<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:43519.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-1018
THE SOUTHERN BORDER IN CRISIS: RESOURCES AND STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE
NATIONAL SECURITY
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY AND CITIZENSHIP
and
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, TECHNOLOGY AND HOMELAND SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 7, 2005
__________
Serial No. J-109-24
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-519 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
David Brog, Staff Director
Michael O'Neill, Chief Counsel
Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship
JOHN CORNYN, Texas, Chairman
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
James Ho, Majority Chief Counsel
Jim Flug, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security
JON KYL, Arizona, Chairman
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JOHN CORNYN, Texas JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
Stephen Higgins, Majority Chief Counsel
Steven Cash, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas........ 3
prepared statement........................................... 57
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of
California, prepared statement................................. 59
Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona.......... 1
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Massachusetts, prepared statement.............................. 70
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont,
prepared statement............................................. 71
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama.... 21
WITNESSES
Aguilar, David, Chief, Office of Border Patrol, Customs and
Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Washington,
D.C............................................................ 5
Lee, Wesley, Acting Director of Detention and Removal Operations,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland
Security, Washington, D.C...................................... 7
Verdery, C. Stewart, Jr., Principal, Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti,
Inc., and Adjunct Fellow, Center for Strategic and
International Studies, Washington, D.C......................... 9
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of David Aguilar to questions submitted by Senator
Sessions....................................................... 40
(Note: Responses to questions submitted to Wesley Lee by Senator
Sessions were not available at the time of printing.)
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Aguilar, David, Chief, Office of Border Patrol, Customs and
Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Washington,
D.C, prepared statement........................................ 50
Lee, Wesley, Acting Director of Detention and Removal Operations,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland
Security, Washington, D.C., prepared statement................. 72
Verdery, C. Stewart, Jr., Principal, Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti,
Inc., and Adjunct Fellow, Center for Strategic and
International Studies, Washington, D.C., prepared statement.... 78
THE SOUTHERN BORDER IN CRISIS: RESOURCES AND STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE
NATIONAL SECURITY
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2005
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and
Citizenship, and the Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Technology and Homeland Security, of the
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittees met jointly, pursuant to notice, at 2:30
p.m., in Room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jon
Kyl (Chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and
Homeland Security) presiding.
Present: Senators Kyl, Cornyn, and Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ARIZONA
Chairman Kyl. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This
hearing of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on--well, we
have two Subcommittees, one on Terrorism, Technology and
Homeland Security, which I chair, and on Immigration, Border
Security and Citizenship, which Senator Cornyn chairs.
As has been our practice of late, we are going to be
conducting this hearing jointly with both of these
Subcommittees since the subject matter of the hearing, ``The
Southern Border in Crisis: Resources and Strategies to Improve
National Security,'' clearly falls within the ambit of both of
our concerns. This hearing continues, as I say, a series of
hearings that we both conducted on this general subject.
We are going to be talking today specifically about the
widespread concern that most of us share about persons who
threaten our national security and their ability to take
advantage of the chaotic condition at our border with Mexico
and enter the United States and stay in the United States
illegally.
The hearing will also examine what resources the Department
of Homeland Security may need to bring the Southern border
under control so that terrorists and criminals are prevented
from coming here and staying here.
Let me say at the outset that Senator Feinstein, who is the
Ranking Member of the Terrorism Subcommittee, which I chair, is
on the Intelligence Committee. They have a hearing that
absolutely conflicted with this today. We tried everything to
work out a way to resolve it. If at all possible, she will be
here. But if she cannot be here, of course, her statement will
be put in the record as well as any questions that she may have
for the witnesses.
As many of you know who have followed my Subcommittee over
the years--I should say our Subcommittee, because Senator
Feinstein and I have worked in a really great bipartisan way on
these issues and others, as well, and the fact that she is not
here today, I know is not an expression of a lack of interest
on her part but simply the fact that, as frequently is the
case, we have to be in about four places all at the same time.
So I know that she will continue to work with me and I am sure
that Senator Kennedy will do the same with Senator Cornyn.
I am very pleased that we are going to combine two panels
into one here today, with the permission of the panelists, and
I think that works very well because of who is here. Our
distinguished witnesses include David Aguilar, who has been
before us, I think at least twice, offering valuable insights
about the border. He is the Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol and
we appreciate, Chief, your being with us here again today.
Wesley J. Lee, who is the Acting Director of the Office of
Detention and Removal for the U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, all of these acronyms, we will probably just say
ICE from here on in, but that is, of course, within the
Department of Homeland Security and we are very appreciative of
your being here. Congratulations on your assignment to that
post, Mr. Lee.
And Stewart Verdery, who is going to join this panel
instead of being on a panel all by himself, served with
distinction as the Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning
at DHS's Border and Transportation Security, is now a principal
at Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti, Inc., and will be able to also
offer insights into our subject today, and we appreciate your
written statement, Mr. Verdery. It is a very thoughtful piece
and I appreciate that.
Just to make a couple of preliminary comments here that
help to set the stage for what we are talking about today,
those of us who represent States along the border have long
been concerned not only with the other aspects of the people
who cross our border illegally, but also the potential for
terrorists to smuggle themselves across the border. And this is
a concern that has been shared by senior Department officials.
For example, on February 16 of this year, the former DHS
Deputy Secretary Loy advised the Senate Intelligence Committee
that, and I am quoting now, ``that our recent information from
ongoing investigations, detentions, and emerging threat streams
strongly suggests that al Qaeda has considered using the
Southwest border to infiltrate the United States. Several al
Qaeda leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the
country through Mexico and also believe that illegal entry is
more advantageous than legal entry for operational security
reasons.''
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice later commented that,
and I am quoting again, ``we have, from time to time, had
reports about al Qaeda trying to use our Southern border. It is
no secret that al Qaeda will try to get into this country by
any means they possibly can. That is how they managed to do it
before, and they will do everything they can to cross the
borders.''
I would note also that it is no longer possible for us to
say that we are not aware of any situation in which a terrorist
has crossed the Southern border because we now are.
And despite the concerns that have been expressed here and
by many of us over the past several months, our government, we
contend, has still not committed the resources necessary to
secure the border, a fundamental task, of course, or
responsibility of the United States Government. And as a
result, our Southern border is in chaos, thousands of illegal
aliens crossing into the United States each week.
Many of these aliens, incidentally, are not from Mexico,
but they come from countries all over the world, usually flying
into Mexico and then sneaking across the border on front. Many
don't have authentic identity documents. Many don't carry
documents at all. We don't even know who many of them are. We
do not know whether they intend to simply find work or whether
they plan to engage in acts of terror in the United States, or
are here to commit crimes in our society.
This hearing is devoted in part to exploring what
strategies DHS has in place to deal with these third-country
nationals who are referred to as the ``other than Mexicans,''
or OTMs. It is my understanding that the Department continues
to engage in the practice of releasing OTMs into the United
States because it lacks the detention facilities to hold them,
and we need to know precisely what resources DHS needs to bring
an end to that practice, which we believe is a great hazard to
our national security and public safety.
And we want to know what, if anything, the Mexican
government is doing to assist the United States in deterring
the flow of these OTMs across our common border. I think many
Americans have been surprised by the negative quality of recent
statements of highly placed Mexican officials who appear at
least to me to disparage our concerns about unchecked
immigration at the border.
These and many other issues, including the expedited
removal procedures and other resource issues, we will be
getting into in this hearing, and as I say, we have an
excellent panel to provide information to us in that regard.
Before we turn to the panel, let me turn to my Co-Chairman,
Senator Cornyn from Texas.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF TEXAS
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Senator Kyl, and I appreciate
the opportunity to Co-Chair another one of these important
series of hearings that we have been having leading to what I
know we both hope will be comprehensive immigration reform in
this Congress.
Senator Kyl and I have been working, along with our
colleagues, the Ranking Member of the Immigration Subcommittee,
Senator Kennedy, the Ranking Member of the Terrorism
Subcommittee, Senator Feinstein, to try to develop information
that we think will be useful, indeed essential, for members of
the Senate to have, of this Congress to have, as we try to
attack these problems.
We are, I think it is fair to say, conducting a top-to-
bottom, or maybe I should say bottom-to-top, review of the
nation's border security and enforcement efforts. That review
has provided important information that we have already used to
draft at least Title I of the comprehensive immigration reform
bill that Senator Kyl and I will coauthor and will drop in its
entirety later this month. I look forward to continuing the
work in this area as we move forward toward crafting that
comprehensive immigration reform bill.
As we have said before and we will say again, our
immigration and border security system is badly broken and has
suffered from years of neglect. This leaves our borders
unprotected, threatens our national security, and makes a
mockery of the rule of law. We cannot continue to ignore our
border security or at least fail to provide the resources
necessary to let our hard-working men and women who are given
that assignment and who have graciously accepted it to be
successful, and it is going to take additional resources and
additional commitment by the Congress to give them what they
need in order to do the job we have asked them to do.
Today's hearing will illustrate the national security
threat posed by aliens from countries other than Mexico, as
Senator Kyl has said. In my State, which has 65 percent of our
nation's common border with Mexico, we have seen a tremendous
increase in the number of arrests of other-than-Mexican aliens.
In fact, a majority of this year's OTM apprehensions have
occurred in the Texas sectors. This year, the Border Patrol has
apprehended approximately 96,000 OTMs. Ninety percent of these
arrests have occurred at the Southwest border. And of the
Southwest border arrests, more than 76,000 have occurred in the
Texas sectors.
To make matters worse, as we have noted, because of lack of
adequate detention facilities, the vast majority of these OTMs
are simply given a notice to appear and released into our
country. Obviously, the majority of them melt into the
landscape and are never heard from again. Whether it is in
Texas, Arizona, or California, or anywhere else in this
country, this state of affairs is unacceptable and needs to
change.
Senator Kyl has already mentioned the testimony of Admiral
Loy, the Deputy Homeland Security Secretary, suggesting that
the same routes available for economic immigrants are available
for those who might want to come here to do us harm. And I will
say from my travels on this most recent recess to the Balkans
Peninsula, we have heard from our intelligence and national
security personnel stationed in other parts of the world that
they are very much concerned about the ability of aliens to
transit, for example, in Turkey, to get into places like
Greece, to then transit into the European Union, and then to
smuggle themselves, with the aid of professional smugglers,
into Mexico and thence into the United States. This is not just
some pipe dream. This is not some fantasy. This is reality.
That potential is there, and, in fact, those routes of travel
are available for people who do want to do us harm.
And it is also important, in conclusion, to remember that
the people who are engaged in human smuggling do so for money,
the same reason that people who smuggle illegal drugs, who
traffick in persons, and who would provide a means of ingress
into this country for terrorists, they do so for money. They
are, in essence, criminals who are looking to make a profit.
So the same way that people who want to come here to work
come into the country illegally, that avenue is available for
people who want to come here to do us harm. We simply need to
get control of the situation, and that is the goal of our
hearings and of the legislation that Senator Kyl and I will
file later on this month.
But I want to say thanks again to the panel, again to Chief
Aguilar for his repeat performance here, and Mr. Lee and Mr.
Verdery. Thank you for being here with us.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Kyl. Thank you, Senator Cornyn.
Let me again thank our administration witnesses for
agreeing to have a former administration witness on the panel
with you. I know you all have worked together and I appreciate
that spirit of cooperation.
What I would like to do is ask each of you to speak, and if
you could limit your comments to about five minutes, we would
appreciate that, and then we will simply begin our round of
questioning. Your full statements, of course, will be put in
the record.
For the audience, let me again introduce our panelists.
David Aguilar is Chief of the Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security. And,
by the way, I might say, the previous Tucson Sector Chief in
the State of Arizona.
Wesley Lee is Acting Director of Detention and Removal
Operations for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Department of Homeland Security.
