<DOC>
[107th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:84331.wais]
IMPROVING SECURITY AND FACILITATING COMMERCE AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 22, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-148
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
84-331 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
BOB BARR, Georgia DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
DAN MILLER, Florida ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
RON LEWIS, Kentucky JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JIM TURNER, Texas
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
DAVE WELDON, Florida JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia ------
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
------ ------ (Independent)
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel
Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JIM TURNER, Texas
DOUG OSE, California THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JANICE D. SCHAKOWKY, Illinois
DAVE WELDON, Florida
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Christopher Donesa, Staff Director
Nicholas Coleman, Professional Staff Member
Conn Carroll, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 22, 2002................................ 1
Statement of:
Borane, Ray, mayor, city of Douglas, AZ; Chris M. Roll,
Cochise County Attorney; Larry Dever, Cochise County
Sheriff; Harlan Capin, president, Nogales Alliance, Port of
the Future; James J. Dickson, administrator and CEO, Copper
Queen Community Hospital................................... 67
De La Torre, Donna, Director, Field Operations, Arizona
Customs Management Center, U.S. Customs Service; and David
Aguilar, Chief Patrol Agent, Tucson Sector, U.S. Border
Patrol, Immigration and Naturalization Service............. 29
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Aguilar, David, Chief Patrol Agent, Tucson Sector, U.S.
Border Patrol, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
prepared statement of...................................... 42
Borane, Ray, mayor, city of Douglas, AZ, prepared statement
of......................................................... 72
Capin, Harlan, president, Nogales Alliance, Port of the
Future, prepared statement of.............................. 92
De La Torre, Donna, Director, Field Operations, Arizona
Customs Management Center, U.S. Customs Service, prepared
statement of............................................... 32
Dever, Larry, Cochise County Sheriff, prepared statement of.. 82
Dickson, James J., administrator and CEO, Copper Queen
Community Hospital, prepared statement of.................. 144
Kolbe, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona:
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Various prepared statements.............................. 151
Roll, Chris M., Cochise County Attorney, prepared statement
of......................................................... 77
Shadegg, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona, prepared statement of.................... 172
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 3
IMPROVING SECURITY AND FACILITATING COMMERCE AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER
----------
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2002
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Sierra Vista, AZ.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in the
Performing Arts Center, Buena High School, 525 Buena School
Boulevard, Sierra Vista, AZ, Hon. Mark E. Souder, (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Representative Souder.
Also present: Representatives Shadegg and Kolbe.
Staff present: Chris Donesa, staff director; Nicholas
Coleman and Kevin Long, professional staff members; and Conn
Carroll, clerk.
Mr. Souder. Good morning. If everybody could take their
seats and we can start. The subcommittee hearing will now come
to order. Good morning and thank you all for coming.
Today our subcommittee will explore the status of the
border crossings in the Southeast Arizona region. Since last
summer, this subcommittee has been considering ways to improve
the both the security of our Nation's borders, and the
efficient flow of international commerce, travel, and tourism.
Continuing problems with illegal immigration and smuggling
of drugs, and other contraband, over the Southern and Northern
borders have also prompted calls to hire more Federal law
enforcement officers, and to expand the physical and
technological infrastructure needed to allow those officers to
work effectively.
The attacks of September 11th and their aftermath have
emphasized the urgency of dealing with the terrorist threat, as
well as the problems of narcotics interdiction and illegal
immigration.
At the same time continued delays at some border crossings,
and a reduction in commercial and commuter traffic from the
pre-security measurements put in place after September 11th
have raised concerns about the effect of these policies on
trade, tourism, and travel.
Congress has provided strong short term support, and is
considering numerous proposals to deal with these problems over
the long term. In its recent budget, President Bush put forth a
plan to significantly increase the personnel and resources at
the borders and ports of entry.
Our subcommittee is supportive of these efforts and we are
open to exploring all of the various proposals. However,
finding and implementing solutions is much more difficult than
simply identifying the problems.
It is important that Congress have a thorough understanding
of how quickly border security agencies can meet the new
requirements, and what the impact on the new emphasis on anti-
terrorism will be on personnel and resource decisions at each
of these agencies.
And in a rush to protect our Nation's borders from
terrorists, we must not hamper our ability to protect citizens
from other dangers. This hearing is the sixth in a series of
field hearings, which we have held at border crossings and
ports of entry throughout the United States.
We have already held three hearings on the Northern border,
a hearing in San Diego, and one at the Ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach, CA. At each location, this subcommittee is
assessing the problems facing Federal agencies, local
lawmakers, and community and business leaders with respect to
border policy.
We will focus on what new resources are needed for the
Federal Government to most effectively administer the border
crossing, as well as what new policies could be pursued to ease
the burden placed on commerce, travel, and tourism.
We will also explore how the new emphasis on preventing
terrorism may affect the ability of these agencies to carry out
their other vital missions. These issues are all very important
and extremely urgent, and I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today about ways to address them.
We have invited representatives of agencies primarily
responsible for protecting our borders of this region, namely
the U.S. Customs Services, and U.S. Border Patrol, Immigration
and Naturalization Service, to testify here today.
The subcommittee is vitally interested in ensuring the
effective functioning of these agencies, and we will continue
to work with them and their staff to ensure the continued
security and effective administration of our Nation's borders.
We welcome Ms. Donna De La Torre, the Director of Field
Operations at the Arizona Customs Management Center; and Mr.
David Aguilar, Chief Patrol Agent of the U.S. Border Patrol's
Tucson Sector.
When examining border policies, we must of course also seek
the input of representatives of the local community whose
livelihood is directly affected by changes at the border.
We therefore welcome the Honorable Ray Borane, mayor of the
city of Douglas, AZ; the Honorable Chris M. Roll, Cochise
County; the Honorable Larry Dever, sheriff of Cochise County.
And Mr. Harlan Capin, president of Nogales Alliance and
Port of the Future; and Mr. James J. Dickson, administrator/CEO
of Copper Queen Community Hospital. We thank everyone for
taking time this afternoon to join us for this important
discussion. I would now like to recognize Mr. Kolbe for any
opening statement that he would like to make.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.003
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much, Chairman Souder, and I
really appreciate your willingness to come this distance and
hold this hearing. I know that you had to make some significant
changes to your schedule, and I am very grateful to you. This
is a very important hearing for us.
We want to welcome you to the desert of Southeastern
Arizona. You probably don't see quite as many scorpions and
saguaro cactus back in Indiana as you do out here, but we are
delighted to have you here, and wish you could stay for some of
the open and some of the great weather that we have got here.
I also want to welcome those that are going to be
participating here this morning, and on the second panel we are
going to have Mayor Borane, Sheriff Dever, County Attorney
Chris Roll.
You will be hearing from Jim Dickson, from the Copper Queen
Hospital, and Harlan Capin, President of the Nogales Alliance,
Port of the Future. And of course here on this first panel, we
have the representatives from the U.S. Customs Service, and the
Border Patrol.
And to all of them I say welcome. Our border must be
managed to stop the flow of illegal and dangerous activity into
the United States. The Border Patrol and the Customs Service
are two important Homeland Security Agencies, but the military
is also appropriately involved in this.
We all know that the military continues to help out on the
border, effectively providing radar systems and aerial
reconnaissance, air and ground transportation, communications,
intelligence, photography, video, and technology support.
In fact, I support efforts to enhance the military's
presence on the border, especially using our national guard to
help secure our border and to relieve the agents of other
duties.
However, this does not mean that we should put up a wall,
or turn our border into a demilitarized region, like the Korean
Demilitarized Zone. We are not at war with Mexico. Mexico is a
friend, and it is a neighbor.
We have to find ways to allow people and commerce to cross
the border, while at the same time blocking illegal
immigration, drug smuggling, people smuggling, and the
smuggling of other contraband, such as weapons.
We have to manage, and we have to control our border, and
not shut it down, and certainly not leave it unattended. One
issue that is very important in this region, Mr. Chairman, is
the illegal immigration problem.
In Arizona, we have been a victim of an INS decision that
was made some time ago to selectively harden the border in
parts of Texas and California, which has had the result of
funneling the illegal immigration into the more rural parts of
Arizona.
And we are feeling the heavy burden of this policy. On
August 2, 2001, the General Accounting Office released a report
called the ``INS Southwest Border Strategy: Resource and Impact
Issues Remain after Seven Years.'' That is the title of the
report.
And it confirms this in part, quoting just one paragraph
from that GAO report, which says,
The primary discernable effect of the INS strategy, based
on INS apprehension statistics, appears to be the shifting of
the illegal alien traffic.
Between 1998 and 2000, apprehensions declined in three
border patrol sectors: San Diego, CA; El Paso, and McAllen, TX.
But increased in five of the other six Southwest border
sectors.
The extent to which INS border control efforts may have
affected overall illegal entry along the Southwest border
remains unclear, however.
Lack of resources for the INS is not the problem. As a
member of the Appropriations Subcommittee which funds the INS,
I had watched as Congress since 1993 has more than tripled the
INS budget from $1\1/2\ billion to $5 billion in 2001.
During the same number of years the number of funded INS
personnel has grown from 18,133 to 33,537. That is an increase
of 85 percent. This year Congress provided another $1 billion
to bring it to over $6 billion for the INS, and I support this
increase, because the INS plays an ever-important role in
patrolling and protecting our borders.
Nevertheless, it is clear to me that the INS has not been
able to manage the resources that we are provided. Let me say,
and let me emphasize, when I say that the agency has not been
able to manage this money and the increased mission.
I want to emphasize this point because I am a strong
supporter of Federal law enforcement and have nothing but
admiration for the dedicated people who work in this area. The
INS employees are hard working, very committed people, who have
devoted their lives to protecting American citizens, and they
should be commended for their work.
And however there may be poor management, and sometimes a
few bad apples, and that unfortunately has an effect of
significantly ruining an agency's reputation, and destroying
the public's confidence, and its integrity.
Everybody has heard about poor judgments that were made
years ago by some internal revenue service employees, but that
didn't mean that every IRS employee was a scoundrel.
Congress did force a reform of the IRS, and now I think its
reputation has been approved, and I think that the lives of its
employees are better as a result of that. In my mind, I think
the same reform has to happen with the INS.
The agency structure and management isn't working, and I
think we have to restore the integrity of the agency. I have
been a supporter for many years of the recommendation made by
the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform that would split the
INS into two parts.
In its final report to Congress, the Commission recommended
that the processing of legal immigration and naturalization
claims be transferred to the Department of State.
With the exception of work site enforcement and detention,
the INS enforcement programs then would appropriately remain at
the Department of Justice as an elevated enforcement bureau.
INS responsibility for work site enforcement would be
transferred to the Department of Labor. The commission
suggested turning over most of INS's detention operations to
the U.S. Marshals Service and the Bureau of Prisons.
This would be a complicated reorganization since it takes
pieces and puts it in several different places. And the first
step in this process may happen this year. Legislative
proposals are pending in Congress to split the INS into two
separate agencies for enforcement and immigration services. I
hope that the Congress will act on these reforms.
U.S. Customs has gone through some challenging times
itself, and there was a need to change the old ways. There was
much work that was done on Customs, including Customs
integrity.
In fact, for the previous 4 years that I was chairman of
the Treasury, and General Government Appropriations
Subcommittee, one of the things that I did was help to direct
the Treasury Under Secretary of Enforcement to task the Office
of Professional Responsibility to conduct a comprehensive
review in 1998.
And today I think that Customs is a better agency for the
public and for its employees because of this internal review
which was done. In fact, I think the Customs Service can be a
model for the rest of the bureau around the world.
The stark difference between Custom's success in Arizona
and the Border Patrol's failures I think is striking. Mr.
Chairman, let me just provide a few statistics on illegal
immigration so that everyone is clear about the people who live
and work in this area have to deal with daily.
Members of the subcommittee, I am sorry that we don't have
these on large charts here, but we have them available on
charts, and they are available down there.
Members of the subcommittee, and I think people testifying
here, have these charts which show the difference of this first
one here, which is actually chart two, that shows the decline
in Border Patrol apprehensions in San Diego and El Paso, while
the numbers skyrocketed here in the Tucson sector has really
just gone through the roof, declined over the last year.
And for which we are not quite sure yet that in 1 year we
can have the real answers for what is the reason for that,
because it is declining all along the border this past year.
But Del Rio, McAllen, El Centro, all were up very
significantly, and only El Paso and San Diego have been down
over the last several years.
I think the decline this year that we have experienced, or
in 2001 I should say, is probably more to do with the
recession. We don't have enough data yet to be sure, and of
course the terrorist attacks on September 11th, which really
kept people away from the border because of the increase in the
homeland security, and the fear of people getting caught, and
they might find themselves in more deeper trouble than they had
before.
The next chart, chart three, shows the Tucson border
apprehensions here within the different stations, and you will
notice again the incredible increase in the numbers of the
Nogales, the Douglas, and Naco sectors.
We don't see that kind of an increase in the inland
sectors, Wilcox, Casa Grande, Sonoita, Ajo. Well, Ajo is on the
border. We don't see it in the western area as much either, but
over in Nogales and going east toward the New Mexico border,
and Douglas, and in Douglas this is a staggering increase in
the numbers there.
And then finally chart four shows that although the number
of patrol hours have exploded since 1997, the number of
apprehensions has really been fairly level. And I think this is
why I came to the conclusion about the management, and that I
think there is some problem.
Chart five shows how it might happen, and how the numbers
in San Diego as their patrol hours went up dramatically, the
numbers of apprehensions took a constant and steady decrease
there.
In other words, it was having its effect of deterring
people from coming across the border, and that's why I believe
very strongly that we need to deploy our resources to the
border so that we are not continually playing cat and mouse
with illegal immigrants in our back yards, which also has the
added impact of problems for the citizens who live in those
back yards.
Citizens of Arizona should not have to withstand the
onslaught of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants
traveling through the area and destroying property, and
straining our health care facilities, littering our lands with
garbage and human waste, redirecting law enforcement efforts
away from local crime, saturating our court systems with cases.
So I am hopeful that this hearing will highlight some of
the deficiencies, and some of the strengths in our border
strategy, as well as hopefully pointing the way toward some new
and innovative ways in which we can manage the border with
Mexico.
Again, Chairman Souder, I want to thank you very much for
holding this hearing. The impact of our policies don't stop
here at this border. They are found in places as far away as
Fort Wayne, Indiana, because even though the illegal immigrants
come across through our border, they generally don't stay here.
We love tourists to come, and we have a lot of them stop
along the way to different destinations, but for illegal
immigrants, by and large, Cochise County is simply a transient
zone to other parts of the country.
So I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and
appreciate the opportunity to participate in the hearing. Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Kolbe follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.018
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much, Congressman Kolbe.
Congressman Shadegg.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to thank you for
holding this hearing, and with unanimous consent, I will insert
my entire written statement into the record, and in the
interest of time, briefly summarize it here this morning.
Arizona and Cochise County, I believe, face a crisis of
illegal immigration. We spent last night on the border with the
border patrol looking at various sectors until after midnight.
And while I was very impressed with what I saw and the
efforts that are being made, those efforts are simply not
adequate. We are not doing enough at this point in time to stop
illegal immigration, nor are we doing enough to stop the inflow
of drugs.
