
Patrol presence that is fairly substantial.
Rev. Hoover. Yes, sir, I just think this changes the ratio
and changes the assumptions of what is happening in the desert,
if we could get a lot of the migration back to the ports of
entry.
Mr. Souder. One last question. When you put water or other
outposts in land, do you check with the landowner whether
that--do you just do this unilaterally?
Rev. Hoover. We operate under Federal permits in Cabeza
Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
operated Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, we do so under
permits. We provide insurance for these activities, it is at no
cost to the organization. In fact, the land managers are
interested in our presence there because in their absence to
control the migration, they can at least manage some of the
effects on their property. So we are here at the invitation.
Mr. Souder. So you are permitted.
Rev. Hoover. Yes, sir.
Mr. Souder. And similarly on Tohono O'odham?
Rev. Hoover. We have no water stations on this Nation's
land.
Mr. Souder. What about on anybody's private land?
Rev. Hoover. [Shakes head.]
Mr. Souder. So the only places you do this are where you
are permitted?
Rev. Hoover. We are on Federal property, we are on one
county's property and we are on about 11 private locations.
They are all very strategic and remote--strategically located,
very remote situations.
Mr. Souder. In the Border Action Network, Ms. Allen, do you
support any limitations on immigration?
Ms. Allen. We support immigration policies that incorporate
root causes of immigration, which then reflect the economic
needs within this country and also reflect the economic push
factors within Mexico. So in that sense--that is what we
believe should be the basis of immigration flow. And right now,
they are devoid of understanding the economic push.
Mr. Souder. So you do not believe immigration standards
should be based on U.S. needs or requirements, you believe they
ought to be international?
Ms. Allen. Within the U.S. economy, we believe that
immigration policy should be much more formed around the
recognition of the dependency on immigration, of immigrant
labor and that there is also----
Mr. Souder. Well, I understand that, my question was more
precise. Let us say if our unemployment rate is low and there
is a big push back for coming to the United States, that is one
thing, but what if our unemployment has stayed stable for 5
years and Mexico's economy has a problem. Are you saying we
should adjust our immigration strategy based on their economy
too, because I heard you say it should be on the whole push and
pull.
Ms. Allen. I think part of our concern is that we close off
the border or say that we do not want X number of Mexicans or
only--set some limits, but those limits are outside, they do
not fit within the context of the impacts of globalization,
that part of the push of other immigrants from Mexico and
Central America is a direct result of our policies. So we are
pushing people out of their lands, but then sealing our border
and not providing people anywhere to go.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. Mr. Shadegg.
Mr. Shadegg. I want to begin, Mr. Hoover, with you. You
responded to the chairman's question by saying that you operate
under Federal permits and you cited a number of them. Could you
provide the committee with copies of those Federal permits?
Rev. Hoover. Yes, we can do that.
Mr. Shadegg. That would be greatly appreciated.
Rev. Hoover. May I respond to one thing. They changed over
time, the location. For instance, at Ironwood now, that
particular permit was negotiated with BLM, Department of
Justice, Department of Interior and has $10 million worth of
liability insurance--complex.
Mr. Shadegg. Is it safe to assume that each of these
permits specifically authorizes you to go out and place water
in these locations?
Rev. Hoover. That is correct.
Mr. Shadegg. Under a grant of authority and permission from
the Federal Government.
Rev. Hoover. The one exception is Cabeza Prieta National
Wildlife Refuge, that has some water on the land, and in those
locations, rather than us servicing those in the
environmentally sensitive areas, they have some existing
wildlife water locations that are marked with our 30 foot poles
and blue flags, equipment that we supply to them.
Mr. Shadegg. And it would be your testimony that you do not
go into any Federal lands, either in violation of Federal
environmental laws or without permit to go in and put the water
there.
Rev. Hoover. That is absolutely correct. In addition to
that, I would point out, since we have been looking at the
impacts on the land, volunteers from our organization have
probably removed over 200 cubic yards of trash this year.
Mr. Shadegg. I actually read in your written testimony it
was over 300 cubic yards of trash.
Rev. Hoover. I am from Texas.
Mr. Shadegg. And I compliment you--[laughter]--I hope you
remove as much as you can, it is a serious problem.