And C. Stewart Verdery, Jr., is a principal of Mehlman
Vogel Castagnetti, Inc., and an Adjunct Fellow of the Center
for Strategic and International Studies here in Washington,
D.C., and former administration official, as I indicated
earlier.
With that, Chief Aguilar, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF DAVID AGUILAR, CHIEF, OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL,
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon, Chairman
Kyl and Chairman Cornyn. I am extremely pleased to be here this
afternoon to give testimony on Border Patrol operations and the
detention of other-than-Mexican aliens encountered, detained,
and arrested by the United States Border Patrol along our
nation's borders.
As you know, the Border Patrol operates exclusively between
the ports of entry, but very importantly, also conducts what we
refer to as in-depth enforcement operations in direct support
of border enforcement as it relates to securing our nation's
borders. Our agents conduct operations along our nation's
borders with Mexico and Canada, over 6,000 miles of our
Northern and Southern border, coastal, and Florida Gulf Coast
area also, along with Puerto Rico.
Our recently revised Border Patrol National Strategy has
six basic core elements to it: Securing the right combination
of personnel, technology, and infrastructure; improving
mobility and rapid response to quickly counter organized crime
organization shifts gives us the ability to act on tactical
intelligence; deploying defense in depth that makes full use of
interior checkpoints and enforcement operations designed to
deny illegal migration; partnerships--partnerships with other
law enforcement organizations to achieve our goals and
objectives; improving border awareness and intelligence; and
strengthening the headquarters command structure.
The revised national strategy provides the road map for our
organization's continued expansion efforts in bringing
operational control to our nation's borders. Our centralized
chain of command provides for a strategic application of
existing and, very importantly, future resources and provides
for the focused and long-term planning and evolution of our
strategy based on risk management, threats, and
vulnerabilities.
Our ability to focus efforts and resources magnifies the
effect of our resources. An excellent example of this is the
Arizona Border Control Initiative Phase 2, currently underway
in our Tucson and Yuma sectors in Arizona. Because of our
strategy, we were able to quickly identify and mobilize the
resources that were necessary that we felt to apply as quickly
as possible in Arizona. Two hundred Border Patrol agents were
temporarily detailed and are still there. We literally
doubled--more than doubled--the aerial platforms that were
necessary to conduct patrol operations in Arizona to 54. We are
currently in the process of permanently reassigning over 155
Border Patrol agents into Tucson and the Yuma sectors. Today as
we speak, during the ABCI time period, arrests are down by 21
percent. Air support, the number of flights are up by 250
percent--or 200 percent, excuse me, as compared to the year
before. Flight hours are up by over 250 percent.
Defense in depth, transportation hub, something that is
absolutely critical to our operations, Sky Harbor Airport in
Phoenix. We currently have control of that very important
transportation hub to the smuggling organizations. As we speak,
Senator, we apprehend less than one, on an average, less than
one illegal alien at Phoenix Sky Harbor on a daily basis. This
is not the picture that used to be there over two years ago. We
have expanded our operations into some of the Greyhound Bus
stations, Amtrak, and things of this nature, where our arrests
in the last two months have only numbered 1,000. Now, we will
continue to work on that to get those numbers down.
The Tohono O'odom Nation, arrests are down during the ABCI
time period by nine percent. Although this number is not
significant, the following number is. Sixty-one percent is the
number that calls from other agencies are down within the
Tohono O'odom Nation, to include the police department of the
Tohono O'odom Nation, based on illegal immigration calls. That
is significant.
Nationwide, fiscal year to date, the Border Patrol as a
whole has apprehended over 800,000 illegal aliens, interdicted
886,000 pounds of marijuana, and over 7,400 pounds of cocaine.
We have also arrested over 98,000 other than Mexicans. And as
of September of last year, we have arrested 94,748 criminal
aliens, identifying them by using the IDENT/IAFIS fully
integrated system that has worked out tremendously for us.
Our objective is nothing less than a border under
operational control. We recognize that the challenges that lie
ahead and the need for a comprehensive enforcement approach
needs to be comprehensive. Our national strategy gives us a
means by which to achieve our ambitious goal.
CBP Border Patrol is tasked with a very complex, sensitive,
and difficult job. The challenge is great, but it is also one
that our men and women face every day with vigilance,
dedication, and integrity as we work to strengthen national
security, protect our nation's borders, and our citizens.
The Border Patrol Customs and Border Protection and its men
and women are committed to assertively and aggressively expand
our operations and continue to build on our nation's security.
I thank the Subcommittee and look forward to any questions that
you might have of me.
Chairman Kyl. Thank you, Chief Aguilar. You were right on
the button here.
Could I just ask you to reiterate three numbers, and give
them to me from the time period. I am not sure I caught the
time period. You said that there had been 98,000 OTMs
apprehended since some--
Mr. Aguilar. This is the fiscal year, sir.
Chairman Kyl. During this fiscal year?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Chairman Kyl. Okay. And over 800,000 illegal immigrants
total apprehended this fiscal year?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir, 812,000.
Chairman Kyl. Eight-hundred-and-twelve thousand. And the
number of wanted criminals?
Mr. Aguilar. Ninety-four-thousand-seven-hundred-and-forty-
eight.
Chairman Kyl. Ninety-four-thousand-seven-hundred-and-forty-
eight. Those are all this fiscal year?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Chairman Kyl. Great.
Mr. Aguilar. That last figure is from September 1 of 2004,
so it is a month--
Chairman Kyl. So it is a month more.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes.
Chairman Kyl. Okay, great. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aguilar appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Kyl. Mr. Lee?
STATEMENT OF WESLEY LEE, ACTING DIRECTOR OF DETENTION AND
REMOVAL OPERATIONS, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Lee. Good afternoon, Chairman Kyl, Chairman Cornyn, and
distinguished members of the Committee. My name is Wesley Lee
and I am Acting Director of the Office of Detention and Removal
Operations for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It is
my privilege to appear before you today to discuss detention
and removal operations in the enforcement mission.
Detention and Removal Operations' core mission is the
apprehension, detention, and removal of removable aliens and
the management of a non-detained docket. DRO employs a number
of tools to accomplish this mission. One of these tools,
expedited removal, allows the Department of Homeland Security
to quickly remove certain aliens who are either seeking entry
or who have recently entered the U.S. illegally while ensuring
appropriate protection for aliens with a well-founded fear of
persecution.
But first, I would like to briefly share with you some
benchmark numbers that show the direction in which we are
moving and examples of initiatives we have implemented to
achieve better enforcement results.
In fiscal year 2004, the Office of Detention and Removal
Operations reached record levels in terms of removals, fugitive
alien apprehensions, and management of detention bed space.
Detention and Removal officers removed 160,000 aliens from the
United States, including 85,000 aliens with criminal records.
During fiscal year 2004, as of April 30, 2005, DRO removed over
75,500 aliens, including 45,000 criminal aliens. In addition,
during 2004, ICE had 16 fugitive operations teams deployed
across the country. These teams apprehended 11,000 fugitive
aliens with final orders of removal, a 62 percent increase from
the prior fiscal year. The year-to-date statistics for 2005
include apprehending over 7,784 fugitive aliens.
On September 13, 2004, the Department of Homeland Security
began implementing expedited removal on a limited basis between
ports of entry. This expanded expedited removal applies to
aliens who have no valid entry document or who have fraudulent
travel documents who are apprehended within 100 air miles of
the border and who cannot demonstrate that they have been
present in the United States for over 14 days following their
illegals entry.
Expanded expedited removal has primarily been directed
toward third-country nationals, nationals of a country other
than Mexico and Canada, and to certain Mexican and Canadian
nationals with criminal histories, involvement in alien
smuggling, or a history of repeat immigration violations. The
expanded ER authority has been implemented in the Tucson and
Laredo Border Patrol sectors. As of May 16, 2005, 8,452 aliens
had been placed in such ER proceedings, with 6,792 being
removed.
The use of expedited removal orders, which prohibits
reentry for a period of five years, can deter unlawful entry,
and it also makes it possible to pursue criminal convictions
against those aliens who continue to enter the United States in
violation of the law.
The most important benefit of the expedited removal process
is that it can accelerate the process of the inadmissible
aliens because aliens in ER are generally not entitled to a
hearing before an immigration judge nor are the aliens eligible
for release on bond. On average, the detention time for third-
country naturals in regular INA 240 removal proceedings takes
89 days, versus the ER average of 26 days for those third-
country nationals not claiming credible fear. The overall
length of stay for all expanded expedited removal cases is 32
days.
Expedited removal and detention can be excellent tools to
deter illegal migration, but they must be carefully managed
with the appropriate human resources and transportation
requirements. Mandatory detention ensures measurable progress
toward a 100 percent removal rate. Deterring future entries and
accelerating removal of aliens ordered removed will enhance
DHS's ability to secure the border and to focus its resources
on threats to public safety and national security.
Detention and Removal fully supports the principle of
expedited removal, as it can deter foreign nationals from
illegally entering the United States, ensures an expeditious
removal of those entering the United States illegally, and
reduces the growth of the absconder population. Expansion of
the expedited removal program across the entire Southwest
border would require a reallocation of DRO resources, including
bed space, removal costs, and personnel to manage the removal
of the increased number of aliens. The DHS immigration
enforcement mission--as the DHS immigration enforcement mission
evolves, it is imperative that DRO is positioned to assure
success.
In conclusion, the ability to detain aliens while
inadmissibility and identity is determined as well as to
quickly remove aliens without protection claims is a necessity
for national security and public safety. By aggressively
enforcing our immigration laws, we seek to deter criminal and
terrorist organizations who threaten our way of life, and we
seek to strengthen the legal immigration process for worthy
applicants.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee, for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of
the men and women of the Detention Removal Operations program.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Chairman Kyl. Thank you very much, Mr. Lee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lee appears as a submission
for the record.]
Chairman Kyl. In connection with your testimony, I want to
insert, and without objection will insert in the record at this
point, an article that was prepared by Jerry Camer, who is an
excellent reporter, has done some excellent reporting on this
subject generally that deals, among other things, with the
numbers from Brazil, which you referred to in your written
testimony, Mr. Lee, and which I found very helpful.
Mr. Verdery, let me just say, your written statement is so
lengthy and complete, if you need to take a few minutes beyond
five to summarize the contents, you are sure welcome to do it,
but I appreciate the written testimony.
STATEMENT OF C. STEWART VERDERY, JR., PRINCIPAL, MEHLMAN VOGEL
CASTAGNETTI, INC., AND ADJUNCT FELLOW, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND
INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Verdery. I will try to keep it around five minutes if I
can, Senator. Chairman Kyl, Chairman Cornyn, thank you for
having me back to the Committee to talk about critical issues
about securing our nation's borders. As you mentioned, I am a
principal at the consulting firm of Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti.
I am also an Adjunct Fellow at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies.
As Assistant Secretary for Border and Transportation
Security Policy until my resignation from Homeland Security in
March, I was responsible for policy development within BTS. Our
responsibilities covered immigration and visas, cargo security,
transportation security, law enforcement, and were carried out
in the field largely by ICE, by CDP, and by TSA.
I thank the Committee for its extremely important efforts
to support the Department during my tenure and I am very
pleased to be participating with my former colleagues and very
much appreciate their flexibility on having me join this panel
and not being a lone ranger afterwards. The accomplishments I
talk about here would not have been possible without their
leadership, as well as their other chain of command.
I am confident that the dissolution of INS and the
assumption of INS responsibilities by DHS two years ago has
fueled a great progress in fixing our immigration systems. From
deployment of US-VISIT and the biometric visa program, to a
valuable focus of our detention and removal systems on violent
criminal aliens, to the Arizona Border Control Initiative, to
significant reductions in the backlog in legal immigration
applications, DHS has brought new integrity to our immigration
systems.