Arizona ranchers, and farmers, and residents of Cochise
County are on the front line, and they face a crisis. Their
water tank valves are being left open, and their fences are
being destroyed, litter is strewn on their property, and human
feces piles up.
The local law enforcement officers, Sheriff Larry Dever,
and others, face a crisis which is not of their making, and of
which they do not have the resources to meet that challenge. I
do not believe that the INS or the Border Patrol have adequate
resources.
As my colleague, Mr. Kolbe, has pointed out, INS policy
almost intentionally decided to focus border crossing in this
area by strengthening the border in Texas, and by strengthening
the border in San Diego.
And it is now time, and I know that others in our
delegation have fought hard, including Mr. Kolbe, for those
resources, but we must do more to strengthen our border here in
this sector of the company.
If we do not, I think we will face indeed an open revolt.
We have been at crisis points in the past, and at the moment I
think we are doing a slightly better job, but not enough. It is
clear to me that some of the hi-tech equipment that I saw last
night is useful, and is doing an improved job.
But we simply do not have enough of it. When you can look
at the Douglas line and see that there are a few miles of
fence, maybe 6 miles of fence, or you can look at the Nogales
line and see there are even fewer miles of fence, and when you
see the intensity of deployment in those areas, you have to
understand that there is an ability to get around that
deployment of services.
It is clear that people are getting in, and not only is
this a serious crisis for illegal immigration, which is doing
damage to our economy and putting a burden on our entire social
service structure, and a burden that the American taxpayer
should not have to bear, it is also the cause and enabler of a
tremendous flow of illegal drugs.
And I know, Mr. Chairman, of your life long dedication to
fighting the drug problem, and of your solid knowledge of the
fact that the drugs that cross this border make it to every
community, and destroy the lives of young children all across
this country, including in your district in Indiana, which you
know I have visited with you.
And I applaud you for your efforts to fight that, and to do
everything that you can. It seems to me that there is much that
we can do. My colleague, Mr. Kolbe, has pointed out that INS
reform is called for.
I strongly believe that we can no longer tolerate the
bifurcation of duties that the INS has, and to have together in
the INS the duty to bring people in, and to approve their legal
immigration; and at the same time the duty of holding out the
illegals simply is a conflict of interest that this Congress
should not tolerate.
It does not work and I join my colleague, Mr. Kolbe, in
saying that I hope that reform legislation passes this year.
Its divided duties are not helping it perform its job. I do
understand that this is a vital corridor for commerce, and that
business people in southern Arizona and indeed across our State
depend upon a functional border.
And as you know, Chairman Souder, you and I visited that
border in Nogales I guess 4 or 5 years ago, and spent some time
there, and saw the new crossing station which was done, and the
new facilities that had been constructed to bring commercial
trucks across the border.
When we make our efforts to ensure that illegal immigration
is stopped, we cannot do so in a fashion which stops the
commerce, which is essential. But it seems to me that we have a
duty, and it seems to me that the Federal Government is failing
the people of Arizona.
I have dedicated a great deal of my career to the health
care issue in America, and there is no question but that health
care in southern Arizona is being destroyed by the burden of
illegal immigration.
Not too many months ago the trauma centers in Tucson
threatened to close every single level one trauma center in
Tucson because they couldn't afford to keep them open. As a
result of a law called Emtola, which I am working to reform,
anyone who shows up at an American emergency room, be they a
citizen or not, is entitled to free health care.
Indeed, the hospital cannot even ask if they have the
ability to pay. In addition to that, as a result of court
impartation of that law, if a doctor sees an individual in the
hospital in the emergency room who can't afford to pay, and
that individual requires further treatment, they must see that
individual in their office for free.
You can imagine the burden that puts on doctors, and that
is magnified manyfold here right at the border. And it is
causing a crisis for the people of this community who are legal
residents and citizens of the United States who need that
health care when their resources are being dedicated in other
places.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this
hearing, and I do want to conclude with one notion. There is an
emerging sentiment in Washington, DC, that the terrorist
threat, the threat of Middle Eastern or people of Iran-Iraqi
origin, who are associated with Al-Qaeda, are crossing the
Canadian border, and are a greater threat at the Canadian
border than at the Mexican border.
I simply do not agree with that sentiment. I do not believe
the statistics support that, and I would site as one point of
that a newspaper column which appeared on Monday, February
18th, just this last Monday, documenting a number of six
illegal immigrants caught crossing the border at Valpurias--I
am not sure that is how you pronounce it.
Two were from Afghanistan, and one was from Pakistan, and I
believe we have a severe problem at the Southern border as the
Northern border, and I commend you for spending your time to
come here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. Let me first thank Congressman Kolbe
for hosting me in your district. This is obviously a much
warmer place than Indiana right now. In fact, I think you are
double or more on the temperature.
Unfortunately, I am headed back to Fort Wayne this
afternoon and so I won't be able to enjoy it very much, and I
appreciate the two Members from Arizona's interest in this
subject, which isn't now. It has been there since I have been
in Congress, and even back to when I was a staffer.
Congressman Kolbe is the chairman of the committee that
funds a lot of our overseas narcotics efforts, and if we don't
get control of it in Columbia and other places, it merely comes
up and hits this border.
He also is on the subcommittee that oversees and has
chaired the subcommittee that oversees a lot of the funding. We
have very difficult funding questions, and his leadership, and
his interest in both the border, the narcotics, and the trade,
have been critical in Congress.
Congressman Shadegg and I were elected in the same class.
We have worked together, and he is persistently hounding me all
the time about Arizona problems, and I think they are both
strong advocates for the State of Arizona.
We have attempted to balance clearly in these hearings the
different problems, and what we see is each crossing is
different, and as John often says, history may not repeat
itself, but often it rhymes. And that is what we see with the
crossings.
They aren't exactly the same, but often they have
similarities. But there are unique differences, and we have
concentrated on the south border, and there has been a lot of
diversion in the north border.
It is not that there aren't terrorist problems on the south
border, in addition to huge and larger immigration problems,
and narcotics problems, although we are increasingly having
narcotics problems on the north border.
In Detroit, there are 225,000 Arab Americans, and the
largest Al-Qaeda cells arguably in the world are in Montreal
and Toronto. And we are having a very difficult time trying to
control the north border, looking for the occasional terrorist,
which is a different problem than we have on the south border,
where you have masses of people, and where people are often
hiding in them, and coming in illegally.
And the quantity of cocaine, and heroin, and even marijuana
that is coming from the south is huge, but increasing the
marijuana, potent marijuana, is coming in from the north
border.
And the ecstacy is coming in from the north border, and the
meth is coming in from the north border, and so we are trying
to figure out how simultaneously we can continue the success
that we have begun to have, at least in parts of the south
border, like San Diego.
And at the same time, stiffen our defenses in the north
border without wrecking our economy when people are hurting for
jobs. And that is our dilemma, and that is why we are here
today to hear the unique problems of what is happening in
Arizona as we take actions in other areas.
Now, before proceeding with the witnesses, I need to take
care of a couple of procedural matters. First, I ask for
unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to
submit written statements and questions for the hearing record.
And that any answers to the written questions provided by
the witnesses also be included in the record, because we may
have some followup questions or information that the witnesses
want to submit. So without objection, it is so ordered.
Second, I ask for unanimous consent that all exhibits,
documents, and other materials referred to by the Members and
the witnesses may be included in the hearing record, and that
all Members be permitted to revise and extend their remarks,
and without objection, it is so ordered.
This is an oversight committee. For those of you who follow
the adventures in which are frequent and complex of the last
administration, this committee, and that we are a subcommittee
and part of, is the Government Reform Committee, that did
everything from the Travel Office, to Waco, to the China
investigations, to the FBI files.
And when you do oversight of the executive branch and
issues, every witness is sworn in and it is part of a record of
making sure that the laws that Congress pass are implemented in
the way that we intended, and followed through.
We do not have open mics. I know that some people have
expressed that. If you have written statements or comments that
you want to make, if you submit those to Congressman Kolbe or
Congressman Shadegg, as you heard me just read, our standard
procedure is that Members can put information in the record.
But we do not--it is not like the town meetings that each
of us hold. This is an official investigation by the Congress
over the executive branch activities. And I know that often
frustrates many people who came out.
But sometimes we do it where there is 5 people watching us,
and sometimes there is 300, but we need to go through our same
procedures as we do all oversight hearings. Finally, I ask for
unanimous consent that all Members present be permitted to
participate in the hearing.
One last thing on what we are doing. Each of the hearings
then becomes a book of about that border, and with the
additional charts, and that we put in with the information, and
with the followup questions, and with any statements that
people put in.
And then we will also be doing an interim, and then a
final, border report, because certainly we are doing the most
systematic examination of each of the States on the south and
north border, and we will have that first interim report in
probably 1\1/2\ to 2 months, and then a final one as we move
into the final legislative and appropriations process in the
summer.
With that, I would like to move to the first panel. It is a
longstanding congressional protocol that government witnesses
representing the administration testify first. So our first
panel consists of those witnesses. Would the witnesses on the
first panel please rise, and raise your right hands, and I will
administer the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that both of the witnesses
answered in the affirmative. We will first recognize Ms. De La
Torre. You are recognized for your opening statement for the
Customs Service.
STATEMENTS OF DONNA DE LA TORRE, DIRECTOR, FIELD OPERATIONS,
ARIZONA CUSTOMS MANAGEMENT CENTER, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE; AND
DAVID AGUILAR, CHIEF PATROL AGENT, TUCSON SECTOR, U.S. BORDER
PATROL, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Ms. De La Torre. Chairman Souder, Mr. Kolbe, and Mr.
Shadegg, thank you very much for your invitation to address
this committee and for the opportunity to appear before you
today.
I would like to discuss the efforts of the U.S. Customs
Service to address the terrorism threat, and the challenges
that exist along the U.S./Mexican border in the Arizona Customs
management center.
In the Arizona management center, clearly the majority of
our resources are focused on processing traffic through the six
ports of entry along the Arizona/Mexico border in Yuma, Pima,
Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties.
Just last year in Arizona, we processed, and processed
traffic of 10 million private vehicles, carrying 23 million
people into our country. We also processed 9 million
pedestrians, for a combination of 32 million people arriving in
the United States legally from Mexico or other parts of the
world in to Arizona.
To put this volume in perspective, the combined 32 million
arriving persons is greater than the combined international
arrivals through this country's three major gateway airports of
JFK, Miami, and Los Angeles International Airports.
Wait times certainly did increase for a time after
September 11th, and we do see those traffic volumes reaching
right back to pre-September 11th levels. Additionally, we
processed 335,000 commercial trucks coming into this country,
and laden on those trucks were goods, with a value in excess of
$10 billion.
We collected from those commercial entries duties for the
U.S. Government of $41 million, and so that $41 million was
redeposited into the U.S. General Fund.
Clearly our challenge though is to segregate and to sort
out suspicious persons and goods from legitimate travel and
trade. In so doing last year, U.S. Customs Inspectors, canine
officers at the ports of entry, and U.S. Customs Special Agents
who were working between the ports of entry, seized more than
223,000 pounds of narcotics.
To do this, we have to employ a multi-layered strategy that
combines risk management, targeting, and technology, to sort
out this traffic from the legitimate travel and trade. We
employ a rigorous use of automated and manual pre-screening
systems, dedicated individual efforts of customs officers, and
National Guard members.
We utilize a wide array of state-of-the-art detection
technology, and sophisticated computer-assisted risk
assessment; not to mention the contributions of our fine 70 or
more 4-legged customs officers out here, our Canine Corps, for
the U.S. Customs Services.
Another major component of our strategy within the Customs
Service involves partnerships with other governmental and
private interests on both sides of the border. These include
certainly the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services,
whose inspectors work side-by-side with us at the Ports of
Entry.
But it includes industry partnership programs, commercial
importers, and ongoing coordination with trade groups,
community chambers of commerce, and very importantly, agencies
of the State of Arizona.
Immediately following the terrorist attacks of September
11th, Customs went to what we call a level one alert here and
across the country. Level one requires a sustained, intensive,
anti-terrorist initiative, and it includes the increased
inspections of travelers and goods at every port of entry.
We remain at level one alert today. Another consequence of
level one is that Customs officers are guarding all ports of
entry during the hours when they are normally closed.
These activities under level one do not constitute new or
unfamiliar work for Customs, but rather they are an
intensification of what we already do, but with an emphasis on
anti-terrorism rather than anti-smuggling.
We believe the same knowledge of smuggling techniques and
behavioral analysis that our officers have used so effectively
against narco terrorists can be equally effective against this
new threat.
A good example of this is the interception of the
terrorist, Ahmad Rassam, on our Northern border with Canada at
the end of year 2000 by U.S. Customs inspectors working at Port
Angelos.
Certainly this change in focus is going to require a
different degree of emphasis, and it is supported mainly on the
Southwest border by a greater utilization of our existing
resources.
Currently in the Arizona Customs management center, our
officers are working 41 percent more overtime on top of what
was already a pretty substantial overtime requirement prior to
the events of September 11th.
Since September 11th, we have added 14 additional Customs
officer positions, a 3.9 percent increase in resources, and the
recent passage of emergency supplemental appropriations for
counter-terrorism has provided additional resources, which
project out to 20 additional positions for this CMC.
We are very hopeful that this will allow us to reach a
point where the current level of operations can be sustained
indefinitely without negatively impacting officer
effectiveness.
In the trade processing arena, we are trying to do more to
push our sphere of activities outward from U.S. point of entry
to points of origin abroad. Our recently implemented Customs
trade partnership against terrorism will do just that.
In this program, we plan to work with importers in
developing information, such as where their goods originated,
the physical security and integrity of their foreign plants and
suppliers, the background of their personnel, the means by
which they transport goods, and those who they have chosen to
transport their goods into the country.
On a local level, we are certainly attempting to work out
smarter or as smart as we can, and I would like to bring up one
particular project that specifically deals with the trade
arena.
To better counter the narcotics threat and now the
terrorist threat in the commercial environment, Arizona has
implemented at our port in Nogales, which is our busiest
commercial crossing, a project that we refer to as the Mariposa
Cargo Redesign Project.
This redesign, which involves the partnering with the State
of Arizona to acquire additional land necessary for us to share
with them and develop a commercial processing system, has
greatly reduced traditional Southwest border processing times,
but it has also increased Customs ability to screen for
enforcement purposes.
Essentially what we have done is to create an enforcement
screening area of what used to be a static queuing line, and we
decided that since the trucks were just waiting in line anyway
that we could do something there while they were waiting.
So using this system, every single truck, without
exception, that enters the United States through the Nogales
Mariposa Cargo Crossing is intensely screened. What this means
is that this allowed us to move to level one inspections in the
cargo arena in Nogales, our busiest trade port here, in a
transparent manner to the trade.
We were already conducting those intensified level one
inspections prior to September 11th. In the passenger arena, we
have implemented an enforcement command center concept, along
with an operation that involves 203 cameras strategically
placed throughout the border, throughout our border in Arizona.
And we have developed, tested, and successfully implemented
the Customs Automated Operations System, which allows us to
systematically program various operations into the passenger
processing environment, or alternately, it randomly selects
various enforcement operations.