Some people would argue, and representatives of the Tribe
came to me when I was at Organ Pipe and said they are concerned
about the presence of water as a magnet drawing people and the
trash that is brought. So to the extent that you remove trash
as a complement to bringing water, I am certain that is an
appreciated factor.
With regard to your work on private land, your organization
does no work on private land without first obtaining
permission?
Rev. Hoover. Oh, absolutely. We have permission slips from
everybody.
Mr. Shadegg. OK. Could you provide the committee with a
copy of those as well, a copy of those permission slips?
Rev. Hoover. [Nods head.]
Mr. Shadegg. And the last one, you mention in your
testimony, at least--I know you modified your testimony, but in
your original submitted testimony, you mentioned a $25,000
contract from Pima County.
Rev. Hoover. Yes.
Mr. Shadegg. Can you tell me what that contract calls upon
your organization to do?
Rev. Hoover. During the time of that contract, it was to
identify sites, erect and maintain water stations in Pima
County. Actually it was not limited to Pima County, but
practically it was. They never specified that.
Mr. Shadegg. Well, they do not have the authority to grant
you permission----
Rev. Hoover. The whole justification there is to reduce to
very significant amount of cost to rehydrate people in the
University Medical Center, etc.
Mr. Shadegg. I understand that the ongoing activity of your
organization is to put water out for humane reasons so people
do not die.
Rev. Hoover. Yes.
Mr. Shadegg. At the same time, the rest of your testimony
was that we need to revise our policy to get people back to
ports of entry.
Rev. Hoover. We will support anything that will get people
out of the desert, so that there will be a lot less death out
here and less damage to our desert.
Mr. Shadegg. One question I wanted to ask, I think getting
people to go back to ports of entry and come into the country
under some sort of a legal framework is certainly a strategy
that, quite frankly, to me makes more sense than driving them
into remote area where they do environmental damage and die.
But to that point, has your organization taken any efforts to
deal with organized labor's opposition to any kind of a
structured process by which non-U.S. citizens can come into the
country and work?
Rev. Hoover. We have no systematic contacts with organized
labor. Of course, they have been in a change since January 2
years ago, of now choosing, wishing to represent undocumented
folks, etc. But we do not have any recent conversations with
labor.
Mr. Shadegg. Ms. Allen, I would like to ask you the same
question. One of the problems that those of us who believe the
guest worker program may be an appropriate way to address some
of these problems, is opposition by organized labor across the
country to any program that would allow guest workers in. As
you know, Governor Cole advocated the guest worker programs to
legalize or regularize the process by which people cross the
border.
Has your organization done anything to deal with that issue
or have you stayed away with that political opposition?
Ms. Allen. It is similar to Mr. Hoover, we have not had
structured conversations with labor groups around the issue.
Mr. Shadegg. So neither one of you has dealt with that
aspect of those problems?
Ms. Allen. No.
Rev. Hoover. Congressman Shadegg, let me mention one other
thing that is not evident anywhere else. Humane Borders and
U.S. Border Patrol are working significantly with officials in
Mexico to try to achieve consensus or efforts on their part to
reduce the number of people that are dying in our desert as
well; information programs, etc.
Mr. Shadegg. Colonel Anderson, let me turn to you. As I
indicated, I appreciate your testimony, it is helpful to me.
You heard--you were present and heard Mr. Aguilar testify,
basically a glowing picture about everything that is happening
east of Nogales. You have been retired and on the border for a
number of years. Can you give me information on whether you see
the problem getting better or getting worse?
Colonel Anderson. It is getting worse. I have right here,
this same committee back in 1999, April 27th, had a hearing I
believe it was--April 27th. And the person from Cochise County
at that time was a Gail Griffin, who was a legislator in the
House of Representatives in Arizona.
Mr. Shadegg. I know her.
Colonel Anderson. OK. And this was her testimony here. Last
night, she said, ``Will you please take this and give this to
the committee and say nothing has changed. I cannot change it,
it has just gotten worse.'' And in my briefcase are papers and
documents and everything else, some of it from the Border
Patrol, indicating that it is getting much worse.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put that
testimony into the record. I would also like the Colonel to at
least summarize it briefly.