It is now time to take the bold step of enacting a
legislative package to legalize employment opportunities for
the millions of undocumented workers who wish to remain in or
travel to the United States to work and to secure the border
against terrorists and criminals by deploying a new generation
of legal tools, enforcement resources, and international
cooperation at the border.
I will admit, when President Bush unveiled his immigration
principles in January of 2004, I was somewhat skeptical. There
were many commentators who presented the issue as a choice
between a new worker program and border security. But two years
in the trenches has convinced me that was wrong. It is the
passage of a properly developed and properly funded guest
worker program that will bring massive improvements to border
security and thus homeland security.
Following the footsteps of millions before them, hundreds
of thousands of undocumented aliens each year cross the border
illegally in search of work who present no risk of terrorism or
criminal activity. Border Patrol agents in the field, however,
have no way of differentiating between the individuals that
make up this flood of human migration and the small but crucial
number of terrorists or criminals that attempt to blend into
the masses. Providing those who want to work and have no prior
criminal or terrorism record a means to enter the country
legally through ports of entry will make it much more likely
that the Border Patrol will be able to locate and arrest
criminals and terrorists who will lose their cloak of
invisibility that the current situation offers.
Now, those who are skeptical of this argument have
understandable reasons for this view. For decades, enforcement
tools to combat illegal immigration have gone underutilized,
underfunded, or unsupported by the employer community, and
while DHS has made substantial progress in enforcing the
current regime, deploying a new guest worker program will take
significant new resources for border and employment
enforcement, for port of entry operations and facilities,
development and issuance of tamper-proof identification
documents, streamlining of legal regimes that adjudicate the
status of border crossers and undocumented aliens, and new
avenues of cooperation between the U.S. and Mexican
governments.
All of these enhancements to our current enforcement
posture should support a basic motto of any new legislation:
Deter and reward. Those who are seeking to enter our country to
work must be faced with the reality that crossing our borders
illegally or attempting to work without proper certifications
will be detected and punished with long-term consequences. In
contrast, those who follow the rules on applying to work and
pass a security check and cross the border legally through
ports of entry should be rewarded with employment and
retirement and travel privileges.
My written testimony discusses ten specific recommendations
I would make in this regard, and I will focus on three, and
these are all remarks: Expedited removal, US-VISIT, and our
relationship with Mexico.
As you know, September of 2004, DHS expanded authority to
place illegal migrants into expedited removal proceedings in
two Border Patrol sectors in Laredo and Tucson, and our prior
witnesses discussed how this works. It is a common sense means
of removing migrants who have no legal right to enter the U.S.
and deterring others from making the journey. It was not
possible to detain tens of thousands of aliens as they went
through an elaborate legal process, and most were served with
appearance orders and released into the interior of the United
States. Not surprisingly, a large percentage of them failed to
appear for their hearings and vanished into our towns and
communities.
The striking increase of the number of countries other than
Mexico that you mentioned in your statement, Senator Kyl and
Senator Cornyn, represents a massive new wave in migrants that
brings significant concerns that nationals from countries with
more terrorism activity than Mexico may be utilizing the
Southern border to enter the U.S. By utilizing ER to hold all
OTMs in ICE detention facilities, communities are spared that
risk of having OTMs not appear for their deportation
proceedings. As was mentioned, cutting the average length of
detention from approximately 90 days to 26 days is the type of
real reform we need.
ER will end the perception that we currently have a catch-
and-release policy, and it is time for ER to be expanded to all
Southern border sectors.
In terms of US-VISIT, the deployment to our vehicle lanes,
to hundreds of lanes at ports of entry and exit represents an
immense technical challenge. The country currently operations
with the prior generation border crossing cards that were not
designed for a biometric entry or exit check, and it makes
sense to me, as we build out the entry-exit facilities and we
are passing a temporary worker program, to utilize the
fingerprint and vetting systems at the heart of US-VISIT to
secure the new worker program. This would mean any applicant
would submit ten fingerprints, go through a full IDENT and
IAFIS check for terrorism and criminal history activity, and be
required to obtain a unique biometrically-enhanced travel
document that would also serve as an employment verification
tool at their place of employment. It would also require
Congress to fund US-VISIT aggressively, especially money
designed for facilities improvements at our ports of entry.
My written statement goes into many areas of cooperation I
would suggest with Mexico. I won't go into them here.
The basic other point I wanted to make is these proposals
address the machinery by which new entrants, legal and illegal,
should be handled. Of course, any new temporary worker program
also has to be structured to allow existing undocumented aliens
and workers to apply for employment. The security imperative
for this class of aliens is that they undergo a vetting before
they have continued employment in the U.S. for terrorism and
criminal ties. But I see no reason why the security check
cannot be conducted while the worker remains in the United
States.
We have made a great deal of progress in less than two
years to fix a broken immigration system. Building a system
based on the principles of deter and reward will bring us to
secure an effective border our economy needs and our security
demands. I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Kyl. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Verdery appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Kyl. All three statements are great, and I do want
to put in the record at this point opening statements by both
Senator Kennedy and Senator Feinstein, without objection.
For the benefit of folks that are not familiar with it,
perhaps--and Mr. Lee, you may be the best person to start this
off, but any of you can answer the question, I know--let us
assume that Border Patrol comes across a group of 20 people, or
a law enforcement entity calls Border Patrol and says, ``We
have 20 people here who claim to be illegal immigrants. Would
you please come get them.'' And so Border Patrol shows up, or
has these 20 people in custody, perhaps just one Border Patrol
agent, and let us say that you are 20 miles from a border town.
Now, let us further assume that, as it turns out, half of
these people are not from Mexico. They are OTMs. Let us further
assume that a couple of these people are from what you call
countries of interest, or countries of special interest, and
that intermingled in this group are a couple who have criminal
warrants out or a criminal background in the United States of
America. So you have got kind of the whole mix of folks
involved in this group of 20.
Now, what as a practical matter does the Border Patrol do
with these 20 people? Kind of take it from the time, and maybe,
Chief, you can start with, okay, now he has got these 20
people. They are all sitting on the ground. He has gotten them
a jug of water and so they are all having a drink of water now.
What does he do from that point? How do they get processed? How
do they get checked? How do they get separated out, those of
interest and not? How do they get returned to Mexico or not?
How is the determination made for those who are eligible for
expedited removal because they clearly have only been here a
week, let us say, and it is within 100 miles of the border.
So how does that all work for these different cohorts to
better understand exactly the issues? And let us further
stipulate that there is no detention space available anywhere
for the OTMs.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. Given that we have got a whole array
here of Mexican aliens, OTMs, special interest country aliens,
criminal aliens, things of that nature, I will run you through
the quick process on each one of them.
Basically, on the Mexican aliens that are apprehended, if
they are, in fact, eligible for voluntary departure, which
means that they have not committed a crime in the United
States, are not wanted or anything of that nature, then they
would be voluntarily returned, processed within a matter of
minutes for each one of them, eight to ten minutes per, and
they would be processed and returned back into Mexico.
Chairman Kyl. And the processing would include what?
Mr. Aguilar. The processing would include biometric
information, IDENT/IAFIS. We would run through those checks. We
would capture the information on our databases, which is in
force--
Chairman Kyl. Excuse me, that is ten fingerprints or--
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. IDENT/IAFIS is now a full ten set of
fingerprints that gives us the data check on any kind of
criminal background that may exist within those databases.
Chairman Kyl. And no criminal background on eight or nine
of these folks. Then what happens to them?
Mr. Aguilar. If they are Mexican aliens, then they are set
up for voluntary departure. The processing on that is pretty--
doesn't take a lot of time. Within ten, 15 minutes or so--
Chairman Kyl. And they are put in some kind of
transportation to the nearest border town?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. They are held for a very short
amount of time at the Border Patrol stations awaiting for
basically the buses or the vans to go back to the Mexican ports
of entry for return into Mexico.
Chairman Kyl. Got it. Now, let us say that the fingerprints
find that you have got somebody that is wanted on a criminal
charge, a felony charge in the United States. What happens to
that person?
Mr. Aguilar. At that point in time, we will make a
determination as to whether the authority that has a wants or
warrants on them will want to extradite or take custody of the
individuals. If they do, we will hand them over to that
authority for prosecutorial purposes. At that point, we will
also place a hold, an immigration hold on these people to
ensure that once they go through that prosecutorial process, at
the end of that process, we in DHS take them back into the
custody to continue with the administrative removal after
having served the time due to the prosecution of the criminal
wants or warrants.
Chairman Kyl. And that is going to require some detention
space for you all during the period of time before you transfer
them over to the jurisdiction that has the warrant.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. That will be a short amount of time.
Typically in those criminal wants or warrants cases, the
responding agency will be pretty timely in responding.
Detention and Removal does assist us with holding them
temporarily while we turn them over to those other prosecuting
agencies.
Chairman Kyl. Okay. Now, you have got some folks from, I
will just cite two countries. One of the countries, let us say,
is Brazil, a couple of folks from there, and a couple of folks
from Saudi Arabia. What happens there?
Mr. Aguilar. On the--let us start with the ones from
Brazil. From Brazil, since they are not a special interest
country, what we would do is again run them through all of our
databases to make sure that they are not criminally involved or
have any kind of nexus to terrorism, even though they are not
from a special interest country. We want to ensure that every
individual, regardless of where they are coming from, have no,
or pose no threat to the security of the United States.
After having verified that, then we will process them as
other than Mexicans. At this point, we will make a
determination as to whether, if ER is available to us, that
they will be placed into expedited removal--
Chairman Kyl. Now, ER or expedited removal is available
right now in how many sectors along the border?
Mr. Aguilar. Expedited removal for an OTM alien coming into
the country is available in Tucson and Laredo.
Chairman Kyl. Only two sectors out of how many?
Mr. Aguilar. It is out of 20 sectors.
Chairman Kyl. Okay.
Mr. Aguilar. Nine are along our Southwest border with
Mexico. In addition to that, Senator, it is important that I
point out that in the remaining sectors which are within the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is San Diego, Central,
and Yuma, we also have ER available to us if, in fact, that
Brazilian had previously been in the United States, had
previously been deported, and we can now--we used to be able to
reinstate. Now we can't, because of an adverse decision by the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. So specific to that grouping,
we can apply ER to that grouping. To where those people have
been formally deported in the past, we can now apply ER.
Chairman Kyl. Okay. So you haven't yet gotten to the person
of special interest, but let us say that the two Brazilians,
now, is Brazil a country that takes our aliens who are eligible
for this process?
Mr. Aguilar. For--
Chairman Kyl. For expedited removal?
Mr. Aguilar. Once they go into the expedited removal
process--maybe it is easier if I explain it this way, sir. Once
we place that person in expedited removal, the Border Patrol
agent makes a determination that that person is not going to be
claiming political asylum or has no credible fear, things of
that nature. At that point, we hand off the alien once he is
processed, he or she is processed, into Detention and Removal.
Once that alien is placed in expedited removal, they are
mandatory detention cases. In the case of Tucson and Laredo
currently, we are detaining 100 percent of the people that we
are placing in expedited removal.
Chairman Kyl. And it takes an average of about a month to
complete that process today. Now, before we get to the special
interest cases, again, what is the situation with regard to
countries that take aliens versus those who do not? Mr. Lee, do
you want to talk about that for a minute?
Mr. Lee. Yes. Most countries--
Chairman Kyl. Or easily take them.
Mr. Lee. Most countries do easily take their detainees
back. Some of them, not as soon as we would like, but they have
a process themselves. Some countries, you know, the nationals
that enter the United States are fairly large, so just the
presentation to the foreign government to interview their
national and issue a travel document is time consuming for
them. But most will issue travel documents. It is just a
process that you have to go through.
Of course, the ones that don't issue travel documents falls
under that decision that if we can't remove them, if we can't
remove them within 180 days, then we have to release them here
in the United States.