This has proven to be very effective for us in providing a
measure of uniformity. It has also been a force multiplier. It
keeps our officers focused on the goal of the operation, while
at the same time making us much less predictable to the
smuggler or to the potential terrorist. We are very hopeful
about future successes within this customs automated operation
system implementation.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kolbe, and Mr. Shadegg, I
want to thank you for this opportunity to testify. The U.S.
Customs Service will continue to make every effort possible,
working with our fellow inspection agencies, with the
administration, with congressional leaders, our Mexican
counterparts, and the business community, to address your
concerns and those of the American people.
I would be very happy to answer any questions that you
might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. De La Torre follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.025
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Good morning. Chairman Sounder, Congressman
Kolbe, and Congressman Shadegg, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to appear before the subcommittee here today to
speak to you about the Tucson Border Patrol sector's
operations, and our law enforcement initiatives that are
effectively addressing and impacting alien and drug smuggling,
and counter-terrorism measures in Arizona.
I would like to begin this morning by thanking you and your
fellow Members of Congress for your diligent support of INS and
the U.S. Border Patrol. The Tucson sector of the U.S. Border
Patrol has an area of responsibility that covers 261 linear
miles of Arizona's border with Mexico.
This sector has eight border patrol stations located in
four counties within the southern area of the State. The U.S.
Border Patrol developed a border patrol strategy in 1994 as
part of the overall INS effort to deter illegal immigration
into our country.
The principal goal of the border strategy is to effectively
bring the border areas with the highest level of illegal
crossings under manageable control. The foundation of the
border control strategy is two-fold; to focus border patrol
resources in targeted areas of operation in order to increase
levels of border control in the areas of greatest need; and to
increase the quality of life for people living and working
along the border by reducing the level of crime in border
communities.
Arizona has three main areas that are used as illegal entry
points or corridors into the United States. The three main
corridors are identified as the Nogales corridor, the Douglas/
Naco corridor, and the West Desert corridor.
The Nogales corridor originates in the United States at
Nogales, AZ. Sonora, Mexico, is the Mexican city directly
across the border from Nogales, AZ. Highway 19 is the main
arterial highway leading into the United States from Nogales,
AZ.
There are several other peripheral roadways that lead away
from Nogales. The Nogales and Sonora stations are responsible
for this area of operations. The Douglas/Naco corridor
originates at the cities of Douglas and Naco, AZ.
Both of these cities and the surrounding areas are used by
smugglers to facilitate the entry of illegal aliens into the
United States. The main arterial highways leading away from the
Douglas/Naco area of operations are Highway 191, Highway 80,
82, and 90.
The Douglas, Naco and Wilcox stations are responsible for
this area of operations. The West Desert corridor encompasses
the western-most portion of the Tucson sector, and this is a
very desolate and harsh corridor that is the least used by
smugglers and aliens.
Aliens have to track long distances on foot in order to
reach highways leading away from the border area. The Tucson,
Casa Grande, and Ajo Stations, are responsible for these areas
of operation.
The strategic application of border patrol resources is
essential. This is necessary in order for our operations to be
effective by making it unfeasible for smugglers and aliens to
utilize an area such as the Douglas-Naco corridor as a gateway
to the interior of the United States.
The forward deployment of our resources is essential to our
operation, and is founded on an immediate border area
deterrence-based approach. This includes the deployment of
border patrol agents in high visibility positions, sensors, low
light television cameras, barriers, lighting and other
technology, all of which creates force multipliers.
The Tucson sector operates a network of temporary traffic
checkpoints, and when the smugglers and alien flow are driven
out of the populated areas, they utilize the outlying areas as
a means of reaching the main highways leading away from the
border.
The checkpoints provide a border patrol presence on those
outlying roadways that deters the use of the roadways by
smugglers. The checkpoints also enhance the Border Patrol's
ability to police the entire expanse of the roadways. The
Tucson sector ranch patrol operates in the Douglas/Naco area
and concentrates on responding to ranchers and rural citizens
that are experiencing incursions on their private property by
aliens and alien smugglers.
The Tucson sector also has instituted a disrupt unit that
patrols the highways leading away from the areas experiencing
increased smuggling and other criminal activity. The disrupt
units' mission is to deny smugglers the use of open air staging
areas that parallel the immediate border area.
The function and supportive role to units on the immediate
border and the ranch patrols have proven very successful. The
key asset in all border patrol operations is the border patrol
agent, and I am extremely proud of the men and women of the
Tucson sector for their hard work, their diligence, and their
fortitude.
Operational strategy is founded on the agents' presence and
operational response capabilities, and is directly linked to
supporting enforcement infrastructure, which includes remote
video surveillance camera systems, integrated surveillance
intelligence systems, LORIS scopes, night vision goggles,
sensors, all terrain vehicles, horse patrols, barriers, and
other resources that complement and enhance agent's
capabilities.
Smugglers' continued efforts to bypass our border control
strategy have resulted in smugglers adjusting their tactics,
and guiding unsuspecting groups of aliens through desolate and
sometimes treachious areas of Arizona.
The Mexican Consulate has joined forces with us to produce
public safety announcements to be aired in Mexico, and we have
undertaken a very aggressive program of developing and
publishing warning pamphlets distributed in Mexico.
Signs have been posted on both sides of the border warning
of the dangers of crossing in specific areas. When illegal
crossings in dangerous areas do occur, the Tucson sector border
patrol search trauma and rescue unit performs search and rescue
operations, primarily in the West Desert corridor, 7 days a
week, 24 hours a day, during the hot summer months. They
performed 121 rescues last fiscal year alone.
The achievements that we have reached. The Nogales
corridor. Prior to implementing the border patrol strategy, the
quality of life in downtown Nogales was deteriorating and crime
was rampant. Our deterrence-based strategy was implemented n
December 1998, and the results have been dramatic.
The Nogales station apprehended 127,206 illegal aliens in
fiscal year 1998. The station has experienced a steady decline
in the number of apprehensions since 1998. In fiscal year 1999,
the Nogales station apprehended 86,529 illegal aliens. In
fiscal year 2000, 68,251. In fiscal year 2001, 58,262.
As evidenced by these statistics, apprehensions in the
downtown area have now dropped 54 percent, compared to 1998.
The Douglas/Naco corridor. In fiscal year 1998, a total of
178,134 illegal aliens were apprehended in the Douglas/Naco
corridor. In fiscal year 1999, 266,285. At the onset of
Operation Safeguard, the Tucson sector successfully employed
the strategy of deterrence in the city of Douglas.
Our incremental expansion since late 1999 in this area has
brought management control to a large part of this area. This
success was achieved with the aggressive and sustained forward
deployment of personnel, along with cameras, sensors, and other
equipment and technology on the immediate border area.
As resources are directed to the Douglas/Naco corridor
apprehensions have declined from 402,694 in fiscal year 2000,
to 260,939 in fiscal year 2001. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman,
the U.S. Border Patrol has had successes in San Diego, El Paso,
and McAllen sectors.
And I am now elated to include the Nogales corridor and the
majority of the Douglas/Naco corridor in this listing as border
control achievements. Arrests of illegal aliens throughout the
Tucson sector are currently down by 52 percent as compared to
last year.
And the sector is at a 7 year low in arrests. I am
confident that with our current strategy and with continued
support that we will meet our objective of controlling the
border.
I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to present
this testimony, and I would be pleased to respond to any
questions that the subcommittee may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aguilar follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.032
Mr. Souder. I thank each one of you for your testimony and
if you can thank each of your agents in this region for the job
that they do. It is often one that receives more criticism than
thanks, but they are the front line of defense for the United
States of America, and we appreciate what they do.
And if you can communicate that to each one of them. I
wanted to make sure that I get a couple of questions into the
record. Clearly, while we have focused on the Northern border,
there is an increasing signs that there is at least some
activity of people of Middle Eastern descent coming across the
Southern border.
In the story regarding the ones the other day, there was
the story that no one was able to communicate in their
language. One of the things that we have been trying to look at
in our border patrol, because we focus on speaking Spanish, how
if a border patrol agent, or a customs agent, finds somebody
who does not speak English or Spanish, what do you do?
Do you feel that this is a frequent enough need that you
can still deal with it in contracting out, or do we need to
focus more on language? What we have heard from agents in the
field, for example, on the Quebec border, that the State
Department standards on speaking French mean that people who
spoke French all their life could not pass the test.
That we need some kind of a standard that is more
functional, rather than you are going to be working in an
embassy and dealing in a more formal basis, what could we do if
you first feel there is a need, and how do you deal with it,
and what could we do to make sure that we have some agents in
each sector with more flexibility, not only for Middle Eastern,
but Asian.
Mr. Aguilar. Let me begin, sir. Within the Border Patrol,
any time we apprehend a person that does not speak either
English or Spanish, one of the first things that we look at is
we basically maintain skills inventories within our sectors,
our areas of operation, so that we can identify any officers
that might speak a language that we are looking for.
In addition to that--and that is the first step that we
take, of course, is to take a look at internally what we have
got. In addition to that, we have access 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week, to what we refer to as an interpreter pool.
By means of telephone communications that is contracted
out, we reach out by means of telephone to start the
interpretation process. We also reach out to other law
enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, the DEA, for assistance
in those cases that it is needed.
At this point in time, we have an effective system in place
where we can communicate, and one of the most useful tools, of
course, is the internal communications skills within our
diverse population of agents if you will.
Mr. Souder. Do you have anybody who can speak Farsi or
Arabic in your 500 personnel?
Mr. Aguilar. I can't speak to those specifically, sir. I
know that in other areas that I have worked we have had those
capabilities.
Mr. Souder. Have you contracted out, and have you utilized
a contracted out since you have been in this zone?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes. The agents in the field have, yes, sir.
Mr. Souder. Ms. De La Torre.
Ms. De La Torre. Principally the language that we encounter
is Spanish, and it is rare that we would encounter a language
requirement that we are not able to meet, and that is because
we are dealing with ports of entry, and mostly legal crossings.
But Customs does have a 24 hour command center based in
Washington specifically for the terrorist threat, and to
receive intelligence, to analyze, to translate. So what we
would do in that eventuality should we encounter someone from a
country whose language we could not speak--Middle Eastern--we
would immediately notify our 24-hour command center for that
kind of translation.
But in that we normally deal with the legitimate traveling
trade in public, we have not seen that need or seen a need to
contract any kind of special services yet.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. Could you also tell me how many of
the six crossings are not open 24 hours?
Ms. De La Torre. Our crossing at--of those 6 crossings, 3
of them--well, let's say 2\1/2\, are not open 24 hours. The
Port of Lukeville is open from 6 a.m. to midnight.
We are now guarding it from 12 to 6 in the morning. The
Port of Sasabe is open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., and we are now
posting customs inspectors from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m.
And then within the Nogales Port of Entry, there are
actually several crossings in that Port of Entry, and the
Mariposa passenger crossing closes at 10 o'clock at night, and
opens at 6 in the morning.
These are based on traffic requirements as we see them, but
now once again we are guarding that port of entry during the
closed hours.
Mr. Souder. Are you looking at doing--is Yuma the next
largest port of entry for commercial traffic?
Ms. De La Torre. Yes, it is.
Mr. Souder. Are you looking at a system similar to what you
did? Is that the next focus?
Ms. De La Torre. We certainly are. We have a tremendous
infrastructure, and facility problems in our San Luis crossing
right now. It has really outgrown that old facility.
There has been a Presidential permit approved to create a
new commercial crossing east of San Luis, and we are very
optimistic about how that will change things for us, but we
have really outgrown that facility.
Mr. Souder. How many rail crossings are there?
Ms. De La Torre. We have one rail crossing at the Port of
Nogales.
Mr. Souder. And you said that you are basically right now
able to see all the trucks. What about the trains?
Ms. De La Torre. Well, I am very pleased to say also that
just in the past month we have been able to install a rail VAC,
a gamma ray system, which will examine and give us images of
the contents of all rail cars both going into the country and
out of the country.
We have had it completed and ready for inbound traffic
about 2 months ago, and as of about 2 weeks ago, we are now
able to also get images of the rail cars going southbound as
well.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Kolbe.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Aguilar,
let me begin with a subject that has been a contentious point
for some time between the Border Patrol and myself, and some
others, about checkpoints. And I would just like to get this
out of the way.
We just have I think a philosophical difference. My view is
that roving checkpoints, and checkpoints that move from--that
are temporarily moved from one location to the other have got
to be more effective than stationing someone permanently in one
location.
And we don't say to the Sierra Vista Police that we will
put a person at the corner of the bypass and Frye Boulevard,
and we will just stop all criminals there, and we won't have
anybody anywhere else. We have moved people around, and we have
law enforcement that is flexible and that moves.
And I just want to begin by asking you whether you are
aware about the language that is in the Appropriation Acts for
1999, 2000, and 2001, and 2002, which prohibits the INS from
having permanent checkpoints?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir, I am familiar with that.
Mr. Kolbe. OK. Are you aware that the current fiscal law
this time defines what permanent means? That is, not operating
in the same location for 7 consecutive days during a 14 day
period?
Are you aware of that, and if so, when did you become aware
of that?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir, we became aware of that shortly
after the budget was passed. As an organization, we are very
sensitive to the appropriations language, and I understand that
the Commissioner is going to be meeting with key Members of
Congress next week in order to discuss those very issues.
It is my understanding that the current checkpoint
operations do not violate the congressional law. As a Federal
law enforcement officer, I am keenly aware of the
responsibilities to protect the American people, especially in
light of the recent terrorist acts and the requirements of the
Border Patrol to operate at National Threat level one
conditions.
The INS, the Tucson Sector, and the Border Patrol, is in
full compliance with the congressional language which prohibits
the use of appropriated funds to construct or operate any
permanent traffic checkpoints within the Tucson sector.
There have been no funds expended by INS to the Tucson
sector to establish permanent checkpoints within the Tucson
Border Patrol Sector. Now, in light of the September 11th
situation that we faced, the Border Patrol feels that it is in
the best interests of U.S. national security and the American
people to be vigilant and to operate the temporary checkpoints
in a manner that provides the highest level of Border Patrol
enforcement defense against illegal entry of persons coming
into the United States.
Mr. Kolbe. Well, it is my understanding that the checkpoint
at North Tubac was in the same location from September 10th of
last year until January 18th of this year, with 1 day, December
23rd, the day before Christmas, that it wasn't open.
The law was enacted on November 28th, and signed into law
at that time. Is it your view that you were complying with the
law with that?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. The headquarters office of INS is in
communication and dialog with the congressional units in order
to ensure that we are in fact in line with the appropriations
language.
When the September 11th events occurred, the checkpoints
had been down for in fact a number of months. The most active
checkpoint at that point in time had been the Highway 19
checkpoint going on and off.
On any given day when the checkpoint at Highway 19, and I
am speaking of Highway 19 specifically now, it goes down during
the day, and for several parts of the day, because of the
traffic flow.
That is one of the means that we keep that temporary
checkpoint going. We also move it from location to location and
not on a monthly basis, but basically we respond to the
community.
For example, when Tubac has their arts festival, we respond
to the community by moving that also. September 11th,
nationwide, all the checkpoints across the Southwest border
went into a threat one level, and have been maintained since.