Colonel Anderson. Basically it is everything I have said
but 4 years old. I have submitted testimony several times, I
merely had to update mine, and it has just gotten worse. It is
getting worse every day. Now these groups that are forming for
civil defense or protection of the border that some people
allege may be vigilantes or militia types, they are merely
reacting to the vacuum. They see nothing going their way and
they are very frustrated.
We are hopeful that someone will step in and make them not
necessary.
Mr. Shadegg. Is it your opinion that in reacting to the
vacuum, they are trying, nonetheless, to abide by existing laws
or is it your belief that they are operating outside the law?
Colonel Anderson. No, they are attempting in every way to
abide by existing laws. I have personally helped write the
concept paper for the Tombstone one that is called Civil
Homeland Defense Corps. What we did was we made sure that
everyone has to go, who volunteers to be a participant, must go
through a concealed weapons course, not to get weapons
training, but to be forced to go through an FBI background
check. Their purpose is to deter, not to arrest, not to
apprehend. That is not the purpose of that particular group.
Another group seems merely to document, to provide you
information, problem the American public information of what is
going on that may not be reported properly.
Another group is from Texas called Ranch Rescue, that is a
different group, they have been a little more aggressive. Now
we do not affiliate with them whatsoever.
But there is a fourth group, I received message traffic, a
fourth group is asking to startup also in a similar vein.
Now this is getting worse and worse and worse, it is not
getting better.
I would like to add, if I could, one thing--you mentioned
the guest worker program, in reviewing the data, many of us
down there tried to figure out what to do in that regard and
what we have done is talk to those American business people or
citizens who for some reason uniquely work in Mexico. They are
guest workers in Mexico. A typical case would be a veterinarian
who takes care of the cattle problem on one side or the other.
We asked him to bring his stuff and there are programs called
FM-2 and FM-3 sanctioned by the Mexican government, that they
use for American citizens or others to go to be guest workers
in Mexico. I would submit that the committee might want to pull
this data, review those documents and those procedures and
methodologies and that would be a very good turnaround as a
fair play way to do business, because the documentation is
rather severe, but it does work and that might be the way to go
about things.
Mr. Shadegg. Ms. Salcido and Mr. Toro, I want to thank you
for your testimony, it is precisely what I hoped to get into
the record to document the deep concern of the people of the
Tohono O'odham Nation with regard to drug problems. It seems to
me that is a grave concern and a legitimate concern and an
obligation of the Federal Government to participate in that.
Do you see--when you say that--Ms. Salcido, in your
testimony, children as young as 8 and 9 years old that are
recruited to watch for law enforcement agents and then paid in
drugs, do you see those children then using the drugs or is it
that those drugs are in quantities that they become sellers of
the drugs? And is this a growing problem or is it sort of an
episodic thing that is not as significant?
Ms. Salcido. It is steadily growing. They are users, but
they also become sellers. And it has hit our schools, which
affect the other children, who would have to say no. We are
trying very hard with our children to say no to drugs.
But it is getting worse, and I just feel that most likely
what happens when you put the fence in the Organ Pipe, it is
going to filter through. Again, Meneger's is right there, we
are going to get hit first. The same thing as on the other side
of Organ Pipe, they are going to get hit also, because--you
indicated you had toured the area, well we are on the other
side, east of there. And we are just in harm's way, and as I
say, it is a hop, skip and jump from where we are at.
It is a corridor and it is an area where we just, as of
last night, 500 immigration people, IAs came through. Well, we
do not know how many of those 500 were carrying guns, we are
not aware of what is happening in the desert area, we are 15
miles from Gu Vo District's border and the Mexican border and
that 15 miles is saying that we are the ones that are going to
get hit first, along with the other district.
We are one of three the chairman referred to that we wanted
the gates open so we can have members go in and out for
ceremony purposes. But we have now come to say no, we do not
want it no more. Why? Because it is damaging not only the land,
not only the desert land, it is damaging our lives by our
children being utilized to be able to be scouts basically for
them, not knowing any better. They use the concept of
threatening your family, threatening your life. Again, to an 8
or 9 year old, when $100 is given to them, that is a lot of
money.
And we are very concerned, if you are going to put a fence
up, put it all the way. If you are going to help us to do
anything, with all these things that are happening, you know,
put some funding in the area that we need it. We can talk about
all the things that are coming up, well the safety of the
United States and inner America, you know, we are the first
ones to get hit and it makes us feel like we are second class
citizens and it makes us feel like we are expendable. And that
is not right, because we are citizens of these United States,
even though we were here first, but we try to cooperate, we try
to utilize all the laws that would benefit not only our people
but also the rest of the United States.