Chairman Kyl. Now, what does that mean, and how many
countries or how many cases are there--I am sorry, I am over my
five minutes. Let me just pursue this line of questioning and
then turn it over.
So now let us say you have got a country, and I don't want
to name a country, I think I can name one, but name one that it
is difficult for us to get to take aliens back.
Mr. Lee. I would name Vietnam.
Chairman Kyl. Okay.
Mr. Lee. In those cases, Vietnam won't take their nationals
back. On very rare instances, will they take their nationals
back.
Chairman Kyl. So you have this person in detention. You
have determined that the individual is Vietnamese, not here
with an asylum case at all, and it is a country that doesn't
easily take their folks back. So then what happens to the
individual?
Mr. Lee. We can detain up to 180 days after removal and
then if it is not reasonable that we are going to be able to
remove them, we have to release them.
Chairman Kyl. So you have to release them back into our
society?
Mr. Lee. That is right.
Chairman Kyl. Are they required to do anything, or are they
supposed to do anything?
Mr. Lee. We have reporting requirements that we can place
on them, but they can violate the reporting requirement, we can
take them back into custody, but then we will have to release
them again. There is--
Chairman Kyl. So as a practical matter, if a country
doesn't take their aliens back or their citizens back, these
people end up in our society and whether or not they ever
report is based upon their good faith?
Mr. Lee. Yes, that is true.
Chairman Kyl. Do you have any idea of how many countries or
how many people we are talking about per year in that category?
Mr. Lee. I don't have a number.
Chairman Kyl. If you don't, maybe you can get that for the
record.
Mr. Lee. I can.
Chairman Kyl. Are there several countries that are pretty
slow or reluctant to take their citizens back?
Mr. Lee. Well, there are four that we really can't remove
to at all, very limited basis--
Chairman Kyl. Can you name those countries?
Mr. Lee. We have Laos, we have Vietnam, we have Cuba that
we can't release to, and Cambodia. Cambodia is starting to take
back a little now. We are seeing some progress in that area.
But those are basically the ones.
Chairman Kyl. Okay. Now, let us go back, because we found
that there are two of these folks from--and I am not--any
particular country, I am just using for an example, but I
believe that Saudi Arabia is a country of special interest--
Mr. Lee. Yes, sir.
Chairman Kyl.--and if that is the case, what happens to,
let us say, two of these folks from Saudi Arabia? What happens
to them?
Mr. Aguilar. At the point of apprehension?
Chairman Kyl. Yes. You find out that they are from Saudi
Arabia one way or another. I guess the fair question is, how
might you find out if they are not really cooperative in
telling you?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. On the Saudi Arabians, on the OTMs
that we suspect to be from a country of special interest, we
would, of course, run them through all of our databases, all
our data checks and everything else that we have. In the cases
of special interest countries, we go the extra step, if you
will, to make sure that not only our systems checks but also
FBI, JTTF, the intelligence community to the degree possible is
running all these checks.
At that point, once we are satisfied--and that satisfaction
goes beyond just the database checks. It goes to the point to
where the officer making the detention has to be fully
satisfied that there is no threat to the United States. At that
point, we continue the processing and basically try and hold
them for removal from the United States, and that is a formal
removal process whereby we will process them and hand them over
to the Detention and Removal Office.
Chairman Kyl. So if the determination is made that they are
from a country of interest but that they themselves pose no
threat, they are turned over to Detention, and at that point,
the formal removal process is commenced, is that correct, Mr.
Lee?
Mr. Lee. That is correct.
Chairman Kyl. How many times does it occur that there is no
space for these folks?
Mr. Lee. For the special interest countries--we have got
about 2,500 beds that are discretionary beds right now. They
are full, but they are not filled with mandatory cases. So the
special interest cases, criminals, once we get to the criminal
area, anybody that has ties to terrorists will come into
detention and will remain in detention until, like these two
that really had no interest there, they will request a bond
determination. They will go in front of the IJ. They will
present their case. The immigration judge in a lot of cases
will either release on OR or grant small bonds.
Chairman Kyl. Now, what is your experience when they are
released on OR? How many folks show up?
Mr. Lee. It is not a good story. About 30 percent that are
released actually show up for a hearing, and about 85 percent
of those that show up for hearing actually show up if they are
ordered removed.
Chairman Kyl. Wait a minute. Say that again. I am sorry.
Mr. Lee. About 30 percent show up for a hearing. Of those
30 percent that show up for a hearing, about 85 percent of
those don't show up, they become absconders if they are ordered
removed.
Chairman Kyl. So there are two different steps along the
way. In the first instance, about 70 percent don't show up, and
then for those who have been ordered removed, again, a
percentage of them don't show up for removal. And these are
people from countries of interest?
Mr. Lee. These are just anybody that is released.
Chairman Kyl. All right. I was referring to these people
from countries of special interest, but you are giving me the
total figures from people who have been in detention. Okay.
And my last question here, with regard to those--when there
is no detention space available or you have to make room for a
higher-priority case, can you give us some idea of the order of
magnitude of the problem of lack of detention space and,
therefore, the resources that might be necessary for us to
ensure that there is adequate detention space?
Mr. Lee. Well, currently, like I say, currently, we have
about 2,500 discretionary beds. So those beds are filled with
OTM, non-criminal OTMs, really non-criminal cases. Most of
those 2,500 beds are in support of the Border Patrol. There are
a few of those beds that come from the airports through the
inspection process and are non-criminals, but the majority of
them right now support the Border Patrol. So if we get somebody
who is a higher priority, a non-criminal OTM will go to the
street.
Chairman Kyl. I am sorry?
Mr. Lee. A non-criminal OTM will go to the street if they
have somebody of a higher priority.
Chairman Kyl. Will go to the street, meaning--
Mr. Lee. They will be released.
Chairman Kyl. --released on their own recognizance, and a
high percentage of them don't show up then again, is that
correct?
Mr. Lee. That is right.
Chairman Kyl. Okay. I have taken more time than
appropriate. Go ahead, Senator Cornyn.
Chairman Cornyn. We earlier averted to the testimony of
Admiral Loy, Deputy Director of the Department of Homeland
Security, about the potential for terrorists to use the same
means to come into the country that are currently used by other
human smugglers and people who patronize those human smugglers.
I would like to ask, maybe starting with Chief Aguilar,
assume that a person from Iraq or Afghanistan is able to leave
that country, those countries and make their way, let us say,
to Turkey, connect with a human smuggler of some kind, and then
transit to, let us say, over to the Balkans Peninsula and then
over, let us say, over to Italy, part of the European Union,
and then obtain false identification indicating that they are a
member of one of the countries--they are a citizen of one of
the countries in the European Union, and they are then, by
virtue of the human smuggler, they are then transited, let us
say, to Mexico and then attempt to make their way into the
United States.
When you apprehend that person and they have, let us say,
what appear to be on their face documents which designate them
as, let us say, an Italian citizen or some other member state
of the European Union, how would you identify them? Would they
be, even though they come from Afghanistan or Iraq, would they
be designated as a person who comes from a country of special
interest or not?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir, and one of the reasons is for the
following. You ask a very good question. We have a listing of
the special interest countries where persons coming from those
special interest countries, of course, are designated as such
and automatically there is a higher level of scrutiny. But in
addition to that, within DHS, we have a means by which to
identify persons originating out of that special interest
country even if they are not from or traveling through that
kicks them into that higher level of scrutiny. So even if he
was, for example, an Italian, but traveled through one of
those, originated his last flight out of a special interest
country, that would automatically kick him or her into that
grouping where that scrutiny would be at a much higher level.
So in addition to that, this hypothetical person that you
just referred to with the counterfeit documents, fraudulent
documents, things of that nature, in the case of the Border
Patrol, if we encounter them, that means that probably they
came between the ports of entry. So the investigative process,
the interview process would probably give us that kind of
information as to the true identity of this person.
If we encountered them in the interior at a checkpoint or
at one of our defense in depth postures, such as Sky Harbor
Airport, Las Vegas Airport, or something of that nature, the
training that our officers receive in counterfeit and
fraudulent documents would also come into play. And, of course,
if there is any question on the documentation, we have our
brother and sister CBP officers who are experts in those areas
that we could also utilize. We also utilize the National
Targeting Center, CBP National Targeting Center, to run those
documents and probably do a good job of identifying those
counterfeit or fraudulent documents.
Chairman Cornyn. Of course, that is if you are able to
apprehend them.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Chairman Cornyn. No matter whether they have valid or
counterfeit documents, if you are unable to actually apprehend
them as they are coming across due to lack of human resources
or insufficient equipment, obviously, you are not able to run
those kind of checks against those.
Mr. Aguilar. Right.
Chairman Cornyn. Let me just make sure we all understand
what we are talking about when you talk about running the names
of these individuals against various databases. There isn't a
database that has everybody's name in it, correct?
Mr. Aguilar. That is correct.
Chairman Cornyn. It would just be if their name, assuming
they give you a correct name, generates a negative hit on some
database. Isn't that what we are talking about, primarily?
Mr. Aguilar. By negative hit, I am assuming that you mean
that information of interest is there?
Chairman Cornyn. For example, if you ran John Cornyn's name
and your database did not have a record of a criminal
conviction on it, then that wouldn't generate a hit, would it,
if--
Mr. Aguilar. That would not, yes, sir. That would not.
Chairman Cornyn. So it is only if you actually have a
record of a negative information, either criminal record, they
are on a watch list--
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Chairman Cornyn. --provided by the State Department,
Department of Homeland Security, and the like. So if, let us
say, this individual who comes across and you are checking
their name and you have no record whatsoever of this
individual, it would not generate a negative hit and you would
not then treat them in this enhanced special status where you
would have mandatory detention and the like, is that correct?
Mr. Aguilar. If they are coming from a special interest
country, the level of scrutiny would be much higher, especially
in the area of anti-terrorist training that all of our CBP
officers have now taken. That would delineate a certain level
of questioning, if you will, line of questioning, things of
this nature, where the enforcement officers will take that
posture to the degree possible, absent any findings on
databases, to make sure that we are doing everything we can to
identify any potential ties. But yes, sir, it would be
dependent on the officer at that point.
Chairman Cornyn. I appreciate that our officers, being
professionals, are trained to try to root out individuals who
they should be detaining, even though their name doesn't appear
on the list, the watch list or the criminal convictions list,
but I want to make sure we understand that absent an officer
being able to identify that person, that identity would not
necessarily be generated by one of the various databases that
that name is run against.
Of course, there is--do you ever run into the problem where
somebody gives you a false name?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir, all the time. Absolutely.
Chairman Cornyn. And if somebody gave you a false name,
obviously, that would be less likely to generate a hit on the
database check. In other words, it wouldn't reveal that that
person's false name had been convicted of a crime or had made
multiple attempts to enter the country illegally, or perhaps
was even from a country of special interest. If someone gave
you a false name, how would you be able to determine whether
they fell into any of those categories that would likely
guarantee higher scrutiny?
Mr. Aguilar. Well, let me take that a piece at a time, sir.
With any kind of prior criminal conviction, the biometric
information that we would capture by way of the ten-print check
would, in fact, overcome the false name, identity, if you will.
Chairman Cornyn. Even if there was no record in the
database of who that person actually was?
Mr. Aguilar. That is assuming a criminal background.
Chairman Cornyn. Okay, assuming the criminal background.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. In the case of an individual of
interest, for example, one of the cases that I can refer to as
an example is a case in point where a person out of El Salvador
involved in a homicide crossed the border into the United
States. Because of the interest of that country, we were able
to bring biometrics into our systems to where once we had that
individual in custody, we ran the ten prints, even absent a
criminal background, if you will. He popped up because we were
able to input that data on there. But again, we are dependent
on the databases.
Other things that are taken into consideration, of course,
is the fact that a lot of our operations are intel-driven,
intel-driven in the sense that we conduct operations based on
intelligence on people who originate in certain countries,
means of travel, routes of travel, organizations utilized, risk
factors associated with the person, such as age, things of this
nature, associations and smuggling routes. Anything of that
nature would come into play there.