One of the sensitivities that we had at that time was in
fact the appropriations language. We immediately went out for
guidance on that, and we were told that the dialog was ongoing,
and that we were in compliance.
Mr. Kolbe. Perhaps I will have to have that discussion at
the Washington level, but I can't see--I mean, there may be a
reason for changing, and if they can convince it is changing,
fine.
But I don't see how you can say keeping it open
continuously is in compliance. And now you have just moved as I
understand it 10 miles down the road, this checkpoint?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kolbe. What capabilities do you have at these
checkpoints? Do you have access to the Customs, and the State
of Arizona for stolen cars and vehicles, registration, etc?
Mr. Aguilar. No, sir, we do not have any ADP capability
because of lack of infrastructure. We have not been able to
construct that kind of capability, again because some of the
budget limitations that we have.
We cannot run, for example, NCIC checks, Arizona Criminal
Index Checks. We cannot process----
Mr. Kolbe. None of that can be done wireless?
Mr. Aguilar. I'm sorry?
Mr. Kolbe. None of that can be done by wireless
communications?
Mr. Aguilar. No, sir, we do not have that capability right
now.
Mr. Kolbe. You do not have that capability?
Mr. Aguilar. Within the INS, we do not have that
capability.
Mr. Kolbe. You don't have wireless capability now?
Mr. Aguilar. No.
Mr. Kolbe. And is that all available at, for example, the
checkpoint north of San Diego? Every vehicle is checked for
stolen registration?
Mr. Aguilar. They have the capability to conduct those
kinds of checks because they are hardwired to that kind of
capability.
Mr. Kolbe. So every vehicle is checked?
Mr. Aguilar. At that specific checkpoint? I believe so,
yes.
Mr. Kolbe. That is pretty astonishing that you don't have
wireless capability. I mean, you have got people moving around
throughout the whole district, and not to have wireless
capability is really astonishing.
Mr. Chairman, I will come back if I might with some other
questions on the hospitals, and also I have some for Ms. De La
Torre, if I might on the second round.
Mr. Souder. And in our discussions yesterday when we
visited one of the checkpoints and we also went through another
one, or by another one, that it is clear that if they don't
become permanent checkpoints, it is clear that if we don't have
checkpoints, we have to look rapidly at how to get the wireless
capacity and the information capacity.
It is impossible to do adequate functioning without being
able to do proper background checks. One way or another that
has to be an appropriations priority, because they either have
to get hardwired, or they have to have the other, because
intelligence is clearly the most important thing on the
terrorism part.
It is probably among the most important things in
narcotics, and also in illegal immigration. Mr. Shadegg.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Le me begin with a
clarifying question, because we did visit one of your
checkpoints yesterday, and did understand from you then that
you do not have wireless data capability.
You do have wireless voice capability, and you could run a
license plate check by voice from one of those could you not?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir, and in fact that is the way that we
operate right now. If in fact there is a need for our officers
to run a license plate, we then radio in to our base stations,
our stations.
And then they in fact start running it through the
capabilities that we have there, or we make contact with the
appropriate law enforcement agency to run those checks.
Mr. Shadegg. What you don't have is wireless data
capability. You can't type into a computer certain information
and have it come right back to that computer?
Mr. Aguilar. Right. Yes, sir.
Mr. Souder. Is the phone secure?
Mr. Aguilar. No. The phone is not secure, and we
communicate by means of cell phone, because we do not have the
capability to hardwire in there because of spending
constraints.
Mr. Shadegg. You have no hardwire phone. You have cell
phone and radio; is that right?
Mr. Aguilar. At the checkpoint that you went to yesterday,
that is correct.
Mr. Shadegg. At the checkpoint on I-19 do you have a
hardwire phone?
Mr. Aguilar. No.
Mr. Shadegg. So there again you communicate by cell phone?
Mr. Aguilar. By cell phone, yes.
Mr. Shadegg. Or Border Patrol radio?
Mr. Aguilar. Or Border Patrol radio, yes, sir.
Mr. Shadegg. I want to walk through your testimony just
through a couple of points. On page 4, you say or your focus on
the importance of your agents. I want to know how many agents
you have now, and whether that is an increase or a decrease,
and how much of a increase or decrease, and how much of an
increase or decrease you expect over the next 2 years?
Mr. Aguilar. Right now, sir, the authorized levels at the
Tucson sector, and this is the entire sector within the eight
stations, my table of organization, authorized level, is 1,611
officers.
At this current point in time as we speak, I actually have
1,638 officers on board. So we are actually a little over.
Mr. Shadegg. And how far is that up or down from where you
were a year or 2 years ago?
Mr. Aguilar. Well, in fact, I can give you the exact
enhancements, sir. During fiscal year 2001, we got 70
enhancements; and during fiscal year 2002, we got 60. I'm
sorry, 90 are coming this year, but we have not gotten them
yet. Those are the enhancements that have just been announced
into the sector.
Mr. Shadegg. OK. How many do you expect in the--I mean, you
expect 90 next year, or 90 this year?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, 90 this year, fiscal year 2002.
Mr. Shadegg. And you have no idea beyond that?
Mr. Aguilar. No. No, sir.
Mr. Shadegg. And on page five of your testimony, you talk
about he warnings to illegal immigrants as they cross. Yet, I
understand there are many areas of the border that are not
fenced at all, and many areas where there are no signs; is that
correct?
Mr. Aguilar. There are many areas that are not fenced or
have minimal fencing, basically some of which you saw last
night, the barbed wire fencing, which of course is not going to
be a real barrier to anybody who is intent on crossing.
There are some areas that we are extending and expanding
our signage efforts out there to warn of the dangers associated
with that also, yes.
Mr. Shadegg. So those signs would only be in a few areas,
and they would only be in areas where you have reason to
believe that people have crossed in the past?
Mr. Aguilar. We have reason to believe that people crossed
in the past, and we also have a very effective liaison
mechanism with our counterparts on the Mexican side, whereby we
are also able to preempt some of these signages requirements,
because we are being told that people are going at a certain
direction.
Our intelligence systems come into play and things of this
nature, yes, sir.
Mr. Shadegg. Your testimony stresses the fact that there is
a downturn in arrests, and Mr. Kolbe in his opening statement
raised the question of why is that, and I think that is an open
question that nobody quite knows the answer.
Some people are encouraged by that fact, and some people
are discouraged. I want to first focus on statistics for other
than Mexicans. Going at the issue of this terrorism question.
Do you keep statistics on arrests of other than Mexican, and
are those going up or down?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir, we do keep statistics on OTMs, Other
than Mexicans, and at the present time this sector, as of
February 18th, and this is in the data that I brought with me,
in the area of OTM specifically, we are down by 4 percent as a
sector.
Mr. Shadegg. From when to when?
Mr. Aguilar. As compared to last year? Raw numbers, sir, if
you are interested in those, are basically at the same time
period last year, through February 18th, we had 1,111
apprehensions of other than Mexicans.
Through the 18th of this year, we had 1,070. Now, within
that group, I have some further, if you are interested,
specifics, from Middle Eastern countries. And since the
beginning of the fiscal year, we have had 45 apprehensions of
nationals from Middle Eastern countries.
After September 11th, we had a total of 12 from those
Middle Eastern countries within the sector.
Mr. Shadegg. If the overall reduction in other than
Mexicans is 4 percent, how does that compare to the overall
reduction in total? I believe the reduction was much more
dramatic than that.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. The make-up of the OTM population
into this sector has always been low. The make-up--and this is
an estimate because I don't have that figure with me--has
always been between 3 and 8 percent historically.
Now as we speak today, through the 18th of February, the
sector in its entirety is down by 52 percent in the total
number of arrests. The heaviest traffic area that we have had
over the last couple of years has been the Douglas and the Naco
area of operations.
Within those two specific areas, Douglas is down by 65
percent, and Naco is down by 59 percent through the 18th of
February.
Mr. Shadegg. My time has expired for the first round now. I
have some more questions and I will get to them in the second
round.
Mr. Souder. Ms. De La Torre, how many additional customs
inspectors or agents do you feel you need to increase the
pressure and success rate in all parts of the Arizona sector?
Ms. De La Torre. Well, certainly resource needs are not
unique to Arizona, and I believe that the Customs Service is
quite concerned about the threat on the Northern border right
now.
Customs, nationwide, has received 840 new inspector
positions based on this emergency appropriation from Congress.
We know that right now we are going to begin--we will receive
at least 20, and I think that the majority will likely go to
the Northern border.
But we do understand that we will be receiving in
incremental levels additional inspector positions throughout
the year. I can just tell you that we are grateful to get two,
and we are grateful to get 20, and we are grateful to get 200.
And whatever we do receive thought we certainly try to get the
most bang for the buck out of.
Mr. Souder. Have your drug arrests gone up since September
11th or down?
Ms. De La Torre. Actually, they have gone up. Now, after
September 11th, we had a decrease in traffic, and we had a
decrease in narcotics smuggling as well. Coincidentally, after
the 10 days of mourning, and when the flags went back up,
smugglers began to come back across the border.
And what we have seen happening is that we have even deeper
concealment in our narcotics loads that are coming in now,
because the inspections are so intensified. We have always seen
narcotics being smuggled in gas tanks and spare tires, and
typical vehicle smuggling.
But now we see them in intake manifolds, and brake drums,
four-wheel drive differentials, drive shafts. We are seeing
very, very deep concealment of heroin and cocaine, which is
very time consuming to extract.
We have had to remove windshields to get into the air bag
compartments and dash boards to be able to extricate narcotics.
And you have to do this very carefully, especially if you are
trying to preserve evidence for prosecutions.
So that is how we have seen the nature of the narcotics
smuggling change, that deep concealment, which is very time
consuming certainly for the officers.
Mr. Souder. The people who you are arresting for smuggling
illegal narcotics, are they a different group then the
immigrant group? Are they American citizens, or are they non-
citizens? What kind of patterns do you see?
Ms. De La Torre. Sir, I will tell you that we see all types
of people from every country, every age, every economic status,
smuggling. We have seen American citizens, Mexican citizens,
Mexican citizens who are legally in this country, and all
types, still smuggling narcotics.
Mr. Souder. Has there been any differences in the large
loads as opposed to a smaller load?
Ms. De La Torre. Well, the larger loads certainly are
coming in through major organizations, and the larger cocaine
loads are coming in through the cargo environment. That is why
our enforcement screening area of that cargo lot is so
critical. That's where we have our gauntlet of dogs, of metal
detectors, of inspectors standing on ladders, and people
tapping things to see if it sounds the same. That's why that is
so critical.
Mr. Souder. Are any of those coming through pre-cleared
vehicles or frequent vehicles?
Ms. De La Torre. Well, through frequent crossers? Oh,
certainly. Certainly.
Mr. Souder. Because we are trying to address how we can
accelerate the commerce, but yet what we are hearing is that
some of the loads are coming through those, and so one way to
address that might be to double the penalties if you abuse your
frequency, because they were trying to make it easier for
Commerce, and people who abuse that should pay a higher penalty
because they are in effect bringing the whole system down.
Ms. De La Torre. And I'm sorry for not being clear. I was
speaking about frequent crossers in the passenger vehicle
arena. These are frequent crossers every day.
Mr. Souder. I was referring to the commercial path side.
Ms. De La Torre. Well, in the commercial environment, what
we have had to do is differentiate between the importer and the
carrier, because an importer can actually legally put a
legitimate load of merchandise on and then the carrier, the
truck, though, has a false compartment with legitimate
merchandise on it, we have to then determine who was at fault.
We don't want to seize the truck and the merchandise if the
importer and the shipper had no idea. So that is our challenge
then; who was at fault, and who know, and who put it in.
That's why these security agreements in the trade
partnership will be so important.
Mr. Souder. One of the things that we clearly need to put
pressure on, however, are the shippers and others to help us
with the accountability beforehand.
Ms. De La Torre. Yes.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Aguilar, let me ask this as a compound
question so you can address it in one breath. How many agents
approximately have you lost to sky marshals and other programs
since September 11th; and has the retention problem become
greater; and approximately how many applications do you have to
receive in order to complete a hire?
Mr. Aguilar. Currently, sir, the sector for the entire last
year had an attrition of 12.8 percent. That is relative to the
1,611 that I quoted earlier. As we speak now, through the month
of February, since September, we have had 25 actual officers
leave for the Air Marshals Program.
There are others that we are aware of that are in the
application process if you will. I don't know at what point
they will be picked up or if they will be picked up. But at the
present time we have lost 25.
The attrition rate again is 12.8. The second part of your
question, I am going to speak to the national recruiting
numbers, because I don't have them specifically for the Tucson
sector, because as you know, the hiring occurs at the
headquarters level through headquarters INS and OPM.
But for us to get the needed people to net the people that
we need this next year, we are figuring--and this is the Border
Patrol as a whole--that there will be a need to put at a
minimum approximately 2,000 officers through our Border Patrol
academies in order to net the attrition that is attrited, and
the enhancements that we are getting.
Mr. Souder. And how many applicants do you need to get to
the 2,000 at the academy?
Mr. Aguilar. That varies significantly based on several
things that happen with our economy and things of this nature.
The competition that we have with other agencies, and the Sky
Marshals is a new dynamic that has been added this time around.
I can give you numbers that I am familiar with, and these
are not exact numbers. But a year ago we were approximating as
an organization that we needed to actually go out and recruit
and basically touch 18,000 applicants in order to net new the
people that we actually got as an end product out of our
academies in order to get us at the attrition, plus the
enhancements.
Mr. Kolbe. Could you yield for just one question?
Mr. Souder. Yes, I'm yielding.
Mr. Kolbe. Just on that point, that 12.8 percent is total
attrition, and that's not just for the Sky Marshal Program, but
for your total attrition?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, that's right, that's the total.
Mr. Kolbe. And that is of your uniformed officers?
Mr. Aguilar. That is specific to our officer corps, yes.
Mr. Souder. And that generally speaking, what we have seen
is a higher attrition rate post-September 11th. Mr. Ziegler
came to us in Congress, particularly in the first 3 months, and
said that he was losing agents on a national basis faster than
adding them, even though we had just boosted up the funding.
Now, hopefully in a negative--hopefully is the wrong word
to use here. The economy softening may be helping this process,
but it is a problem that we have when we suddenly wrap up, and
we often rob Peter to pay Paul.
Mr. Souder. And if I could ask one followup. Where do your
Border Patrol agents generally come from, in the sense of what
were they previously doing and were they doing previous law
enforcement? Where do you recruit from?
Mr. Aguilar. It is a very diverse population, because we
recruit throughout the United States. We concentrate our
recruiting efforts throughout the United States, but we also go
to colleges, for example; recent graduates, and military
people, and people who are exiting the military, and things of
this nature.
We have a system that basically credits people with life
experiences one way and for them to bring experience to the
job. We have a lot of ex-military, and ex-law enforcement
people, police officers, fire fighters, and things of this
nature.
We also recruit straight out of the colleges with a 2 or 4
year degree that come into the service. So it is a varied
background.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. Mr. Kolbe.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Ms. De La Torre,
let me begin by asking you on this technology issue, and this
kind of follows up on what we were talking about with Mr.
Aguilar.