Mr. Shadegg. My last question, you may have heard me relate
earlier that when I was at Cactus Pipe--Organ Pipe National
Monument, I was told a story about a woman whose daughter I
gathered was in her teen years, late teen, early 20's, had a
friend who, for no explicable reason, had acquired a very
expensive automobile and her mother cautioned her that she
suspected that was as a result of her involvement in drug
activity. Have you heard of other incidents, does that sound
familiar, is that a believable story, is that a recurring theme
that you see here?
Ms. Salcido. Yes, it is. There are a lot more stories out
there that you have not even heard. Five minutes of testimony
just does not do it justice, to give information that you need
to know.
Mr. Shadegg. No.
Ms. Salcido. There are a lot of things like people who come
through, who use sophisticated--the drug cartels use
sophisticated communications equipment. And I would use myself
as an example. I was home before I got this job, staying home,
close to the border and all the runners coming through, I would
report suspicious vehicles coming through or heavy looking
suspicious vehicles.
When they finally determined that it was me, they came to
me and said we know you are the one that is telling. Why do
they know that? Because a load came in with no lights, no
nothing and it was dark, a dark vehicle, no moonlight, no
nothing. It passed by, I happened to have gone outside at that
time and saw this. I called. Well, they found out--they had
that sophisticated communications equipment and said we heard
you. Well, how did you hear me, it was a telephone call, it was
in my house and my house is a traditional home which is about a
foot of mud, you know. It is not concrete or whatever. But you
cannot hear that. The only way you can do that is scanning.
They have all these things that they utilize.
One of things that we are really scared about, another
thing, was the drug war--not the drug war, but horses coming in
with hoof and mouth disease and all these other--chemical
warfare, I should say, that are coming through too. That is
scary because of our animals. We live by--some of our ranchers
live by their cattle. Those are some of the things that we are
afraid of that is going to happen. And we are the last ones to
be able to receive any kind of funding to ensure that it would
close off any activity that comes through.
The Police Department has testified to you concerning
things that they are encountering in that area. We have done
the same thing just outside of Meneger's, which is about a
quarter of a mile from there, a large ditch that the water runs
through. If you go any time throughout the day into that area,
you will see backpacks, beds, anything that the IAs bring
across for sleeping or to eat or whatever. They kind of set up
places there and the trash that they accumulate there.
Those are some of the things that we have to deal with. The
vehicles that they come in and abandon in the different areas,
the bikes, the all terrain vehicles, you name it, it is there.
We also have had airplane incursions that have come across
and also with the situation I indicated in my testimony, it is
in the military. And it is very scary when things like that
happen to people who just live there. The children are not
playing out there, the mothers cannot allow their children out
in their front yard. We have to be worried to do that, because
of all the gunfires that happen.
Meneger's is a paved road, it is not in very good condition
now, but it is paved so you can drive it. It is the closest to
the border, it is accessible where there is no--they are
available, the police officers or even the drug people, the
narcs we call them, are stationed all over the place, but it is
like they have to be stationed in a mountain area to see the
valley area and also it takes awhile to come down. It is not
something--you can see from it far away, but it takes awhile to
come down, when we talk about the roads there at the border.
They climb the mountain and they sit there and they watch. But
we do not have the surveillance everywhere that everyone else
has.
Fencing the area you talked about, they are open, they come
right through. There are a lot of things that I could tell you.
Mr. Shadegg. You are an eloquent spokesman and you have
done a fine job of adding to that 5 minutes. We very, very much
appreciate the information.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Anderson, I had a question about these
different groups and certainly--I mean I understand the
frustration that people have. One of the things that--and
certainly there are neighborhood watches all over America to
protect neighborhoods. The question is it is a fine line and it
is legal to own a gun and it is in an organized effort where it
is public, you are able to do these kind of watches.