Chairman Cornyn. Let me just, since my time on this first
round is limited, ask Mr. Verdery. Mr. Verdery, you talked
about how your opinion had changed somewhat based upon your
experience at the Department of Homeland Security in terms of
the practical ability of this country to adopt a temporary
worker program along the lines of the principles that the
President has articulated. I gather from what you said that you
came to doubt whether an enforcement-only approach could be
successful in addressing the massive illegal immigration and
the lack of control we have of our borders, is that correct?
Mr. Verdery. I think that is a fair way of putting it. The
basic dilemma you have, hearing some of the numbers that were
mentioned earlier, is you have got a massive tide of
individuals, each one of which has to be evaluated on their own
merits, and use whatever information you have, whether it is
their country, their biographic information, their biometric
information. But your odds of finding the literal needle in the
haystack is a lot better if the haystack is a lot smaller. So,
yes, that is why I think we need to do so much more on the
physical enforcement at the border, but it is going to be
difficult ever to reach that kind of goal that you want, to
find those needles, with the current kind of numbers we are
talking about.
And one thing, if I might just add, on the line of
questioning you had for Chief Aguilar is it demonstrates the
importance of information sharing and especially biometric
information sharing with our foreign government partners. If we
don't have negative information about somebody, we don't have
negative information about them. And so if you pick them up,
you are not going to know anything. You are probably not going
to know to detain them or to do something with them. So having
robust fingerprint information sharing with the E.U., with the
U.K., with other partners, is absolutely essential to try to
build out that universe of the people we would want to worry
about when we pick them up.
Chairman Cornyn. So if I can summarize in conclusion, you
are saying that if we weren't concerned with literally hundreds
of thousands or maybe millions of people coming across our
border, that is from a law enforcement perspective, but rather
tens of thousands, that our law enforcement resources and
intelligence resources could be focused with greater precision
on that threat if there was a mechanism for people to come into
the country, at least on a temporary basis, to be checked and
to be able to work in a temporary time frame within some sort
of legal framework.
Mr. Verdery. You said it very well.
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you.
Chairman Kyl. Senator Sessions?
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. I thank both of you Chairmen for your
leadership on this issue and I value both of your judgment as
we work through these issues.
I have believed we have been in a state of denial about how
things have been operating on the border. It is worse than most
people realize. Here is an article I would like for you to
comment on. It is the Copley News Service, June 4, by Jerry
Camer, dateline, McAllen, Texas.
``In the silvery blue light of dusk, 20 Brazilians glided
across the Rio Grande in rubber rafts propelled by Mexican
smugglers who leaned forward and breaststroked through the
gentle current. Once on the U.S. side, the Brazilians scrambled
ashore and started looking for the Border Patrol--started
looking for them. Their quick and well-rehearsed surrender was
part of a growing trend that is demoralizing the Border Patrol
and beckoning a rising number of illegal immigrants from
countries beyond Mexico.''
`` `We used to chase them. Now, they are chasing us,' said
Border Patrol agent Gus Balderas as he frisked the Brazilians
and collected their passports last month. What happened next
explains this odd reversal. The group was detained overnight,''
I guess in McAllen, ``given a court summons that allowed them
to stay in the United States pending an immigration hearing.
Then a Border Patrol agent drove them to the McAllen bus
station, where they continued their journey into America. The
formal term for the court summons is a `Notice to Appear.'
Border Patrol agents have another name for it. They call it a
`Notice to Disappear.' ''
``Of the 8,908 Notices to Appear at the immigration court
in nearby Harlingen issued last year to non-Mexicans, 8,676
failed to show up for their hearings, according to statistics
compiled by the Justice Department's Executive Office for
Immigration Review. That is a no-show rate of 98 percent,''
close quote.
Tell me, I guess, Mr. Aguilar. Your people are out there at
some personal risk, working nights and long hours to try to
enforce the law. How do they feel when they follow the rules
and 98 percent of all they are doing is helping thousands of
people further into the United States from which they
disappear? Tell me how this can continue, or how it has
occurred.
Mr. Aguilar. One of the things that I think is important to
point out, Senator, is the fact that, yes, agents are
frustrated out there. One of the things that--and I just now
have gleaned through this. I had not seen this article. I had
heard about it. But I can tell you that the reason that this is
happening again is because of the lack of detention space. So
it is not a policy. It is not something that we prefer to do.
But the reason that these individuals are NTA-ed and released
on their own recognizance is because we have no place to put
them.
Senator Sessions. All right. Now, let me follow that. Has
anybody, to your knowledge, from the Border Patrol written and
made a budgetary request for sufficient detention space to
handle these individuals, and has anyone done an account for
how much money it would cost to be able to detain them?
Mr. Aguilar. Senator, the Border Patrol interdicts. We make
the arrest, we process, and then we hand off to Detention and
Removal.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Lee's job, I guess.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. Now, I would like to give you some
statistics that I think are very telling which go right in line
with what you are describing there.
As an example, in McAllen, the highest number of
apprehensions that occurs in the McAllen sector, which, by the
way, is our highest-producing sector for OTMs in the nation,
McAllen sector has apprehended, for example, through the end of
May, 47,000 OTMs. Of those--
Senator Sessions. And OTMs is--
Mr. Aguilar. Other than Mexicans.
Senator Sessions. And--
Mr. Aguilar. Which includes that grouping of Brazilians. I
don't have the exact number--
Senator Sessions. And the problem is, just for those who
might be listening, is you can easily transport those who come
from Mexico back into Mexico, but Mexico won't take somebody
from Brazil--
Mr. Aguilar. That is correct.
Senator Sessions.--so you have to get them all the way to
Brazil.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. That is correct. Now, you just
touched on another challenge that we have. One of the problems
that we have with Brazilians--now, this is specific to
Brazilians--is that Mexico does not require a visa for
Brazilians coming into Mexico, which, of course, now they use
as a means to jump off into the United States illegally, and
because of the challenges that we have with our lack of
detention space, we have the situation that we are faced with.
Right now in McAllen, the rate of release on own
recognizance is at about 90 percent of the people that we
apprehend, other than Mexicans.
Senator Sessions. And 98 percent of those are not showing
up as required, according to this article, at least.
Mr. Aguilar. According to the article. That would have to
be--
Senator Sessions. Mr. Lee, it seems to me in all of these
matters, from my experience in prosecuting, it is just
something I have come to believe and intuitively understand
from nearly 20 years of prosecuting is that there is a tipping
point where if the word is out that people know nobody is going
to do anything to you if you sell drugs, they will sell drugs.
Once it becomes a reality that something serious is going to
occur to you if you sell drugs, drug selling will go down. It
really will.
Tell me what we can do, and what it would cost, to create
housing for some 8,000 people or so to give integrity to this
process so that they are able to be deported to their home
countries and detained long enough for that. What is the
problem here? What do we need?
Mr. Lee. Well, detention, I think, is probably one of our
most valuable tools, but there is more than detention. I mean,
you can detain somebody. If you don't have a removal order, you
can't remove them. You can just put them in a bed.
Senator Sessions. What does it take--I mean, these cases--I
know something about how cases move. It is just a question of
getting them before a judge, is it not, an administrative
hearing judge?
Mr. Lee. That is why I think expedited removal is so
important, because getting them in front of the judge, as the
statement I read--
Senator Sessions. Yes, I am--
Mr. Lee. --it takes about 89 days to put them in front of a
judge versus about 26 days putting them in ER. So you can turn
over more with less beds.
Senator Sessions. Well, is somebody working on this? That
is all I am asking. I mean, is somebody in charge here?
Mr. Lee. Yes, we are--
Senator Sessions. Is somebody saying, we need to get the
hearings done quickly? I don't see why they can't be done in a
matter of days, literally. There is no reason these hearings
can't be done within days. And then you have got to develop a
system by which you can transport them back to their home
country, which is expensive and burdensome, but that could be
done, also. Where are we on this spectrum? Do you have a vision
that would indicate that this utter failure would end and we
will have a system that has integrity?
Mr. Lee. There is a vision and it has already started.
Expedited removal is already in Laredo and Tucson sectors. It
has been going on now since October--September.
Senator Sessions. Expedited--it works for Mexicans?
Mr. Lee. No, these are for OTMs.
Senator Sessions. OTMs?
Mr. Lee. Yes, other than Mexicans. In both of those
sectors, all cases that--all OTMs that were placed in the ER,
we have either removed them or they are still in detention. So
expedited removal is working and we do have a plan to expand
expedited removal.
Senator Sessions. Do you have an opinion about how many are
detained pending expedited removal and how many are released on
recognizance?
Mr. Aguilar. Senator, if you don't mind, I will take part
of that question. Since September, in those sectors where we
have implemented expedited removal, we have placed over
20,000--20,000 people into expedited removal. Since we began
this program, expedited removal is also mandatory detention
when we place them into ER. Those have been detained and have
either been removed or are in the process of being removed.
Senator Sessions. So if you are in the expedited removal
program, you are detained until removed.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. Right now, we are working very--
Senator Sessions. Is the problem that everybody is not in
it bed space, hearing time? Where would resources need to be
applied--
Mr. Aguilar. And that is one of the things that we are
working with very closely right now, with Detention and Removal
Office, the CIS, Citizenship and Immigration Services because
of their part within the credible enforcing of this, to ensure
that the program is carried out systematically and that we
carry it out in such a way that once these people are placed
into ER, they are mandatorily detained and removed, thereby
reducing the amount of time that they need to spend in
detention, therefore reducing the cost. Now, we are looking on
that expansion of that program as we speak right now.
Senator Sessions. But you can't order hearing judges
around, can you, Mr. Aguilar? They don't work for you, or do
they? Are they a part of--
Mr. Aguilar. No--
Senator Sessions. So somebody up high, up here, has got to
tell everybody this system has got to get in sync and be more
effective, don't they?
Mr. Lee. That is why we are using expedited removal. They
don't have to go in front of a judge with expedited removal.
Senator Sessions. Oh.
Mr. Lee. An agent on the ground can order somebody removed,
the Border Patrol agent.
Senator Sessions. Without a judge.
Mr. Lee. That is right.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. Under ER, sir, basically, the agent
on the ground will make that determination as to whether that
person has any claim to be in the United States or right to be
in the United States. Once that claim is in the negative,
adjudicated in the negative, then they are formally removed
after supervisory oversight and certain assurances in place to
ensure that these people, if, in fact, they have a credible
fear, claim for fear of persecution or things of this nature,
it is built into this program. But once a determination is
made, these people are rapidly removed out of the country
without an immigration judge coming into play.
Senator Sessions. Do you know how long those are taking,
from the time they are apprehended to the time they are
removed?
Mr. Lee. Right now, the average is about 26 days.
Senator Sessions. Would it be possible to get that
substantially less?
Mr. Lee. We are working on that. The issue--
Senator Sessions. Do you need money to make it less?
Mr. Lee. No. Actually, we need the foreign countries to
issue travel documents faster, and we are always going to have
the amount of time it takes to do country notification. You
can't just put somebody on a plane and send them back without
notifying them. So we have the country notification process and
we schedule--the scheduling for removal. But we are trying to
increase the rate of travel documents.
We are using VTEL now. We have made requests for the
foreign governments--Honduras is on board. We are placing VTEL
in their consulate offices and in our offices so they can
interview without having to come out and do personal
interviews. We made the request in numerous other countries and
they haven't committed yet, but they are talking as if they are
going to. So that will reduce the rate and actually have us
turn over faster.
Senator Sessions. My time is expired. Give me a quick
answer. What percentage of people are being handled under
expedited removal and what percentage is handled in the
traditional way?