But even before September 11th, I think the Customs
Service, particular here in Arizona, has been leading the way
with some of the most modern and advanced surveillance systems
to improve security on our borders.
You have been working with New Technology Management,
Incorporated, which is a local company, on a lot of new and
interesting technology projects.
You mentioned BACAS 2, and that also has the wireless tech
system, and CAOS, and I am not sure if I remember what that
stands for. But it is a reference for Customs inspectors, I
guess.
And then weapons of mass destruction, and a land border
vehicle targeting system, a JPS kind of system. First of all,
do you have the capability to do the kind of wireless data that
we were talking about a moment ago?
Ms. De La Torre. Yes, we do have a national wireless
project in place in Customs, and the wireless part was not so
difficult, but the secure wireless part was the difficult part.
Mr. Kolbe. And that was my next question. Is it secure?
Ms. De La Torre. Yes, and we have been able to overcome
that hurdle to achieve secure wireless transmissions. What we
like to do is have our officers mobile and walking around with
the Port of Entry to be able to input data, and query things
without having to go back to a fixed terminal. So we are very
pleased with that.
Mr. Kolbe. How does Customs just in a general way, and this
is a philosophical question, but how do you balance your
resources between enhanced technology, the newest kinds of
technology, versus personnel?
I mean, what would you say your philosophy is in this
region here? If you have another dollar where would you like to
see it go? To new technology or do you think it is better for
personnel; one or the other?
Ms. De La Torre. Oh, gee. If I could put 50 cents to both,
that would certainly be wonderful. But I can tell you that
sometimes technology is much easier to come by than personnel,
and the answer to every problem isn't always putting more
people at it.
Sometimes we just have to work a little smarter, at least
in that port of entry environment. So what we found is that
these technologies that we put in place, our elaborate
surveillance camera system, which is really off the shelf
technology, but it is state-of-the-art.
And the camera system, and the automated operations system,
our ability to score and target land border vehicles, all of
that put us in such a good position after September 11th,
because although we had not planned for a terrorist attack,
when September 11th happen, we were in an excellent position to
have complete surveillance, live video, from all of our ports
of entry right away.
We were able to determine and direct anti-terrorist
operations in a split second through our CAOS. We call it the
CAOS system, through our automated operations system. So it has
been so valuable that I just don't know what we would do if it
was ever taken away from us.
It has just really been incredible and a real force
multiplier.
Mr. Kolbe. Well, technology obviously can allow you to
expand your resources, and to stretch the personnel out a lot
further. I mean, if you suspect a vehicle has contraband, and
you take it apart piece by piece; whereas, if you have got the
technology to look at it, and you know exactly where you are
looking, you can stretch your resources a lot further.
Ms. De La Torre. Absolutely, and imagine that benefit in
the cargo environment, and when an inspector might be
suspicious, and then to dismantle and take out pallet of
tomatoes would take so much time.
But to turn it through a truck x-ray, or gamma ray system,
an officer immediately knows if really the truck is OK, and
they can go right down the road. So that takes minutes, as
opposed to hours, and maybe all day.
Mr. Kolbe. Mr. Aguilar, I want to ask one last question,
and I don't want to dwell any longer on the checkpoints, but I
want to give you an opportunity. Commissioner Ziegler has said
that he is going to ask Congress for permanent checkpoints.
I don't know whether that is your philosophy also as well
personally, but from your own standpoint can you tell me if in
your view it is, why do you think a permanent checkpoint is a
better law enforcement tool than a roving or moveable
checkpoint.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. When we speak about checkpoints,
Congressman--and in fact the group that was with us last night,
we gave a full briefing and presentation on this.
But when it comes to checkpoints, there are several
parameters that we have to deal with. One of the most important
ones, or two of the most important ones are the safety to the
traveling public, and the legal parameters that the Supreme
Court and Appellate Courts have placed upon us in order to
conduct those checkpoints.
In addition to that, we have the States that we deal with
that require us to basically manage the checkpoints adequately.
Now, the reason that I say this is the following, because
permanent checkpoint as defined by the law not only give us the
capability to check and inspect the vehicles, but they also
give us the added parameters that facilitate the traffic flow,
and that make it easier for the traffic to flow through.
And that also facilitates the economy of the areas that are
impacted if you will, such as Nogales, Agua Prieta, Douglas,
and those areas. And it gives us the added inspection
capabilities.
Having all the technology present that is required to
conduct an effective and efficient inspection of the vehicle
actually translates the facilitation of that traffic, but
impacting upon the criminal aliens, or criminal subjects
ability to conduct their criminal activities.
At the present time the Supreme Court mandates that if we
move a checkpoint from one location to another that is
considered a roving patrol type checkpoint. Under the court
cases--and I will quote some of these court cases, Vascas
Guerrero, for example. This is a Supreme Court case.
It specifically states, ``that when a checkpoint is in
operation, it is always located at the same site.'' The
permanence requirement refers not to the duration of the
checkpoint, but to its location.
When the courts translate a checkpoint to a roving patrol
checkpoint, the intrusiveness of our operations is elevated due
to the officer's need to be able to articulate and pinpoint
they are in fact stopping this vehicle and not this other one.
Whereas, at a present checkpoint, as defined by the Supreme
Court and Appellate Court cases, we have the abilities to
inspect every vehicle that goes through there, and of course
inspecting every vehicle requires what Customs and we have at
our permanent checkpoint locations, all the technology, all the
equipment, all the record checks capabilities, all the
processing, detention capabilities.
For example, our temporary locations right now, we do not
have segregation capabilities for criminal aliens, for
criminals, for juveniles, for females, and males.
So they are ineffective and inefficient because we need to
employ Border Patrol Agents to immediately respond, and take
those people from there, and transport them back to the border
in order to do what we should have been able to do at the
checkpoint.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you. I think I am correct in saying that
never before have I heard the issue of the Supreme Court cases
raised as the argument for it, and so this is a new line that I
think we are hearing today, but we will take this up in more
detail with Mr. Ziegler.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired again. Will I have an
opportunity to ask one more set of questions on health care?
Mr. Souder. OK. I will yield to John.
Mr. Shadegg. I have some questions about the checkpoints,
but I will not focus on them right now. Hopefully I can get
those answers later. Ms. De La Torre, how much of your effort
is expended--and this rises out of an answer that you gave to a
question from the chairman--trying to discern whether the
trucker or the shipper is responsible, or--well, what did you
say, the transporter or the shipper.
That is, the agent that put the load on the truck, or the
person or company moving the truck. How much of your time has
been dedicated to trying to figure out how much is responsible
as you just said?
Ms. De La Torre. Well, quite a bit. It is very important,
and it doesn't often take or always take a great deal of time.
Sometimes it depends upon where the narcotics are concealed.
For example, if it is a load of merchandise and it is in the
boxes of merchandise, and we have seen that, then we strongly
suspect the importer.
But what we frequently see is modifications made to 18-
wheelers. Now if the company----
Mr. Shadegg. I have a limited amount of time, and you have
answered my question. I just want to tell you that I am stunned
by your testimony and stunned by what you just said right now.
And I want to get to the bottom of this, Mr. Chairman.
American law--our RICO law, for example--makes it very clear
that if an innocent citizen is driving a car that had drugs in
it, we can take that car and punish both the citizen who was
driving it and claimed he or she didn't know that there were
drugs in the car.
And indeed if I borrow a car from someone else, and I use
that car to smuggle drugs unbeknownst to the individual, our
RICO laws say we can take that car, even though I borrowed your
car and you knew nothing about it.
Mr. Souder. That is a question they ask you at airports.
Mr. Shadegg. Yes. It is insane to me that we would not be
saying very vigorously and very aggressively that we don't care
if it was the shipper or the agent that put the load on the
truck.
It if it the guy who owns the truck, or if it is the
company that put the load of cargo on the truck, we ought to be
punishing them both, and forfeiting them from both, and so that
we create an incentive for that shipper to say to the trucker,
or the agent, the import agent to say to the trucker, you had
better have a clean truck, or I am going to lose my load.
And for the trucker to say to the individual shipping the
load, you better be giving me a clean load, or I am going to
lose my truck. And we ought to be creating a situation where
they buy insurance policies on each of them so that if one gets
nailed to the other, let them sort it out.
If an importer is using a company that is also allowing
their trucks to be used for illegal drugs, that importer ought
to suffer the loss, and vice versa, and I am just stunned,
because we have innocent civilians not in the commercial
activity that we are punishing that way.
And for us not to punish a commercial importer who used a
trucker that had stuff hidden in the brake drums. So I do want
to get to the bottom of that. That is incredible.
Mr. Aguilar, I want to try to focus on this issue. You say
with some pride that in your tenure here that the number of
arrests are going down, and you believe that is deterring or is
reflective of the fact that we are succeeding.
And I think your philosophy as you explained it yesterday
was gain control, and either maintain or retain control, and
then expand control.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shadegg. And the numbers show, the final summary
numbers that you have given us, showed 402,694 in fiscal year
2000; down to 260,939 in fiscal year 2001. But the fundamental
question is for the people that have contacted my office, and
many, many do all the time, saying they are still overrunning
my property.
And they are still leaving trash on my property, and they
are still leaving feces on my property. They are still cutting
my fences, and they are still destroying my land. The value of
my property is still gone.
How can you substantiate whether this is fewer crossings or
simply fewer caught, No. 1. And, No. 2, do you think a more
than a quarter of a million people per year is sustainable,
because 260,939 is more than a quarter of a million people
still crossing in a year.
And then, third, have we regained control, and are we just
retaining, or have we not yet gained control, and what do you
mean if we haven't gained control yet, what do you need in
terms of resources to gain control?
Because I have to tell you that I don't think we have
gained control.
Mr. Aguilar. The terms that I used last night, Congressman
Shadegg, were gain, maintain, and expand. In the areas that we
are fully deployed within the Arizona border, 261 linear miles
of it, we are gauging our successes.
First, I will go into the tangible gauging, and that is the
actual arrests that we make out there, but the way that I put
it, the arrests are but one variable, one factor, within the
entire equation that we have looked at in the gauging effort.
The arrests we take into account, and we take into account
what the community is telling us out there. We have forms, G-
123 Forms, where we are maintaining records of every phone call
that comes into our station that tells us we have got people on
our property, and we respond out there. And those have shown a
tremendous decline, and that is another one.
Mr. Shadegg. The number of calls coming in saying people
are on our property?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. We keep those records very closely,
because that again helps us gauge. We talk to the hospital
communities, the medical communities, and what is happening,
and what are you seeing out there. We are seeing some of that.
Some of these intangibles are a part of those equations
that we buildup in order to get the final product that tells us
that in fact things are declining. Now, one of the issues that
you talk about are those areas where you getting the calls.
What we see in the criminal activity is that they do shift
to the efforts of law enforcement, as with any police officer.
We apply law enforcement resources. The criminal alien is not
going to stop, or the criminal is not going to stop. They are
going to force shift and try and get around those enforcement
efforts.
When that happens, unfortunately what happens is that the
crime shifts also, and this is not to say that we don't try to
take preemptive actions or that we address those actions when
they are occurring.
For example, I quoted the ranch patrols out here. We have
members in the audience I know that are the beneficiaries of
the ranch patrol specifically in the remote areas, and the
rural areas, where we deploy our officers specifically to
patrol those areas, and be immediately responsive to the
concerns out there.
The term that I use when I speak to gain is management
control. I stated last night that I am just like any chief of
police. Any chief of police is working toward zero murders,
zero shoplifters, zero burglaries, zero stolen cars.
Is he going to get there? The answer is probably not, but
that is what we have to continue to work toward. It is that end
product that we are shooting for on a constant basis. That is
the expansion process that I referred to.
Resources. We are continuing to be resourced, and this year
I am getting an additional 90 personnel. One of the things that
I have not spoken about in-depth is the need for technology.
Technology is one of the biggest force multipliers that we
can apply in support of that border patrol agent. By adding
some of the technology that you saw personally last night,
there is tremendous force multipliers.
We have taken in this sector a step that has not been taken
in other sectors. That is, we have taken what I refer to as a
rest technology, and turned it into a deterrence technology, to
where we stop the person from actually committing the crime so
that we don't have to make the arrest.
And we don't have to actually have to transport, process,
detain, feed, safeguard, and all of these things that take away
from that operational impact that we are looking to make.
Mr. Shadegg. It was a multifaceted question. So forgive me
if I just missed it. Again, I want you to answer two questions
that I did propound. One, do you think we have gained
manageable control of the sector.
Mr. Aguilar. The management control aspect of the sector
right now in the Nogales corridor of operation, which is the
Santa Cruz County area, in the Douglas/Naco corridor, as I
stated, we are at basically at a 7 year low right now.
Is that acceptable? No. We are going to continue. It is a
work in progress. We need to continue working on that. How we
do that is by the expansion process, by the enhancements of
technology, things of this nature.
Mr. Shadegg. OK. The second question that I didn't hear the
answer to. Do you think--well, maybe I did hear the answer to.
Do you think the 260,939 is an acceptable or sustainable number
over time?
Mr. Aguilar. No, it is not acceptable, and that's why we
continue to work on that, and to continue reducing those
numbers out there.
Mr. Shadegg. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Kolbe.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much. I am going to go into the
health care, but I just wanted to get on the record here about
the air assets As you know the Appropriations Act of Fiscal
Year 2002 directs the sector to implement the negotiations that
were directed to relocate some of the helicopter operations to
Sierra Vista.
First of all, what is the number of air assets you have in
this sector?
Mr. Aguilar. In total, sir, right now we have nine pilots,
including my supervisory pilot.
Mr. Kolbe. And what aircraft?
Mr. Aguilar. I have seven O86 helicopters, which are low
duty helicopters, and I have one Huey, which is a large
carrying capacity, and two fixed-wings.
Mr. Kolbe. So eight helicopters?
Mr. Aguilar. In total, I have eight, yes.
Mr. Kolbe. And two fixed-wings?
Mr. Aguilar. And two fixed-wings, yes, sir.
Mr. Kolbe. And where are they currently located? I don't
mean at this moment are they flying in the air, but when they
bed down, where do they bed down?
Mr. Aguilar. They are assigned right now in Tucson, out of
Tucson Air Operations. I have one supervisory pilot, and I have
one journeyman pilot, and one trainee pilot. I have three
aircraft mechanics, four of the O86 helicopters, and the Huey
is based out of there.
At Sierra Vista, I have five pilots assigned there, and I
have one trainee pilot, for a total of six. I have three 086
helicopters stationed at Sierra Vista, and I have one fixed-
wing. So over 50 percent of my air assets are in Sierra Vista.
Mr. Kolbe. Well, that is not quite 50 percent of your
total, but anyhow we just checked this morning, and we were
told just two have been there, and there has never been a third
there.
Mr. Aguilar. One of the reasons, sir, and I didn't go into
this, I don't have mechanics at Sierra Vista.
Mr. Kolbe. So they are not there?
Mr. Aguilar. No, I don't have mechanics. In order for us to
service these helicopters, I have to transport them from Sierra
Vista to Tucson to get them worked on. That is why we don't see
them on a constant basis.
At the present time, we are in the process of converting
positions. We have one mechanic that has been hired and is
going through background checks that will be reporting to
Sierra Vista as soon as OPM clears him and the background is
done.