But what we have seen--most of the Democratic members of
this committee represent major metro areas. Elijah Cummings,
who is the ranking Democrat represents inner-city Baltimore
where drug dealers torched the home of the Dawson family
burning the mom and the five kids inside, who were--I guess she
had reported the drug dealers. It happens multiple times. Danny
Davis, who is on this committee, represents the south side of
Chicago. One of the things that has happened there is gangs
have grown up to provide protection and has run into additional
problems.
We have also seen, and we are dealing with this right now
on the Columbia. Understanding the motivation, but how do you
not have this slide into chaos?
Colonel Anderson. Well, I cannot answer that question, no
one can. What we can say is that given the vacuum, given the
failure of agencies at all levels, from Federal to local, to
step in the breach and solve the problem, the citizenry on its
own has deemed it necessary for their own safety and well-
being, to do something. Now so far--and I anticipate--I would
like to say I would anticipate that in the future there will
not be a problem and there has not been. They have not shot
anybody, have not done anything and I do not believe that is
going to happen. But it does allow for an accident, an
unintended consequence. All of those things can happen.
Recently, we had a representative, House Majority Leader
Randy Graff, has introduced into the House a proposal, it will
probably come again next year, to have a volunteer type of
group like that under the auspices of the Arizona DPS,
Department of Public Safety, Highway Patrol, to bring all these
groups together and give them ``some adult leadership'' and I
strongly recommend that is the way to go. There are those that
do not want to have that because they do not want to have
anything to do with these things, but if you do nothing, the
vacuum will attract something and you may not like what it
attracts.
So you spoke earlier, 5 years, things will get better. We
do not have 5 years, we really do not. It is getting worse and
worse. And these groups are an outgrowth of that. We can fix it
or we can stand around and wait for it to happen. We prefer of
course that we do not do that.
Each one of these groups right now has no intention
whatsoever of doing anything illegal. That is my view of the
ones that I know of. I cannot speak for other States or
anything else. But we watch it very carefully. I am not a
member of one of the groups, but I do watch them because I have
seen this coming, I spent all my life overseas mostly be it
South America or the Far East or the Middle East, Egypt or any
place else, and these things can get out of control if the
government does not do its job. And that is what we have here.
Mr. Souder. Rev. Hoover, I am just kind of curious, I know
that you view as part of your religious calling to help those
who are potentially in distress. Do you also do things to
encourage them to follow the law?
Rev. Hoover. Well, we----
Mr. Souder. Or do you believe in effect it is an unjust
law, therefore, it does not need to be followed?
Rev. Hoover. I do not think that is the issue. The issue
right here is to rescue, which means to remove from imminent
peril, and the people are in peril in our desert precisely
because we have incrementally moved the migration farther and
farther. The assumption from INS was that they would not make
the desert trek, I was told it is an unintended consequence. I
said yes, it is deadly, we are going to try to do something
about it in our neighborhood.
Mr. Souder. Will you also speak out for enforcement of the
laws?
Rev. Hoover. I think that was in my opening remarks, that
we are also speaking out clearly for Mexico to accept
responsibility for allowing these--you know, you go over here
and you interview a 15 year old Mayan beauty queen who thinks
she is going to be in Las Vegas in 2 hours and that is wrong.
And the country of Mexico has a moral obligation to inform its
people what they are about to encounter.
Mr. Souder. Have you ever done anything at the border to
help warn people coming across, do you have people posted who
would say look, do not come?
Rev. Hoover. Sir, I have met with six Cabinet officers of
the government in Mexico City, I meet with officials down here,
spoke with the Under Secretary of Foreign Relations who was in
Tucson Thursday night, with the Ambassador, who is over all the
consulates. I am working feverishly to try to reduce--to
produce migrant safety.
Mr. Souder. I also want to thank the witnesses from the
Tohono O'odham because it was very specific information. Do you
believe, Mr. Toro, that if you had protection and more Border
Patrol, that you in fact would have a reduction in people going
through your ranch and immediate area?
Mr. Toro. Definitely. The concern right now is that there
is not enough Border Patrol agents out there to cover the whole
Nation. On our outfit there, in the past, illegal immigrants
have come walking through our ranch area requesting food and
water and for the most part, we have not denied them any food
or water, but it becomes tedious at times when they get word
back to other immigrants on the southside saying we know a
place north of the border that will give you food and what-not,
but then it also burdens our family with the budget, because we
are not a rich farm, we are not there to feed--we will
definitely give them water.