Mr. Aguilar. Let me answer that question in the following
manner, sir. In Tucson and Laredo, OTMs that are eligible for
expedited removal, about 95 to 98 percent of those are being
placed in expedited removal within those two sectors. OTMs, in
general, within the population of illegal aliens that we
apprehend across our nation's borders, is 12 percent, through
the end of May, 98,000. We have placed 20,700-and-some in
expedited removal.
Now, I would like to say that ER and detention are key to
creating deterrence. That is absolutely key to our successes.
Senator Sessions. I couldn't agree more.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Chairman Kyl. And if I could just follow directly up on
that, there are two needs, at least. First, we need to extend
the expedited removal process to all of the sectors instead of
just two. And secondly, we need to make sure that there is
detention space available. So as to the first point, what will
it take to extend the expedited removal process to all 20-some
sectors?
Mr. Aguilar. We are actually going through that process
right now, Senator. We are working, as I said, very closely
with DRO, with CIS, to ensure that as we roll out, as we evolve
this program, the integrity of the program is there.
Chairman Kyl. What does it take? Does it take training of
people? Does it take money? What does it take?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. That takes training. We are, in
fact, right now currently going through training of the
remaining sectors along our nation's Southwest border to ensure
that when this program is kicked off along, or evolved along
our Southwest border, everybody is trained up and the integrity
of the program is maintained.
Chairman Kyl. Is the process to do it every two or three
sectors, or to do them all at once, or what is the process and
how long do you expect it to take to be completed?
Mr. Aguilar. The end game we are looking for is across all
of our sectors. We are going to take a look initially at all of
our Southwest border sectors, the nine Southwest border
sectors, Northern, and then coastal and waterway.
Chairman Kyl. So we will have to deal with the others, as
well. But just with respect to the Mexican border, how long do
you think it will take before it is extended to all--to the
entire--all of the sectors on the Mexican border?
Mr. Aguilar. It is coming soon. It is coming soon, Senator.
Chairman Kyl. Well, are we talking about a matter of
months?
Mr. Aguilar. I would feel comfortable with that. If DHS
approves it and everything else, yes, sir.
Chairman Kyl. So within a matter of months, then, all of
the sectors will have the same kind of expedited removal that
Tucson and Laredo have today?
Mr. Aguilar. That is what we are working towards, yes, sir.
Chairman Kyl. Do you need any other resources to make that
happen?
Mr. Aguilar. To make ER happen within the Border Patrol, I
think we have the resources necessary. The resources that are
going to have to be concurrent with that is the ability to
detain--
Chairman Kyl. Right.
Mr. Aguilar. --those people that we place in ER.
Chairman Kyl. Okay. And getting to the detention and
anything else that DHS, beyond just the Border Patrol, would
need, Mr. Lee, what do you think it needs, how long will it
take, and then on a separate matter, how much more detention
space is necessary?
Mr. Lee. I think the ER plan, like Mr. Aguilar said, is we
are real close on the plan. I don't think that that is going to
be an issue and we will get back to you on when that is going
to be.
But the detention space, it is hard--like I say, it is hard
to say how much detention space you need, because with ER, we
can remove these people a lot faster. We are working on the
travel document issue. We think we are going to be able to
enhance that number.
So to put a bed number on it, we actually just opened--we
haven't opened it yet. We have a facility out in Pearsall. It
is in your neck of the woods down there. It is a little bit
West of San Antonio, probably Southwest of San Antonio. It is
1,000 beds that we are going to dedicate specifically for these
ER cases.
That may do it. It just depends on how many--the deterrent
effect for expedited removal may be huge. The amount of--
Chairman Kyl. But even if you had space temporarily to take
care of the full need, you could cut back on that once the
deterrent worked. How many OTMs do you release into the United
States each year, or are released if you are not releasing?
Mr. Aguilar. Currently, Senator, the Border Patrol
nationwide is OR-ing approximately 70 percent of those OTMs
that we apprehend.
Chairman Kyl. And the number apprehended last year of OTMs
was about, oh, just under 100,000?
Mr. Aguilar. Last year, I believe, was 87, and I will get
to you the exact number on that. But year-to-date, it is
94,684.
Chairman Kyl. And what percent of those are released on
their own recognizance?
Mr. Aguilar. Nationwide, about 70 percent.
Chairman Kyl. Seventy percent. So you are talking about
somewhere in the neighborhood of 60,000-plus people that are
released on their own recognizance and very few of those ever
show up, is that correct?
Mr. Aguilar. That is correct.
Chairman Kyl. And you hope that you have captured the
criminals in that group, captured the criminals so that they
are not part of that group.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Chairman Kyl. How many criminals again? I have the number
here of 94,700 criminals were apprehended in the last--or since
September 1 in this fiscal year. Now, those are people that
have criminal records and, therefore, regardless of what
country they are from, they are also subject to this same
removal process. In other words, Mexicans with a criminal
record would be subject to the same removal process as an OTM,
is that correct?
Mr. Aguilar. That is correct, especially if they are
criminals.
Chairman Kyl. So you can have criminals released, then, on
their own recognizance, not showing up, as well, is that
correct?
Mr. Aguilar. In the area of criminals, they are one of the
priority detention cases. Now, not all of them are detained,
but it depends on what level of criminal activity they were
involved in. For example, an aggravated felon is, in fact, a
mandatory detention.
Chairman Kyl. And obviously anybody that is currently
wanted is going to have a priority, as well, is that correct?
Mr. Aguilar. That is correct.
Chairman Kyl. Okay. So you don't know exactly how many
criminals are released on their own recognizance, but some
number are. I guess we can say in the thousands, would that be
fair to say?
Mr. Lee. I think your criminal aliens are--like I say, we
have about 2,500 discretionary beds right now, so your criminal
aliens are going to be held in detention unless they get in
front of the immigration judge and, based on due process and
their ties, they may be low-bonded out by the immigration
judge.
Chairman Kyl. But if there are 94,700 criminals and you
have got 2,000-plus beds and you are detaining a lot of other
folks, as well, including OTMs, pretty clearly, you don't have
enough bed space for everybody.
Mr. Lee. Most of those criminals are going to be Mexican
criminals and not OTMs. I mean, the OTM number is going to be
small.
Chairman Kyl. Okay, but the Mexican criminals are dealt
with in what way? In the Tucson sector, how are they dealt
with? Aren't they dealt with in an expedited removal manner?
Mr. Aguilar. I am sorry, Senator--
Chairman Kyl. Let us say that you have a Mexican criminal.
How is that individual dealt with in terms of detention and
release? Are they expedited removal candidates?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir, they can be, but preferably, the
removal is going to be a formal removal. In either case, either
by ER or by formal removal in front of an immigration judge,
when and if they come back again, they are now eligible for
prosecution.
Chairman Kyl. Right. But I guess my point is, if you have
got 94,700--and the year isn't even up yet, so--
Mr. Aguilar. That is correct.
Chairman Kyl. --you are going to be looking at least
100,000 criminals, criminal aliens, and many of those are going
to be Mexicans, some are not.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Chairman Kyl. But the bottom line is that when you count
all of the OTMs, and part of that is subsumed in this number,
but in this number of 100,000 criminals, you can't possibly
have enough detention space. We are trying to get a handle on
how much is necessary. I will say that under the bill that
Senator Cornyn and I have, we not only add money as needed for
more detention space, but we also, recognizing that we are only
talking about the informal process here, and Mr. Lee, you
alluded to the formal removal process requiring the
administrative judge, as Senator Sessions talked about, that we
also have money in here for the judges and for the rest of the
criminal justice system that is required to deal with all of
these cases, since we recognize that court space, judges,
clerks, lawyers, all of that is going to be necessary for these
number of cases.
But it would be helpful to us if we could get a little bit
better handle on what the cost of this is going to be, what the
size of the problem is so that we can fold that into our
appropriation requests.
Mr. Verdery. Could I just jump in on that?
Chairman Kyl. Sure, you bet.
Mr. Verdery. One of the things that I enjoyed about your
draft legislation was it recognizes that this--if you think of
this as almost a business process, you unfortunately have a lot
of customers that are being picked up and have to be processed
in some way, and it is a very convoluted process involving
different agencies, asylum claims, especially for individuals
who go through a formal proceeding. I saw a chart when I was at
DHS with the various options of how the legal process can work
and it made the famous Clinton health care chart look simple.
It is an unbelievably elaborate process and it has to be
streamlined as part of this review, things like bond, things
like ER, and the like.
The other thing, I will say what these gentlemen are not
allowed to say, I think. This is not going to take some kind of
plus-up or shuffling money around. If you want to build out an
expansive system that can handle the influx, it is going to
take a massive new amount of money. Now, hopefully, reducing
the caseload will solve part of that by giving people a chance
who want to come in to work an organized place to do that, an
organized way to do that. But this is going to take a good bit
of money, whether it is coming from fees or fines or the
general revenue fund. It is not simply a plus-up.
Chairman Kyl. And let me just say that we recognize that
this is probably a proposition where, temporarily, we are going
to have to increase assets significantly, but because of all
the things that we are working on, hopefully, that peak will be
reached relatively soon and the number of cases will fall off
and the detention space, for example, can go back to other
uses. The judges that we have had to bring on for this purpose
can go on to doing other things and so forth.
But I will say that Senator Gregg, the Chairman of the
Budget Committee and Appropriations Committee, has indicated a
willingness to put sums of money in to authorize, for example,
for detention space.
Let me just ask both Mr. Lee and Chief Aguilar, please get
something to us on the record that would enable us to be able
to make the case to Senator Gregg and others to be a little bit
more precise about what these requirements are so they can plug
that into their calculations in determining exactly what to
authorize and eventually what to appropriate here. It will make
our job a lot easier.
I guess the summary here is that we are going to need more
of all of these things. It could be substantial in the short
run. But in the long run, we all hope that by going this route,
we can bring the long-term costs down dramatically. Would that
be a fair summary?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Chairman Kyl. Go ahead, Senator.
Chairman Cornyn. Mr. Lee, we have been asking questions
about people who are coming across the border and who are being
detained and the priorities that the Department of Homeland
Security has for who is detained and who is released on their
own recognizance and the like. But it is correct, is it not,
sir, to say that there are many, many more individuals who are
illegally in the United States and who are currently resident
in State and county jails or prisons, isn't that right?
Mr. Lee. Yes, sir.
Chairman Cornyn. So if you look at the Federal Government's
responsibilities as opposed to the State and local governments'
responsibilities in terms of people who commit Federal crimes,
albeit those by which they illegally enter the country having a
criminal record or committing other crimes. The numbers we have
been talking about in terms of detention space to deal with the
border intrusion issue is really pretty small, isn't that
right?
Mr. Lee. Correct.
Chairman Cornyn. For example, I have been advised that in
Los Angeles County Jail, where there are approximately 25,000
inmates, that one estimate is between 30 and 40 percent of
those inmates are in the United States illegally, but
nevertheless have been accused of committing crimes and thus
are incarcerated within a county facility. Those numbers
wouldn't surprise you, would they?
Mr. Lee. No.
Chairman Cornyn. And that, of course, would likely be
repeated, those numbers higher or lower depending on whether
you are in a metropolitan area close to the border in Texas,
Arizona, and other parts of the country. The truth is, while we
are talking about 20,000 detention beds that the Department of
Homeland Security for people who come across the border
illegally and need to be detained, that that just represents a
fraction of the bed space that is being occupied by people who
have not only come into the country illegally, but have
committed crimes while they are here. Would you agree with
that? Or at least alleged to have committed crimes. I guess we
ought to give them the presumption of innocence.
Mr. Lee. Most of our bed space right now is filled with
individuals that came out of county jails, Federal prisons,
State prisons. That is most of our population. The
discretionary beds that we have now are the ones that we are
using to support Border Patrol. So, yes, most of our beds are
full of criminals.