So we are getting that unit fully operational out there,
and as we speak, we have those pilots and those air assets
based out of there.
Mr. Kolbe. On paper or based there?
Mr. Aguilar. Both. And again in order to support them--for
example, on the inspections that are required, and on the
mechanical duties that need to be performed on these, and
because I don't have that infrastructure support there, they
need to be conducted in Tucson.
So obviously we bring them to Tucson to get that work done
and then take them back.
Mr. Kolbe. I know that we need to keep this hearing moving
along. I want to take just a moment to talk, because on our
next panel, we are going to have a CEO of one of the hospitals,
and I want to talk for a moment about the issue of something
that really bugs me a lot frankly, and I think it really upsets
a lot of people here, and is a tremendous burden on the folks
that live along the border here.
And that is the amount of money that they have to bear in
their taxpayer costs for the care, emergency care of illegal
immigrants because the Border Patrol does not take care of
those.
Let me just if I might an excerpt from an INS policy on
injured aliens encountered by service officers. ``Where the
injury is such that the alien is not likely to escape, the
officer shall not take him into custody, or take any action to
use language from which an atmosphere of restraint could be
conveyed to him or to anyone else present.''
Must the Immigration and Naturalization Service take into
custody those aliens injured while fleeing from Border Patrol
Agents, and thereby incur responsibility for payment of medical
bills? No.
``Aliens who are fleeing from Border Patrol Agents
generally have not come into custody, and there is no
obligation to pay medical injuries resulting from injuries that
they may suffer, even if those injuries are a result from
seeking to avoid the pursuant of INS personnel.''
And so does that accurately characterize the current
policy?
Mr. Aguilar. I don't have that memo in front of me, sir,
but what you just covered is what we refer to as prosecutorial
discretion, and that is what that memo describes, yes, sir.
Mr. Kolbe. Do you agree that when you stop at a checkpoint
or in the desert, or at any other place, and take somebody and
put them into the van, is that individual while you are
transporting them back to the border in your custody?
Mr. Aguilar. A person arrested, yes, sir, is in our
custody.
Mr. Kolbe. So you have a high speed chase on the
interstate, and there is a rollover, and those that are not
injured are in your custody, but those that are injured are not
in your custody. Would that be a correct characterization?
Mr. Aguilar. Those that are injured, our primary
responsibility and response would be to call in the----
Mr. Kolbe. They are primarily your responsibility?
Mr. Aguilar. Our primary responsibility is for the well-
being, to call in the emergency team.
Mr. Kolbe. That wasn't my question. The ones that you put
into the van that are not injured to take back to the border,
they are in your custody?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes.
Mr. Kolbe. Those that are injured are not in your custody,
even though you are holding them there while the ambulances are
arriving, or the air ambulances, or whatever; is that correct?
Mr. Aguilar. If we are holding them, they are under arrest.
If we are holding them in our custody, then we have taken
custody of them.
Mr. Kolbe. What is defined as holding them?
Mr. Aguilar. Actually identifying the person as being under
arrest, placing them--restraining their movement, and things of
this nature.
Mr. Kolbe. When the ambulance arrives and you remove the
handcuffs from them are they not under arrest?
Mr. Aguilar. We do not do that, sir.
Mr. Kolbe. You do not do that?
Mr. Aguilar. No.
Mr. Kolbe. I think I would beg to differ with you.
Mr. Aguilar. There have been some cases where the ambulance
drivers have asked us to help them restrain the people that
have been hurt, and actually we have rode with ambulance
drivers to the medical facilities for the safety of the
ambulance drivers.
Mr. Kolbe. But they are still not in your custody?
Mr. Aguilar. At that point, no. In other words, we are
performing the duties of a law enforcement officer at that
point.
Mr. Kolbe. And your reason for not taking them into custody
is what? Why is that person that is injured, and is an illegal
alien, not in your custody, but the person that you are
transporting back to the border is in your custody?
Mr. Aguilar. That is basically what that memo speaks to, is
prosecutorial discretion. At the point that we take a person
into custody----
Mr. Kolbe. Let's be honest. It is to avoid the medical
costs.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir, part of it is.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you. That's all I was trying to get at; is
to avoid the medical costs, and we know that. The University
Medical Center has $10 million this year in uncompensated care.
The Copper Queen, a small 28-bed hospital in Bisbee, has
$140,000. It may not seem like a lot, but for a small rural
hospital that is a lot of money.
Mr. Aguilar. I agree. I agree. The only thing I would point
out, sir, is that--and I know Mr. John Duvall, the chief
financial officer for the University Medical Center, and when
we started taking a look at those numbers, those were not all
Border Patrol related. Some of those were paroled into the
country.
Mr. Kolbe. By the way, thank you for mentioning parole. It
makes me think. When the hospital finishes treating, will you
go to the hospital to transport that person back to the border?
Mr. Aguilar. We will do that if we have the operational
resources to do that. One of the things that I explained last
night is that when a supervisor receives a call on the line,
and we are all forwarded deployed, it is up to that supervisor
to make a determination as to whether to respond to the medical
facility on a situation where there might be an illegal alien
there, or pull an officer from that line to make that call.
Mr. Kolbe. I wonder why the hospitals tell me that they
never come, that they will never come? Because if you came, you
would be taking them into custody wouldn't you?
Mr. Aguilar. If they were in fact illegal aliens, yes, sir.
Mr. Kolbe. And they could then bill you for the cost of it?
Mr. Aguilar. At that point, no, they would not bill us for
the cost if we take them into custody afterwards. The only way
we can pay, sir, for any medical costs associated with an
illegal alien, and this is by statute, and this is by law, 42
U.S.C. 249, is the only statute that allows that, is when these
people are in our custody.
Mr. Kolbe. I understand that. If they are in your INS
detention facility up in Florence, and they get ill, you pay
for those.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes.
Mr. Kolbe. That's right, but you have them in custody when
you transport them back to the border, but for medical
purposes, you make sure that you don't have them in custody.
And who in your view should have that responsibility; should it
be the taxpayers of Cochise County?
Mr. Aguilar. I can't answer that, sir.
Mr. Kolbe. You don't have any personal views on that at all
about that on who should be responsible? I mean, the person who
got across the border and into this country, because we--and I
am not specifically personally blaming you, but we as a
government failed to stop him from coming across?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes.
Mr. Kolbe. Shouldn't that be a Federal responsibility?
Mr. Aguilar. I have to leave that to the taxpayer to
determine.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. I thank each of you for your testimony, and for
your work. We may have some additional followup questions. I
know that Chairman Kolbe is making a point, and what I am
hearing, and I had not heard this argument before, that Mr.
Aguilar is here representing his agency, and can't really give
a personal opinion.
Mr. Kolbe. I realize that.
Mr. Souder. But I thank each of you for your testimony, and
you are now dismissed, and if the second panel could please
come forward; The Honorable Ray Borane, The Honorable Chris
Roll; the Honorable Larry Dever; Mr. Harlan Capin, and Mr.
James J. Dickson.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that each of the witnesses
responded in the affirmative. The first witness is the
Honorable Ray Borane, mayor of the city of Douglas.
STATEMENTS OF RAY BORANE, MAYOR, CITY OF DOUGLAS, AZ; CHRIS M.
ROLL, COCHISE COUNTY ATTORNEY; LARRY DEVER, COCHISE COUNTY
SHERIFF; HARLAN CAPIN, PRESIDENT, NOGALES ALLIANCE, PORT OF THE
FUTURE; JAMES J. DICKSON, ADMINISTRATOR AND CEO, COPPER QUEEN
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
Mr. Borane. Thank you. I would like to thank Chairman
Souder, the Honorable members of the subcommittee, and
Congressman Kolbe, for your presence here today.
I apologize if the following remarks regarding the border
crisis are repetitive, but this is in fact an old story, a
stagnant story, where nothing changes, but only shifts from
place to place, and where only the variable changes; the most
variable being the tragedy of September 11th.
Yet, however old or stagnant, it is an important situation
where matters go unresolved and the loss and degradation of
life persists.
First, let me preface my remarks by stating that the
devastating attacks on September 11th have changed the
landscape throughout our Nation, from New York to Douglas, AZ.
I will touch on this briefly as I backtrack and bring you up to
date on our situation.
However, I want to be clear that the following statements
regarding illegal immigration should not be in any way
misconstrued as a lack of concern or support for securing our
Nation and our borders, which I consider a priority.
While these two issues overlap, illegal immigration remains
a phenomenon that will only be solved when addressed from a
realistic perspective, and I will try to highlight some of that
we are confronted with.
For several years I have worked closely and cooperatively
with Congressman Kolbe and Governor Hull. I hope and believe
our collaborative work has achieved, created attention, and
directed positive results for the citizens of many border
communities like Douglas.
Despite our efforts, Douglas and other border communities
have suffered immensely at the hand of incomprehensive,
unrealistic, and ineffective policy resulting from the prior
lackadaisical leadership in Washington.
Earlier this year, President Fox and President Bush were on
the right track, and on the verge of reaching historic reform
between our two countries. Both leaders had recognized the
importance of the border.
At its apex, the premature and unrealistic talk of amnesty
raised false hopes. I guess worker programs rose to the top as
a solution to illegal immigration. Yet, all these efforts were
stalled and seemingly lost in the rumble as the mournful events
of September 11th.
No one knows the rippling effects better than we. The
border dividing one cultural, one bicultural, and one bilingual
community became real. Suddenly a community inextricably tied
socially and economically became American on one side and
Mexican on the other.
Although illegal immigration is of the utmost concern, the
issue is hardly mentioned in Washington since September 11th.
As we look back on the issue, we witnessed the transformation
of a sleepy time into the Nation's hot spot and principal
corridor for the crossing and trafficking of illegal aliens.
The root and inception of what would become our demise lies
in actions that took place years before in San Diego and El
Paso. The administration and its failed policy effectively
funneled thousands of illegal immigrants into this area by
allocating massive resources in these two areas.
While not the U.S. military, the U.S. Border Patrol
comprises a veritable military division; 550 strong, uniformed
and armed with the latest technology, equipment, and military
strategy.
The Federal Government has effectively militarized the
border. More and more agents were employed in a military
strategy to control the border. And I ask what is meant by
controlling the border.
Is the border under control when the apex of 61,000 UDA
apprehensions a month are reduced to 5,000 or 1,500? Because
1,500 still is a considerable number, not counting the hundreds
who get through.
Or is it stopping them completely, and is that the goal;
whether we are talking about Douglas, AZ, or McAllen, TX. We
are never going to stop them from coming until we get some type
of a practical and realistic solution.
At best the strategy to control perpetuates unscrupulous
networks of scavengers, known as coyotes and polleros, who
shift the tides of illegal immigrants to remote locations. This
is the failure that can only be compared to that of the drug
war.
All the while, industrial and domestic life in America
churns like a fine-tuned machine well oiled by immigrant labor.
Understand that I applaud the many efforts of the Border Patrol
Agents who have been placed in a no-win situation by misguided
government policy.
Border Patrol Agents have become an integral part of our
community and our economy, and they are appreciated. However,
they are not the answer, and they are only part of the
solution.
This is not to say that other solutions have not been
considered. Even prior to September 11th the government in its
half-witted wisdom, mandated the replacement of existing border
crossing visas with a technological panaceas for illegal
immigration, the laser visa card, required solely of Mexican
Nationals.
The government set implementation deadlines that U.S. State
Department officials repeatedly stated were unrealistic, given
that more than 5 million cards would need to be replaced, not
including cards for new visa applicants.
Not only did the government ignore the facts, it
embarrassingly enforced the repossession of the old visa cards
without funding the technology and equipment needed to read the
new ones.
Today, we have some of the most advanced biometric visa
cards, with no machines to read them. The result is that the
United States has had to turn away thousands of consumers,
relatives, and business people, who had their cards suddenly
expire or taken away.
Their inability to come across the border is devastating to
both them and us. Attempts in the Congress to extend the laser
visa deadline have gone unnoticed. Unlike the prominent
powerful and influence national figure of Senator John McCain
of urban Arizona, our own Congressman Kolbe has been
exceptional in his sensitivity, leadership, and commitment to
our border problems.
It is unfortunate that the runt Senator has chosen to
champion issues of politics, while the meager crossing the
border wish for a different kind of reform, one which would
solve a poignant human drama plays last to the woes of
corporations and their politicians.
His inaction in these issues affecting this rural area have
been disheartening and disappointing. While we agree that
security is paramount in our survival, especially following the
tragic events of September 11th, it also has the indirect power
to jeopardize economies.
Further exacerbating our situation, crossings at the U.S.
port of entry slowed to a crawl, falling 37 percent immediately
after September 11th as a result of justified, intensified
inspections.
Mexican consumers make 40 percent of our community retail
sales, amounting to $52 million annually. Unfortunately, those
who are still allowed to cross were discouraged by having to
wait up to 2 hours to enter the United States.
This puts into perspective the exponential efforts of the
aforementioned laser visa debacle that has cost us a
significant amount of revenue. This has already resulted in
unemployment and a diminished quality of life for many.
If you carefully analyze all the dynamics of the border,
you will find that the border is still virtually open, porous
as a sieve. Once the partial curtain of enforcement at the
border is crossed, the road to their ultimate destiny is
uninterrupted, as well as their work place.
Throughout our history the United States has looked to
immigrants to build the richest nation on the face of the
earth. Today, as perhaps the greatest economy in the world, we
depend on them evermore. Therein lies the hypocrisy witnessed
daily here, at ground zero on the front lines.
When illegal aliens are hired because urbanites in this
country have forgotten, or never knew how, to make their own
beds, mow their own lawns, and cook their meals, as we do ours
daily, it causes open fields to be littered by thousands of
plastic jugs and pieces of clothing.
It means ranchers' water lines are cut and their cattle die
from ingesting discarded plastic. And incidentally I believe
that the Federal Government should subsidize the clean-up these
ranchers endure and in and day out.
In the northeast or the Beltway, for that matter, large
numbers of illegal aliens work in homes, hotels, restaurants,
landscaping businesses, fields, orchards, factories,
construction crews, and any other industry that employs and
exploits them by taking advantage of every virtue inherent to
their poverty and culture.
When business sacrifices prudence for a tighter bottom line
by hiring illegal aliens, and congratulate themselves on their
supposed great humanitarian compassion as they wink at the law
and hire illegal aliens, they should know that in the last
month five aliens died near our border from exposure, as many
more are destined to do in the near future.
Existing legislation prescribes legal sanctions for
employers, and I don't expect employers to become de facto INS
officers. We should recognize this Nation's insatiable demand
for migrant labor. Why else would the millions of undocumented
immigrants currently reside in this country.
The INS should focus more of their efforts on enforcing
employer sanctions rather than hypothetically continue with the
political charade on the border, which is causing the poor to
risk their lives while crossing illegally into this country.
In either case, we need to move forward beyond the myopia
that leads to pouring more resources on the border. We need a
holistic approach to achieve real solutions that look at
economics and socioeconomics in a global economy that does not
readily answer to arbitrary lines, or iron walls that we call
borders.
At the heart of the challenge and the solution lies a labor
problem and not the immigration problem. In conclusion, this is
an international crisis that potentially jeopardizes the
beneficial relationship between Mexico and the United States.