Just last Sunday before I left the ranch, I left about 3
p.m., and my sister had told me that shortly after I left there
was 17 vehicles came up behind me carrying immigrants also. So
yes, more agents would probably deter the immigrant issue
coming north of the boundary.
Mr. Souder. Well, I thank each of you for your testimony.
Mr. Shadegg. Based on your questioning of Mr. Hoover, I
just wanted to--with regard to enforcement of the law, Mr.
Hoover, do you occasionally come upon undocumented aliens
crossing the desert when you are putting out your water?
Rev. Hoover. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shadegg. And when you do, do you advise the Border
Patrol?
Rev. Hoover. Not every time. Most of the time it turns out
that way. If we encounter someone that has come out to the
road, they are actually looking for help usually. Now there
have been occasions when we have found folks and said do you
know what you are doing, do you know where you are, etc. Yes,
we do. Well, OK, be careful because they may kill you. But
Border Patrol agents will confirm that we have called in dozens
of times and effected a number of rescues, including medical
rescues from the desert. It is not our job to enforce----
Mr. Shadegg. Right. But as I understand your question, if
they are looking to be rescued, you advise the Border Patrol.
Rev. Hoover. Absolutely.
Mr. Shadegg. If they are not looking to be rescued, they
are looking to get on in----
Rev. Hoover. On in is a relative concept out here, so we
ask them do you have water, do you need some food, do you have
any clue where you are. I have talked to people that were
rescued, oh well, we are going this way 3 hours and we will be
in Phoenix. No, sir, you will not. I will get the map out and
say you are right here, you are only--how long you been
walking, so forth. So we call Border Patrol.
But that is a negotiated kind of a thing. I want to make
sure that they have some concept of who they are, where they
are, what is going on. We will not make any phone calls, we
will not transport anyone, we have never done that. But we do
not notify every contact that we have. Most of the time when we
encounter somebody on the road though, they are looking for
help.
Mr. Shadegg. I appreciate your candor.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. And there are no easy answers to the
border questions and the numbers are in dispute. I do feel it
is important to state on the record that it is indisputable
that as a whole, we have made progress on the border and we
have made progress on the narcotics question. That does not
account for specific zones. It is clear when we address some
progress in some zones, it moves to other zones and our
responsibility as the Federal Government is then to back up. If
we switch more pressure in some zones, it is also our
responsibility to have a responsible enforcement legal system.
At the same time, it is our obligation to enforce the law.
We have seen a reduction nationwide in drug use, it is
fairly significant and it is becoming consistent, that means
less is coming in. We have seen crime rates drop in some areas
and when you look at the border as a whole, we have made
progress.
We have, probably due to rising unemployment in the United
States, seen some drop in the--do not assume that everything
you have just seen is the only way we have to count people who
are coming across. Sometimes, bluntly put, the word of mouth is
less accurate than the counters when you move through like
WalMarts or others and some of those are mobile. I believe we
have made some progress but I believe there are huge gaping
holes, many of those gaping holes are in Arizona.
If you are in a home that is being overrun with bullets
going around, I can understand you are tremendously unhappy.
Same thing with the ranchers and we will continue to try to
address it in as fair a way as possible. But there are tens of
thousands of people in other parts of the United States who
also are endangered nightly because of the drug traffic,
because of the crime in their neighborhoods and it is a balance
that we have to do as far as resources. People want roads,
people want prescription drugs, people want to make sure we are
secure of terrorism and we are doing the best we can.
I came down here today to hear first-hand the pressures.
There are obviously intense disagreements on how to handle this
in Arizona inside the different areas themselves, difficult
policy questions on wilderness areas, non-wilderness areas. The
unions in my district, I have a very heavily unionized
district, hate the concept of visa or work permits. It drives
down the wage rates for the union groups, there is no question.
On the other hand, the manufacturers in my district are
desperate to have the labor, if they need the labor, in order
to keep the companies competitive in the United States. That
puts tremendous pressure on your homes and your families in the
midwest and we have to come up with equitable ways.
And one of the ways to do that is to listen to each other,
try to talk it through and come to as fair and just solutions
as we can and spare as many lives as possible. And today, your
testimony is helping us do that.
And with that, we appreciate everyone who has been in
attendance as well. The hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7703.102