Chairman Cornyn. Well, what resources would you need to
take into custody, pending their removal, all criminal aliens
in the United States, including identifying and removing those
who are currently incarcerated in State and county jails?
Mr. Lee. I couldn't begin to tell you. Actually, we got
some--in 2005, we got some enhancements for institutional
removal program and we are actually just now hiring those up
and we are going to concentrate in New York and California. But
traditionally, the program is with the Office of Investigations
and I would really hate to speak to the numbers and what they
are.
Chairman Cornyn. Let me quick to say I feel a little bit
bad for some of the witnesses and the people particularly like
those of you who are serving our nation in this very difficult
position, because we are not being critical of you but we are
using this opportunity to help educate not only members of
these Committees, but the Congress and the American people
about this long-ignored problem that, fortunately, our
government post-9/11 is finally starting to come to grips with.
But the reason why we are trying to pin you down on some of
these numbers is because my own impression is, as I think
Senator Sessions has said, this nation is in denial about the
size of the problem and about how much it will take in the way
of Federal resources to deal with it. Right now, a lot of these
are dealt with on the local level in border States
particularly, where, for example, health care services are
provided free of charge to people who have come into the
country illegally and it is paid for by local taxpayers, not
the Federal Government. When it comes to law enforcement,
detention facilities, jails and prisons, those are paid for by
State and local taxpayers, not by the Federal Government, when,
in fact, the Federal border, the international border is a
Federal responsibility that the Federal Government has simply
not lived up to its responsibilities to deal with.
So I just want to make sure it is clear that we are not
picking on you or any of the witnesses here. We--
Mr. Lee. And it is not an area that we are ignoring.
Obviously, it is cherry picking. They are already in custody
and we are in the process now of putting officers in those
jails. Like I say, we did get positions in 2005. We are just
now getting them to the academy and trained. But if you can
identify a criminal, and in most cases, a lot of cases, you can
do an administrative removal. They don't have to see a judge.
It is basically the same process as expedited removal. We can
get a quick order. We can get it while they still are serving
their time and we can get them removed without putting them in
that bed and then starting the whole process.
So it is an area that we are targeting. Like I say, our
program did get money in 2005 for it. We just haven't been able
to get them hired up and on, so--
Chairman Cornyn. I appreciate you working on it, but the
point I am trying to make, and this is the only point I am
trying to make, is that if Los Angeles County Jail has 30 to 40
percent of their population of 25,000 inmates are here
illegally in the country, if you multiply that by the county
jails and State prisons that have undocumented or illegal
immigrants in the country who have committed or are at least
charged with committing crimes, that those--that is going to
take a substantial additional investment by the Federal
Government to deal with that problem. Would you agree with
that, Mr. Lee?
Mr. Lee. Yes, but I wouldn't agree that they are all here
illegally in the country. The stats that I have seen, they
identify them as foreign-born, and you can be foreign-born and
still not be here illegally in the country. So, like I say, I
just don't know if the stats are right. I hate to speak to the
Office of Investigations programs.
Chairman Cornyn. No, I understand. I thought you agreed
with me, though, that between 30 and 40 percent of the inmates
at Los Angeles County Jail, it wouldn't surprise you if 30 to
40 percent of those at the Los Angeles County Jail were
illegally in the United States.
Mr. Lee. Or foreign born.
Chairman Cornyn. Do you want to qualify that now?
Mr. Lee. Yes. You can be a lawful permanent resident and
commit a misdemeanor and be in the L.A. County Jail, but you
are not removable. Once you have served your time, you will be
released just like the United States citizen will.
Chairman Cornyn. Okay. I don't want to quibble with you
over it. So you want to qualify your answer now that you would
not agree that--it would surprise you if 30 to 40 percent of
the inmates at the Los Angeles County Jail were here illegally?
Mr. Lee. Yes.
Chairman Cornyn. Okay. Mr. Verdery, let me ask you about
what it is that the United States Government ought to be able
to expect from our neighbors like Mexico and those countries
that would perhaps benefit from a temporary worker program. I
believe you indicated that we should seek to obtain commitments
from the Mexican government to redouble efforts to secure their
Southern border, and we have heard some of the problems about a
porous Southern Mexican border which makes that available to
people from Central America and South America, assisting with
anti-smuggling and document fraud investigations and
operations.
What kind of obligations do you think we should ask for a
country that will benefit from a temporary worker program
allowing their citizens to work for a time in the United
States, what kind of obligations should we expect them to
accept in terms of working with us on these sorts of matters?
Mr. Verdery. I think the key word is, I think was in my
testimony, is redouble. I wouldn't want to leave the impression
that this is some kind of relationship that is just on the
front end. There is so much good work being done between the
U.S. and Mexico, especially with ICE attaches overseas in
Mexico City and the likewise. So it is a question of kind of
expanding those efforts.
You can think of it in a couple different camps. One, as
you mentioned, is trying to secure the exterior Mexican border
against OTMs or others coming to Mexico and using that as a
pipeline to the U.S. So that is people literally coming across
a land border, their Southern border, or people coming in via
air or sea, and that is hwy the robust information sharing
agreements that were talked about in the, I forget what it
stands for, but the SPP that the President and President Fox
announced a couple months ago on information sharing is so
critical.
On the kind of the border itself, we need just to heighten
and expand and more regularize the intel flow to break up the
smuggling rings, and I think the ICE investigation folks would
say that the cooperation is getting better. It needs to improve
even more.
The third thing I would mention is just a deterrence by the
Mexican government at their own border of their people crossing
illegally. We saw an impressive show of force by the Mexican
government during the recent months during the Minuteman
project era, if you want to call it that, which I think led to
a massive drop in crossings during that period. Having a
similar commitment all the time, trying to police their border,
would be very helpful.
And that is just a few things, and my testimony goes into a
number of others.
Chairman Cornyn. Let me ask--I want to ask you about US-
VISIT. Would you give us your opinion on how do you think the
US-VISIT program has functioned so far and what time period do
you see as a realistic expectation that US-VISIT will be--
before it will be a fully functioning system where it will be
the centerpiece for tracking visitors who enter the United
States?
Mr. Verdery. I think it is functioning extremely well. If
you had told me where we have gotten to by this point when I
walked into DHS two years ago, it would have seemed impossible
to actually deploy a working system at our airports and
seaports that functions without interfering with traffic and
has found, I think it is up to 600 bad folks, people with good
forged documents and the like. It is working extremely well in
that environment.
The land border situation is about the toughest task I have
ever seen the government take on, to try to vet literally
millions of people coming through without backing up lines, as
you know so well, both of you, at your ports of entry. It is
going to require a lot of private sector expertise, and
especially if we are going to make US-VISIT the backbone for
the employment-based system that any type of temporary worker
program would need to have to function.
Essentially, as much as I support, and I do support the
enhancements on the Border Patrol and number of agents--I think
that has been great--at some point, it would almost be better
to turn and find 500 smart guys to go design the IT systems and
the like that will allow that insta-check for employment
systems to work. If Visa or MasterCard can build up where you
can swipe your card at millions of locations and it works in
three seconds, we ought to be able to have a similar capability
at our places of employment.
So I think it is working well, but the deployment at the
land borders is going to be very tough. We are going to need a
lot of cooperation from the Mexican government especially to
get people accustomed to coming through the ports of entry, to
retrofit those travel documents to allow for the biometric
capture via RFID and a lot of outreach to those communities. I
would think that you all would be part of that.
Chairman Cornyn. I have to say that, as you and I have
discussed in your previous life at the Department of Homeland
Security, I was very pleased, as were a number of our border
communities in Texas, with the care and thoughtfulness with
which the Department of Homeland Security implemented US-VISIT
at the land-based points of entry. I know there was a lot of
apprehension that it would back things up, but due to a lot of
conversations, a lot of hard work by an awful lot of people and
a lot of collaboration, that proved not to be the case. As you
say, it has been successful in identifying bad people with good
forged documents, as you say.
Mr. Verdery. It was always designed to be an incremental
system and I would have to single out, since we are in
Washington, that the Washington Post story that ran last week
critical of US-VISIT, which I think completely missed the point
of the program, did not understand it is being built in
increments, and we obviously have the toughest one left to do,
which is building out an entry and exit at the land border. But
again, it is working great so far and we need that
technological solution to be able to move people in and out and
find the needles in the haystack moving forward.
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you very much.
Chairman Kyl. Let me see if I can make this the last round
here. Real quickly, first of all, Chief Aguilar, can you inform
us on the status of the memorandum of understanding that Border
Patrol is attempting to arrange with the Tohono O'odom Nation
in Arizona as part of the effort to gain access to interior
lands?
Mr. Aguilar. The ongoing efforts of the Tohono O'odom
Nation will include both a formal and informal understanding,
if you will. At the current time, the Tohono O'odom Nation
recognizes the importance of things such as drive-through
barriers, now that they have seen the successes over in the
Organ Pipe and those areas out there. So they have agreed to
work with us in working towards the application of tactical
infrastructure, the application of applying some of the rescue
beacons, for example, remote video surveillance systems, and
things of this nature.
One of the main successes we have had with the Tohono
O'odom Nation has been the multi-use facility that is now, in
fact, in use. I was just there last week, working out
tremendously. So we are moving towards those memorandums of
understanding and the informal agreements that would allow us
to place the infrastructure and technology that we feel is
necessary to bring the level of control to the nation out
there.
Chairman Kyl. Good. I would appreciate being kept up to
date on that, and particularly as we get into the appropriation
process. There have been some requests for funding. We want to
make sure that everything is coordinated there.
Mr. Lee, do you know how many nationalities are represented
in the removals of the OTM program, approximately?
Mr. Lee. A lot of nationalities.
Chairman Kyl. How many different countries or
nationalities?
Mr. Lee. There are over 100.
Chairman Kyl. Okay. Now, let me go back to the question
that Senator Cornyn asked. Maybe this is another way to look at
it. As you know, the SCAAP program, or State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program, provides Federal funding to help to make up
for the cost that the States incur in housing the illegal
immigrants who are convicted of crimes in the States and
imprisoned there, right?
Mr. Lee. I am familiar with a little bit. It is not really
under my program, but--
Chairman Kyl. Okay. Well, maybe then you are--that program,
in very rough terms, would cost about $2 billion to compensate
the States for their incarceration costs and that is for, as I
understand it, for criminal aliens. In other words, these are
not people who are lawful residents but foreign-born. You can't
comment on that, though, is that right?
Mr. Lee. No, but I can sure pass it on to the right
division.
Chairman Kyl. We can get the answer to that. The bottom
line is that while there may be some foreign-born legal
residents in the United States who are criminals and thus using
some of these detention beds, a very high percentage are
criminal aliens, is that not correct?
Mr. Lee. I believe so.
Chairman Kyl. Okay. Mr. Verdery, my last couple of
questions relate to some of the testimony that you presented
having to do with integrating a new guest worker program with
the other efforts to control illegal immigration by controlling
the border, by controlling the interior, and this element is by
controlling or by enforcing the law at the workplace. Senator
Cornyn and I have focused on all three in our legislation. We
believe that there has to be a balance between controlling the
border, controlling interior enforcement, and workplace
enforcement, all three.
With regard to the workplace enforcement, you identified at
least one of the critical components, and that is a biometric
identification system that can verify the appropriateness to
issue some kind of legal document to someone who has been in
the country illegally but who presumably poses no threat, is
not a criminal, and who would, therefore, be eligible for a
legal program, a document that would be required to be verified
prior to employment, right?
Mr. Verdery. That is right.
Chairman Kyl. It would take something to have a system for
issuing such documents, first of all, for verifying the data
necessary to issue the document, for issuing the document, and
then for having in place both the employer verification system
and the enforcement mechanism. It would take something to have
all of those things in place were we to be able to get past a
temporary worker program along the lines that you have heard
described in different pieces of legislation, right?
Mr. Verdery. That is right. You need to build out this
capability which exists only on biographic information on a
voluntary basis now.