We need constructive, diplomatic dialog focused on
immigration policy. Presently, President Fox is highlighting
the importance of the border, its key role in the prosperity of
both our nations and the challenges we face.
He has outlined concerns in the areas of economic
development, the environment, health and others, noting what we
well know that an outbreak of hepatitis in Agua Pirieta, our
sister city, doesn't stop at a whimsical border.
It impacts Douglas just as well. However, he remains a lone
voice in the desert, and his efforts fruitless without
substantive dialog with the United States. These are serious
issues that need to be addressed by serious people with serious
solutions.
Our present immigration policy is in desperate need of
reform as it continues to jeopardize lives. We are not the
problem, nor do we want to be the battleground. And I thank you
for the opportunity to address this important committee today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Borane follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.035
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Roll.
Mr. Roll. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
Representative Kolbe, I want to thank you for the opportunity
to present testimony at this investigative hearing.
I am the elected Cochise County Attorney, and as I am sure
that you are aware, Cochise County has over 80 miles of border
that is contiguous with the Republic of Mexico. This stretch of
border is heavily used by smugglers of illegal drugs, as well
as undocumented immigrants.
As a consequence, there is a large contingent of Federal
Agents stationed and operating in Cochise County. This includes
agents of the U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs Service, U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and the Drug Enforcement Agency.
These agents make a large number of apprehensions within
our county that are related to drug smuggling. May of these
cases are declined for prosecution by the U.S. Attorney's
Office.
Once declined, these cases are routinely submitted to my
office for local prosecution. During the calendar year 2001,
approximately 140 defendants apprehended by Federal Agencies
were indicted and prosecuted by my office.
Now, I was recently informed that the Federal Budget
proposed by President Bush does away with all Federal funding
that would come to local prosecution and law enforcement
agencies in the form of Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local
Law Enforcement Block Grants, the Byrne Grants.
In Arizona, these funds are distributed to local agencies
by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. In Federal fiscal
year 2001, my office received approximately $176,160 in the
form of a Byrne Prosecution Grant.
I have also attached to my written testimony as attachment
a copy of the Byrne Funding Summary that was prepared by the
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. And that includes a
summary of the productivity of the local task force, the
Cochise County Border Reliance Group.
I want to point out to the subcommittee how important Byrne
Grant Funding is to my office. Our Byrne Prosecution Grant
provides us with two experienced prosecutors and an experienced
legal secretary, and without this funding our office will not
be able to prosecute drug smuggling within this county at the
present level.
Loss of this funding would not only impact our office, but
would also impact the local law enforcement agencies, the U.S.
Attorney's Office, and all of the Federal law enforcement
agencies that are operating within this county.
I would request that the members of this subcommittee seek
to maintain at least the current level of Byrne Grant funding
either in its current form or in some new form that will enable
my office to continue its efforts to combat the smuggling of
drugs through Cochise County.
Should funding and prosecution decline, drug trafficking
would certainly increase and bring with you all its associated
crime and danger to the citizens of this county. It should also
be noted that the vast majority of drugs seized in Cochise
County and resulting in Cochise County prosecutions are
intended to be distributed in counties other than Cochise, and
in States other than in Arizona.
Consequently, our law enforcement officers and prosecutors,
as well as those collaterally involved in the process, work
hard for the benefit of others. This is a consequence of living
in a border county, but it also illustrates the need and the
justification for Cochise County to continue to receive Federal
funding for drug prosecution.
If drug prosecution is reduced in Cochise County, it will
surely have negative repercussions in counties other than
Cochise, and in States other than in Arizona. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roll follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.038
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Sheriff Dever.
Sheriff Dever. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and
Congressman Kolbe, and Congressman Shadegg, thank you for being
here. I am not going to read my written testimony to you,
because it is much too long, and I learned to follow the rules
a long time ago, because when that red light comes on, it means
stop.
I wish we could put one of those at the border and maybe we
could put an end to all of this. A couple of points that I
would like to make. You have already heard of the collateral
damage and all the mess that you have apparently seen in your
tour, and some of the things that are going on down there.
People out here in this audience actually are the true
victims. There are many of them here today whose lives have
been totally turned on their head, and they have been
disrupted, and their fences cut, and their homes invaded, tons
and tons of garbage and trash left in their back yards.
I had a young lady in my office who was with a group called
Border Links--it is humanitarian group--a few months ago prior
to September 11th, and we talked about the need to defend,
protect and defend our borders.
She asked a question. She said protect and defend them
against what. Well, I hope that following September 11th that
she has a better idea what we are talking about, because
absolutely nobody, nobody knows who is really crossing that
border.
It is out of control, and it is a sieve, in spite of all of
the improvements, the technology, and the Federal forces that
have been sent down here, it continues to be a porous sieve,
and where people just come through basically at will.
If they want to get through, they can, and they will, and
do that. We did not ask for any of this, and it all came our
way as a surprise. And in the early discussions, and in the
things that were said by the INS, these were called--what was
the language--unintended consequences of strategy applied in El
Paso and San Diego.
We have come to learn and find out that these were not
unintended consequences at all. In fact, it was all part of the
plan. The strategy was to funnel and force these people in a
more harsh environment of the desert, the southern Arizona
desert, in order to discourage them from coming here.
And in the words of the former Commissioner, Doris Meisner,
she said, well we thought they would take one look at the place
and turn around and go home. The point being that obviously
they have no harm to turn around and go to, or they would be
there and wouldn't be coming here to begin with.
There is a tragedy, a real travesty, and something that
really wasn't fair, and a pretty poor design, and I would say
again that everything that the Federal Government does has a
local effect.
And any time that there is any kind of strategic plan,
operational plan, that is going to be put into place, be it the
border or anywhere else, that you must--we must involve local
authorities, and local citizens in that dialog, and in that
decisionmaking process so we can be forewarned as to what is
going to occur.
Now, I think there was a checkpoint, and it is called the
border. And David Aguilar and I had a long running argument
over that. I say put your resources on the border, and take
down the checkpoints, and that is what is creating most of the
trouble for me and for my constituents, is that we have moved
the border in effect another 25 miles north.
And people cross once, and they have to cross again, and in
the process of doing that, they are wandering around and
through my back yard, your back yard, and creating nothing but
death and destruction, and fear.
People who used to go out walking in the mornings can no
longer go walking down their little country road, and little
country lane, because out of fear, they can't leave their homes
for fear that they will be invaded.
It means that somebody always has to be there; a husband
and wife, and family can't go out together for fear that when
they come back, they won't have anything left.
And those are realities, and it is more than just fear. So
I would ask and implore that we not repeat these mistakes of
the past and that anything that we plan to do on a national
level, a Federal level, a unilateral level, an international
level, that we consider and understand that it is local people
who suffer the consequence, and local people who benefit when
there are good choices made and good decisions made.
But no social program, and no economic program, and none of
those kinds of programs are going to have any value unless we
control our borders.
There has to be enforcement and there has to be controls in
order for those to ultimately be effective, and until we get
that under control, I say there is no need to even talk about
anything else.
Yes, the numbers are down in some places. But there are
some people sitting in this office tonight who will tell you
that they haven't seen any effect, and it has been a cumulative
effect. Red lights aren't going to stop them. I would be glad
to answer your questions a little bit later. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Sheriff Dever follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.046
Mr. Sounder. Thank you.
Applause is inappropriate at a congressional hearing, and
we do this in Washington as well as here. I know that you have
strong opinions, and are pleased, but it is not appropriate in
an oversight hearing.
Mr. Capin.
Mr. Capin. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman
Kolbe, and Congressman Shadegg. I was going to welcome the
distinguished committee to Arizona, but I will just welcome
you, Mr. Chairman, since we have two Arizonans.
My name is Harlan Capin, and I am the President of the
Nogales Alliance Port of the Future. Most importantly, I am a
native of Nogales, AZ, and have been involved in cross-border
issues since 1955.
I want to thank you for inviting me to participate in this
hearing. I am going to talk about the Ports of Nogales. This is
a complex topic, and vital to the future of our region, and we
are an important component of the corridor.
For Nogales to be a viable conduit to facilitate trade, we
need your help, in technical assistance and the funding to
implement change. Nogales, AZ, is the main point of entry on
the Arizona-Sonora border.
The local industry segments depend on the fish and border
crossing procedures include retail, produce, customs brokers,
government, and tourism. While the written testimony that I
have submitted will address all but government and tourism,
because of the time constraints, I will focus on the retail
segment only.
There are three separate locations in Nogales, AZ, for
cross-border traffic. Nogales ports handle more pedestrian,
commercial, and private automobile traffic than any other port
on the Arizona-Sonora border.
Over the last year, there has been a noticeable 12 percent
decrease in traffic at the two downtown crossings, Morley
Avenue, and DeConcini crossings. While a 7 percent decrease in
traffic has been identified at the Mariposa Port, which is on
the western edge of town, and is the only port that handles
commercial traffic.
Nogales, AZ merchants, as well as merchants along the
entire U.S.-Mexico border have always depended on Mexican-
Nationals who cross the border to shop. It has been reported
that many U.S. border businesses get anywhere from 50 to 65
percent of their volume from cross-border shoppers.
U.S. merchants along the border have seen their business
decline since 1992 for various reasons, some of which are the
direct result of policy or laws imposed by both the United
States and the Mexican government.
In 1992, Mexico imposed a limit of $50 per person for the
use or for those using land order crossings.
In 1992, the United States installed a metal landing and
wall, 10 feet high along the border in Nogales, AZ. In my
opinion this told Mexican Nationals to stay in your own
country. We don't want you.
In 1994, the peso evaluation was disastrous to many
merchants as it was the largest peso devaluation in history.
Many people lost their jobs, and others had their working hours
reduced, and in some instances businesses closed.
In 2001 the implementation of the laser visa, which cost
Mexican Nationals between $50 to $53 per visa, is the deterrent
to free trade. The buildup of border enforcement by the U.S.
Government, and the implementation of programs, such as
Operation Hold the Line, Gatekeeper, and others, has had a
double edged effect on the border.
These operations were helping to control minor crime, which
has also had an effect on the sales in the downtown areas in
the port of entry communities. The INS background report of
February 1996 substantiates this premise.
The profiling of Mexican looking individuals by Border
Patrol Agents has also discouraged Mexicans from crossing the
border to shop, visit relatives, or seek medical attention.
They don't want to be hassled.
In Nogales, the border merchants have found that their
business began to come back, and the delays of the visa
implementation, and the heinous attack on the United States
took their toll on the Nogales border businesses, which have
seen their sales plummet approximately 20 to 30 percent since
September 2001.
The freight trains that run through the centers of Ambos
Nogales is another major issue and a deterrent to business, and
is detrimental to the health of the citizens who live there.
The maquila industry, which is a major factor in the
economy of Ambos Nogales, has been affected by the recession
and the September 11th tragedy. This reflects on Nogales retail
sales, as many of these people shop in Nogales, AZ businesses.
Many of these workers had the old border crossing card
called the Mica, which was issued at no cost by the U.S.
Government. Five plants have closed, and 12,049 workers have
lost their jobs in 2001.
In conclusion, the Bush and Fox administrations have shown
that they are committed to working jointly to address the many
issues that face our people and our Nation. The U.S. Government
needs to address current and existing laws which discriminate
against Mexico and Mexican nationals.
Why should we have different laws and policies when it
comes to dealing with Mexicans and Canadians. There must be
parity on both of our borders. The time is right for the United
States and Mexico to begin changing existing laws and policies
that restrict the flow of people crossing our Southern borders.
The Government of Mexico must address its current laws as
they pertain to the limit imposed on its citizens when making
purchases in the United States. Also, Mexico should reevaluate
its policy regarding numerous highway checkpoints which present
a hinderance to commercial trade and traffic coming north.
Let us build on this new relationship and make North
America a better and more prosperous place to live, improving
the quality of life for all Mexicans, Canadians, and Americans,
by treating each other as equals on all fronts. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Capin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.095
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Dickson.
Mr. Dickson. I want to thank you for having me to speak.
Southern Arizona has enjoyed long ties with our neighbors to
the south, in Mexico, and a good portion of our population is
of Mexican heritage.
It is as a direct result Federal and State policies that
the balance between our neighbors to the south and Arizona has
shifted to the tragic and contentious situation we find
ourselves in today.
Cochise County is a sparsely populated County in Southern
Arizona. It is approximately the size of Connecticut and Rhode
Island combined. The areas's health care system is experiencing
all the problems that are usually associated with other small
rural areas.
The majority of the county is federally designated as
medically undeserved, and it is also a health care professional
shortage area. We cannot now in Cochise County meet the minimum
Federal standards for health care for the citizens of our
county.
We have approximately 120,000 residents in the County of
Cochise, and the shift in the government policy has created a
situation. We have heard numbers from the INS that they have
apprehended 225,000 or 445,000 people. According to the INS's
own internal statistics, that means that they are missing three
to one and four to one.
So we have over the equivalent of one million people
crossing the border in Cochise per year. This is the State of
Alaska coming across our border since the change has been done.
We also have had an unintended impact. We have seen the
effect of border towns becoming boom towns in Sonora, Mexico,
and Agua Prieta, Mexico. The population of Agua Prieta has
grown from 40,000 to 80,000, and some estimates go as high as
140,000 people.
The small restful town of Naco, Mexico, has grown from
10,000 to 25,000 and in some estimates has grown to 40,000
people. These populations increase whether migrating or
residing in boon towns.
And if you put that together that is 10 to 15 times the
population of Cochise is now residing across the border or
crossing the border in an annual area. This has put a demand on
the health care services of southern Arizona that were never
designed.
And as the Congressman mentioned further, most of our
trauma centers in Tucson are now in effect threatening to close
because they are sustaining multi-million dollars of
uncompensated losses because of this population across our
border.
The irony of it is that the more border officers you place
on the border, the more apprehension mishaps that you have, and
the most call there is for the trauma system. I would like to
go through one mishap that occurred to us. This is what
actually happens.
There was a multiple trauma injury due to a hot pursuit by
the INS. Now, these people are jammed into vans and it is a
slave trade. You cannot believe how many people they put into a
car, and then the INS takes them into hot pursuit, and they go
into a ditch.
And we get a call, and then they sit there and call the
local ambulance service and EMS service, and sit there and do
nothing until the ambulance comes and apprehends them, because
they don't put them in handcuffs.
Chief Aguilar promised us that they would help us with this
situation over 2 years ago, and we have seen no action on this
issue. They will never come at night and help us out.
The hospital that I work for went on full disaster alert.
We were expecting 20 patients to be coming into a 28 bed
hospital. The problem is that when these people are trying to
be apprehended, they flee into the Sonora Desert and into the
night.
So we don't know how many were actually going to be
apprehended. Five were brought in, and two transported to
trauma centers in Tucson and to the Sierra Vista Regional
Medical Center, and three were treated.
Now we come to the big dilemma. We know that these people
are illegal immigrants. We are sitting in the emergency room
with our nurses and our doctors, and where do we release these
people to?
We no longer call the INS because they will not come. If it
is during the day, it is the Mexican Consulate. They will come
over and take them, but if they are from El Salvador or if they
are from other countries, they will not pick them up, and we
release them back into the night so that the INS can apprehend
them again.