Chairman Kyl. Right. Can you talk a little bit to us about
what some of the things are that you think would be necessary
to put that in place, what you would have to have in place
before you actually commenced the process, any estimates of
cost? In other words, just to give folks some magnitude
information about what we are talking about here in
implementing an enforceable temporary worker program that would
include people who have come here illegally.
Mr. Verdery. Well, in terms of tasks, there is the task
list and how much it would cost, and that cost can fall
partially on the employee, partially the employer, and
partially probably on the government.
I do believe the employer community is willing to pay if
they can have a reliable source of labor, especially if it
includes the labor that they have already hired and is already
developing skills and community ties and the like.
The cost of the biometric card itself is not astounding. We
issue biometric issues and biometric border crossing cards all
the time. So that is not the problem. The problem is, how do
you get it in the hands of the person and feel comfortable that
it is who they say they are? In kind of corresponding levels of
security, you could essentially have the employer do it. They
could send in applications and you send back the card. I think
that is probably the weakest. You could have them go to a
government facility, an ICE or CIS office, and be fingerprinted
and have that background check. Or, as some have suggested, you
could have them leave the country and essentially apply for a
visa overseas.
It strikes me that the middle ground is probably the place
to go. You want to lock down that person's biometrics. You want
to make sure that it is not a forgery. You want to have the
faith of the government having taken those prints and then you
can kind of build out the credibility on top of that.
I wouldn't want to venture a guess as to how much the
insta-check system would cost to build out, you know, the phone
lines and the IT information to link into Wal-Mart and 7-Eleven
and every other employer around the country. I know it will be
a good amount, but--
Chairman Kyl. Let me just interrupt on a couple of things
there.
Mr. Verdery. Sure.
Chairman Kyl. First of all, there are two key pieces of
information that you want in this card, are there not? First,
the biometric data that tells you that the person standing in
front of you is the person whose card you have. In other words,
the person is who he or she claims to be.
Mr. Verdery. That is right.
Chairman Kyl. So you get the match on identity. And
secondly, the basic data that you need to make the decision
that you are making, in this case, an employment decision. You
need to know that the person is not a criminal, is in the
country legally one way or another, a citizen, a green card
holder, a blue card holder, a student who is qualified to be
employed, or whatever. That information is only as good as the
inputted information, which means that you have to have either
good breeder documents or a good system to check the
information as it is presented, which kind of obviates the
first type of verification system that you identified. It
pretty much would require some kind of interview process with
presentation of documents that can be checked, would it not?
Mr. Verdery. Presumably, the employer is going to have to
demonstrate that they either have advertised the position and
can't find an American worker or have already filled the
position where the job was unlikely to be filled with an
American citizen, so--
Chairman Kyl. Excuse me--
Mr. Verdery. Sure.
Chairman Kyl. --but that is a different issue. What I am
getting at is that the person who you are about to offer the
employment to, whose card you are going to swipe through the
machine, is, in fact, entitled to participate in this
particular program, in this employment.
Mr. Verdery. That is right. I mean, the company will have
to get a certification from whoever this is assigned to, the
Labor Department, the Social Security Administration, DHS
perhaps, that they are entitled to work or continue to work.
Chairman Kyl. So somehow or other, for them to do that
certification, somebody is going to have to present some
documents to them and those documents, to one degree or
another, need to be verified.
Mr. Verdery. That is right, and that is the underlying rub,
is how secure those documents are, with drivers' licenses and
the right.
Chairman Kyl. So the breeder documents and the verification
process is probably the long pole in this tent. At least, that
has been my view.
With regard to the machinery itself, on the laser visas,
for example, from Mexico, the machines are relatively
inexpensive, and that is with having produced only a few. We
did an estimate. If you just take the $2,000 cost per machine
and you put one in every post office in the country, it is only
$64,000. I think that that part of the process could be
relatively inexpensive, and as you point out, the technology is
there. Do you have any disagreement with that?
Mr. Verdery. I don't, and especially if, again, the theory
is that many of these individuals are going to want to travel
back and forth and, therefore, they are going to need some type
of retrofitted document that can be read wirelessly.
Chairman Kyl. Right.
Mr. Verdery. So they are going to have to have a new
document anyway to allow for that travel.
Chairman Kyl. Right. So I think that the key expense is
going to be in this verification of status and making sure that
the breeder documents and that initial determination are valid.
But your view is that this process better be pretty well in
place before we start it--well, I guess, instead of assuming
the answer, let me ask it.
Mr. Verdery. I think--
Chairman Kyl. Go ahead.
Mr. Verdery. I think you could have essentially a
bifurcated system that treats people who are already here
somewhat differently for a time being as opposed to new people
who want to come in, and eventually, you want a merged kind of
system. But I can see a transition phase where folks who are
here are treated somewhat differently for a period of time as
opposed to people who are coming in from overseas. And again,
the temporary worker program is not just aimed at Mexico. You
could be coming in from anywhere under the theory the President
has espoused and others. But you need that transition piece to
make it work.
Chairman Kyl. And it has got to be ready to go before the
system begins, that is to say, before the person can be legally
employed, you are going to have to have the documents checked,
issued, the machinery in place, employer verification process
ready to go.
Mr. Verdery. I would suggest that for new entrants to the
country, that definitely should be a prerequisite, that you
have a check in place. For existing workers, I think that is
going to take time to build out. So you could have a situation
where employers wanting to bring in new labor are the first in
line, and then people who are using existing labor come on
afterwards, if you can't build it all at once.
Chairman Kyl. With Senator Cornyn's concurrence, let me ask
one last question here. Are you not also going to have to have
some identification for American citizens or green card holders
or other lawful residents of the United States to avoid the
problem of discrimination when an employer asks for the proper
documentation from someone who informs that prospective
employer that he doesn't need proper documentation because
while he may look like he is not American or have some kind of
an accent, he is very much an American citizen or other lawful
resident? So there is going to have to be some documentation
there, too, isn't there?
Mr. Verdery. The Social Security Administration is going to
have a tough job, yes.
Chairman Kyl. Okay.
Mr. Verdery. When you think of the number of workers that
need to be vetted and the error rate that would be acceptable
to our economy, it is a tough, tough business. And that is why
I suggest again that you might not want to deploy it kind of
all at once to every employer around the country at once. You
may want to have a tiered or a phased system that catches new
entrants first and then catches up with the existing ones.
Chairman Kyl. And the only comment I would have on that is
that we are trying to do this in a very skeptical atmosphere,
let us put it that way, where at least my constituents have
said, we want to make sure you are going to enforce this new
law before you pass it, because in the past, you haven't and it
has resulted in amnesty. Okay, that is fair. I think that puts
a burden on us, however, to make sure that everything is in
place for that enforcement, the resources, the commitment, and
the ability to do so before we begin the process or there is
going to be a high degree of skepticism. So this is part of
what we are going to have to try to identify in terms of our
needs and requirements before actually beginning to implement
such a program.
And while I don't reject the idea of some kind of
calibrated enforcement that may well be necessary, by the same
token, folks are not going to want to have to rely upon a lot
of good faith there because they have seen the government fail
them in the past.
Mr. Verdery. A series of hard dates might be the kind of
middle ground that might work.
Chairman Kyl. I appreciate your expertise on this and I
will make that my last question and turn to Senator Cornyn.
Chairman Cornyn. I just have a couple more questions. First
of all, I am just curious, Chief, this dramatic increase in the
number of OTMs being apprehended, and as you noted, a large
percentage of those coming in through the McAllen sector in
South Texas. What do you attribute the dramatic increase in the
number of other than Mexican individuals who are being
apprehended this year as opposed to previous years?
Mr. Aguilar. One of the obvious things, Senator, is the
rate at which we are releasing on own recognizance. The other
one, specifically to Brazilians, is the lack of requirement of
a visa into Mexico that just facilitates that entry into the
United States. Last year, for 2004, the OTM release rate
nationwide was about 47 percent. It is now up to 70. Last year
in McAllen, it was about 61 percent. It is now at 91 percent.
The bulk, majority of those, are Brazilians. So a combination
of those things, but definitely detention would, in fact, equal
deterrence, and that is one of the things that I think we are
all in agreement in.
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you very much.
Mr. Verdery, let me ask you, just to follow up on the
question Senator Kyl had, and he propounded to you a very
practical concern that we have, that is namely identifying
people who can legally work in the United States and providing
a mechanism for a prospective employer to determine that
relatively easily. But then, how do we deal with a means to
basically require some sort of identification by everybody
rather than have employers ask people for identification based
on the way they look or based on their accent, which has
obvious problems with it.
Is there any way to accomplish all of these goals while
avoiding the objection by those who would vigorously oppose a
national ID card?
Mr. Verdery. That is a very tough question, and as I have
talked to employers, it is one of the things that they complain
about, is that the government has essentially put them in an
impossible situation where they can't ask the questions that
they would need to ask to ascertain legitimacy of a would-be
employee, even if they wanted to do the right thing.
I do think, though, as you come into a generation of better
drivers' licenses with the recent action by the Congress and
then the States implementing this over the next few years,
better Social Security cards and better linkages amongst those
databases, you could have a situation where an employee or a
would-be employee walks into a place of employment and is given
a form saying, you need to provide one of the following so we
can vet your appropriateness for employment: A drivers' license
that is properly secured, a Social Security card that can't be
issued to somebody who is not allowed to work, or this new
guest worker card or other appropriate visa. Each of those
documents has to be secure. But I think we are moving in that
direction. It is just a question of how fast.
Chairman Cornyn. I appreciate that answer. Of course, I
think the sort of--the reason why I believe, and I think
Senator Kyl would agree with me, why comprehensive reform is
important rather than the sort of rifle shot or piecemeal
approach is we need to, I think, take advantage of every means
available to us to try to begin to apply a pincer movement, so
to speak, on the problem rather than just deal with one aspect
of it, let us say a temporary worker program, and try to say
that, well, we are going to deal with all of our immigration-
related and economic immigrant sort of problems through that
mechanism.
What we are proposing is we not only enhance that border
security to deal with people as they come across illegally,
including the detention space, we are also going to provide
resources for interior enforcement, which we do next to nothing
about now. And then we are also going to deal with a workable
mechanism for prospective employers to deal with prospective
employees to determine who can legally work in the country.
I think through these mechanisms, through this at least
three-prong approach, that we will have a much better chance of
dealing with a problem that right now is essentially out of
control.
I want to just say, in conclusion, thank you again to each
of you for your willingness to appear here today and to answer
tough questions and to help us hopefully come up with some
meaningful solutions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kyl. Thank you, and I want to conclude by
indicating that any of the members of the Subcommittees who
wish to submit statements, their statements will be taken for
the record. We should probably allow a couple of days for
submission of any written questions to our panelists, and I
would appreciate your cooperation. I have just got a couple
about--well, basically the statistics that I asked you for, if
you can get them to me.
We really do appreciate your testimony, as Senator Cornyn
said, and the really good ideas about how to constructively
deal with the problems. We started the hearing out talking
about the problems, the fact that we have got far too many
people who are released on their own recognizance who don't
show up, not enough detention space. We have an expedited
removal process that is working very well that actually deters
violation, but we need to expand that to the entirety of the
border.
All of these items need to be calculated, basically, for us
to determine what we need to do in our legislation and what the
costs of that will be, because Senator Cornyn and I very much
want to end up here with a constructive piece of legislation
that provides a maximum control of the border, provides maximum
enforcement in the interior, and provides the most workable and
enforceable workplace program, as well.
With a combination of all of those, we obviously hope to
eventually end this problem of illegal immigration while
satisfying all of the requirements that our immigration laws
generally seek to meet, including providing enough workers in
our country. It is not going to be easy, but with the help of
people like yourself, we can make it happen. So again, we thank
you very much for your testimony today.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43519.058
<all>