It is a tragic and sad situation. There is no compensation
for this. The other end consequence is what we call
compassionate entry. Now that the populations have tripled, and
quadrupled, gone up across the border, the way you can gain
entry into the United States for advanced health care due to
trauma, etc., is a simple waiver of the foreign entry.
We had four children who were burned in Naco, Mexico, and
they were brought across the border, and we stabilized them,
and we transported them to the only acceptable trauma center
for burns of this nature, up to Maricopa Health Center, and
three died, one survived, at a total health care cost of
$300,000.
This is what we encounter every day. Just last week, and as
you will see in my testimony, there was a Federal Officer from
Mexico who was shot, and brought across the border, and he was
DOA.
I want to take about two or three recommendations that I
have, and I see that my time has run out. The Federal
Government designed $25 million in their legislation to help
health care in the border areas.
This money has been taken by the State and put into systems
that we have not seen a penny of this money. It is under a
Federal Program for where you must have a residence, and you
must establish a 30 day residency. These people are not
residents, and they will not establish a 30 day residency, and
therefore that money is used by the States to offset their
general revenue funds.
And in my recommendations, I am asking that if you do any
further funding to recognize this problem for health care, and
that it be direct block grants to the State, and that money
then be designated to the hospitals to help with this care.
Because right now at the three border hospitals that are in
this area receive none of the money originally dedicated by the
Federal Government for that issue. I also ask that you ask the
INS to pick these people up in the night. These are illegal
immigrants.
And Congressman Kolbe placed it just as it is. We have to
release them there. We have people who are dehydrated and sick,
and we treat them, and we then have the situation where we are
fattening up for a second catch. What is this?
These are illegal immigrants that were apprehended and then
we have to let them go after we have made them stable enough to
continue their journey northward.
And last I would think that we should do something like the
Busara Program, and recognize that we should have a guest
worker program, and we cold stop some of these problems.
The border does not seal, and our costs are up 400 percent,
and they are going up every year, over this year, and over last
year. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dickson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.100
Mr. Souder. We are going to do two rounds here. I have to
get back to Tucson to catch a plane that will get me home at 11
tonight, and so I can be at a 7:30 meeting in the morning. So I
apologize that I am going to have to exit fast.
But I am going to ask a few questions. It has been very
informative to me because these are new variables to me that I
have not heard in other places and I do know that when you
squeeze one place, the drugs move.
That is true in Indiana, and it is true in the overall
midwest, and it is true on the borders, and it is true in
Colombia. It is true around the world, and we have to get ahead
of the curve when we are seeing this type of thing, and you
each have nuances that are very informative, both for our
report and for our questions.
So I do have some questions, but I thought in this panel
that if Chairman Kolbe would like to go first.
Mr. Kolbe. I will just ask a couple of very quick ones, and
then hopefully some very quick answers. Jim, just to finish
since you testified last here. Mr. Dickson, you say you don't
call the INS anymore. Did you used to routinely call them when
you finished treating them?
Mr. Dickson. When I first started working, we used to call
them and----
Mr. Kolbe. Did they come?
Mr. Dickson. No.
Mr. Kolbe. Do you ever recall them coming?
Mr. Dickson. No. And I called the other hospitals, and they
don't come to them either.
Mr. Kolbe. So they do not come and pick them up?
Mr. Dickson. That's right.
Mr. Kolbe. You must have some very puzzled immigrants when
you show them the front door and say have a good day?
Mr. Dickson. It is tragic. It is a human tragedy. These
people are going to jobs, and the first thing they want to do
is to call their job up north and let them know that they are
on their way.
And when we have to release people with broken ankles in
the night, where they have to hobble through the desert for the
rest of the journey, this is very debilitating, and
demoralizing to the health care team.
Mr. Kolbe. Mayor Borane, what changes have you seen since
September 11th in your community? Has there been any costs to
your law enforcement or are you seeing changes in your patterns
of traffic across the border, and shopping, retail?
Have you seen changes as a result of September 11th?
Mayor Borane. Well, we had a very good working relationship
with the U.S. Customs. They were very sensitive to the issue as
far as our economy was concerned. Things are almost back to
normal.
People are coming back and the long lines aren't there any
more. The effect of September 11th on the crime in our
community wasn't really that drastic.
The only thing that we experienced was the loss in
revenues, and of course with the laser visa situation, which
hurt us economically.
Mr. Kolbe. How important do you think a guest worker
program would be? I mean, I know you have been very outspoken
on this, but how you think it should be structured to be most
effective. If you can answer as quickly as possible.
Mayor Borane. I think what it would do is that it would be
a deterrent. I think people would get the message in Mexico
that you don't come across any more because it is under
control. It is organized, and it is systematic, and it is
scientific, and you won't get hired unless you are in this
program.
And I think above all that it would stop the suffering of
the people at risk and the dangers that they encounter.
Mr. Kolbe. One other question. Sheriff Dever, both you and
I attended that first response conference in Tucson earlier a
few days ago. Is communications a real problem between our law
enforcement agencies or lack thereof?
Sheriff Dever. Yes. A lack thereof is critical. I am glad
that you asked that question, because there is a looming large
problem, and it is not on the horizon, but it is actually here
right now.
And that is there is a series of degradations where radio
communications capacity has interference on calls out of
Mexico.
Mr. Kolbe. You mean it is getting worse?
Sheriff Dever. Yes.
Mr. Kolbe. Is this commercial interference or other law
enforcement, or is it with the cell phone or what? What about
it is denigrated?
Sheriff Dever. It is both. Some of it is official and some
of it is illegal radio traffic, but the Mexican equivalent of
the FCC has taken a page out of the U.S. book and is selling
off certain band widths as the FCC did, and enabling private
organizations and other people to get into that, which is
interfering with what we are doing.
There was some discussion earlier about the need to have
secure wireless communications, and it is huge here on the
border, in terms of our ability to beat the enemy to the punch
if you will.
We sit out there day in and day out to watch them watch us
watch them, and listen to them talk about us back and forth,
and they are hearing everything we can do. And in terms of
interoperability, the capacity amongst all law enforcement
agencies--Federal, State, and local--to communicate in a secure
mode here along the border without interference and degradation
from the Mexican side.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I think this highlights
a significant problem, and I would just like to place in the
record some statements and I would like to place those in the
record, including one or two actually from the chairman of the
Board of Supervisors here for Cochise County. Mr. Thompson has
written a very excellent statement, and I hope this can be made
a part of the record.
Mr. Souder. Yes, it is so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.111
Mr. Souder. Mr. Shadegg.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dickson, let me
start with you. Are you able to provide to the committee some
documentation of the level of increase in treatment which you
had to provide to illegal aliens either those who get here
illegally, or those who were brought in under compassionate
admission?
Mr. Dickson. I can speak specifically to the Copper Queen.
In 1998, we had $30,000 in expenses, and we are now close to
$200,000 for this year.
Mr. Shadegg. Specifically dedicated to?
Mr. Dickson. Care of immigration, undocumented. I don't
like to say illegal aliens. These people cross our border and
come here for care. They are our neighbors. There is a report
in there from the Arizona Hospital Association which puts this
level at about 46 million, and it is increasing every week.
We have seen no debate, and that is the most frustrating
thing to hear, is for the INS to say that we have closed border
and there is less apprehensions. And yet each hospital along
the border has seen a 30 to 40 percent increase in the amount
of care that we must provide for these people.
Mr. Shadegg. Do you segregate between compassionate entry
and illegal entry?
Mr. Dickson. No, we do not. To us it is the same. There is
no compensation for either. We just keep records on the care we
provide for immigrants that do not have documented status, and
this is basically the figures that I am giving you.
But the thing about it is if you close the border down, the
compassionate entry will go on day, after day, after day. The
Mexican Health Care System is not at the same level we are.
They do not have hospitals in these boom towns, and so they
are coming across the border. And we created these boom towns
by making it so renumerative to coyotes using people and drugs.
So it is a very poor system.
And we want to help these people. We really do, but the
fact is that it is just so costly.
Mr. Shadegg. Mayor Borane, I want to thank you for your
impassioned plea. I guess I would like you to boil down for me
what specific things you think this committee should go back
and do.
It is clear to me that you don't think a fence or an effort
to keep people out is workable? And it is clear to me that you
believe or example, in sanctions, that may be a critical part
of this problem.
And that is that there is a hypocrisy here. One the one
hand we say we don't want them in and we tell the INS and the
Border Patrol to keep them out. At the same time there is
clearly a demand for them to come in.
Mayor Borane. When I talked about the hypocrisy, I am very
serious about it, because we are putting billions of dollars on
the border with law enforcement. They continue to come through.
The U.S. Government knows where these people are, and it is
very, very evident and very, very clear. If they are very
serious about stopping this, or the magnet, and just pulling
them over, and then they go to the work place. I don't advocate
it at all, because that would be in contravention of my
philosophy regarding the whole issue.
But the government and its ability to do what they can do
with the work place would stop it if they wanted to and forget
about all the billions of dollars on the border, and get it
organized, and the message would be very, very clear. They are
not going to hire you because now it is systematic, and it is
organized, and it is controlled.
Mr. Kolbe. And, Mr. Chairman, in deference to your
schedule, I would be happy to conclude.
Mr. Souder. I have a couple of questions here. Mr. Roll,
you first made a reference to the Byrne grant. This is a fairly
popular program among Members of Congress, and it has been
zeroed out before in budget requests.
I am not saying it won't come back in, or it is definitely
coming back in, and we will need to look at it. It is important
in my district and others, and law enforcement personnel. What
I don't know about the budget at this point and have not
analyzed it are whether or not there is things in the border
dollars that might just actually give a disproportionate impact
that we come in for on law enforcement prosecution.
And then in other things at the local level in which you
might get more of a proportion of Byrne Grants, for example. So
the school is still out on that question, but it was important
for us to the inner-relationship with the board, ad I
appreciate that.
You also made the statement that in the narcotics
enforcement that most of those narcotics were headed to places
other than this areas, and you were in your office prosecuting
them?
Mr. Roll. That's' correct.
Mr. Souder. Do you hand those cases over to the DEA? What
we have found is that generally the Federal laws are better for
prosecution than the local areas; and that if you have a
cooperative U.S. Attorney, we move up the chain, particularly
if you are part of a bigger question, as opposed to a use or
local distribution.
Mr. Roll. Well, that tends not to happen, at least from our
experience. Now, the U.S. Attorney's Office does handle certain
cases, but a large number of the routine cases either generated
by any of the Federal Agencies are referred to the local task
force, and as a result come to our office for prosecution.
So that may be true in a very complex case or something
with a high profile situation, such as a drug tunnel or
something like that. But the routine run of the mill 200 pounds
in the back seat of a car, or 50 pounds in a gas tank and that
type of thing is generally coming to our office for
prosecution.
Mr. Souder. Meaning that large a load, they are usually
busting the individual and not going to a network.
Mr. Roll. I would say that is generally true.
Mr. Souder. Sheriff, do you see that also in the cases that
you handle, as opposed to the cases that the Federal handles?
Sheriff Dever. Yes, all the Federal Agencies have
threshold, automatic thresholds that they simply refuse
prosecution, and we do house the multi-agency task force. So
those fall to my operations to investigate and prosecute. But
typically the port of entry cases. We get virtually all of
those for prosecution.
Except as Mr. Roll indicated, the very large and very high
profile kinds of seizures; a tractor trailer rig and something
like that. But mostly domestic vehicle would come to us.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Dickson, the cases you come by on
compassionate care, is there any reason to believe that they
are going to go back?
Mr. Dickson. If you can get the INS to transport them,
because usually when they come to us, it is for a higher level
of care, and they are brought over--we call it the Cruz-Rojas,
and that is the Mexican ant that is red, and it depends on the
level of their need.
We have had women for babies, and then they will go back
across the border. They will transport themselves because they
are local. They are residents of the side of Mexico.
If we transport gunshot wound victims or other victims,
then the hospitals in Tucson have to find some way to get them
back across the border to Mexico. The Mexican Consulate is very
cooperative in these issues.
It is El Salvordorians and other patients that we have that
we can't get transport for them back, and the INS refuses to
help us with those situations.
Mr. Souder. If the compassionate cares are standard, why
doesn't catastrophic care increasingly move toward the border?
Mr. Dickson. I don't understand.
Mr. Souder. In other words, if an individual has a serious
disease, or you have a child with a major disease, why won't in
Central America and Mexico, if we take those cases, why won't
they move those cases to the border?
Mr. Dickson. That is not the case for when we talk about
passionate entry. Compassionate entry is usually trauma care;
people who are shot, burn victims, etc.
Mr. Kolbe. Serious problems.
Mr. Dickson. And those cases will come across the border.
They will be treated at a clinicia in Mexico, and then they
will say, oh, this is beyond our care, and they will come
across. It usually is not a disease treatment. It is usually
more trauma that we take care of.
Mr. Souder. Last might when we were in Douglas, we had a
late fast dinner at the beautiful and historic Landmark Hotel,
and as we went through the town, it looked like some areas had
actually been revitalized fairly well--a number of restaurants
and different things.
Do you believe that right at the border there is less drug
traffic and conflict than there used to be?
Mayor Borane. I really don't think the restaurants
themselves are affected that much by September 11th. What
actually happened was that a couple of the laser visas, the
smaller businesses, that the people that solicited those and
patronized those places, they were the ones that were not
allowed to come back over to, and the long lines were
discouraging, and consequently we had a couple of the small
businesses just to just completely demise.
Mr. Souder. My question is more of do you believe that
there is less crime and more control in Douglas now than there
was a year-and-a-half ago?
Mayor Borane. No.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. We can do one more round.
Mr. Kolbe. OK. On the laser visas, Mayor Borane--and while
I am actually thinking about it, Mr. Capin, your organization
has actually been opposed to the permanent checkpoints because
you said you think they fail defense policies. Can you
elaborate on that and what you mean by that?
Mr. Capin. Well, I personally believe that we have a
designated border, and we have had that since the United States
and Mexico have been different and separate countries. And I
believe that if we are going to attempt to stop a certain
amount of cross-border traffic by people who are not documented
to come into the United States, it should be done at the border
and not away from the border.
Mr. Kolbe. Do you think the checkpoints do have an effect
on tourism coming from the Tucson area down to the border?
Mr. Capin. I personally think that it has an effect. I
think people think twice about coming down, because they get
checked as they across the border in Nogales, and then they
have to stop again on their way to Tucson, and get checked
there also. And I think the commercial trucks.
Mr. Kolbe. And the same thing about Mexicans who might be
going to Tucson to go shopping?
Mr. Capin. Exactly. They get stopped twice and they get
questioned twice.
Mr. Kolbe. And laser visas, you spoke quite passionately
about that, and my thinking is that while it has been
difficult, we are getting them in place, and they are much
better visa than the old ones.
Don't you think the system is beginning to work and we are
getting or beginning to catch up to the numbers of the backlog
and it is working pretty well now?
Mayor Borane. I think things are moving along much better,
especially since you were very influential in getting that
station in Agua Prieta to speed those things up, but my concern
is that the laser visa, notwithstanding the deadline that was
enforced, is the fact that the people that shop in Douglas, AZ,
are not the same people that shop in Tucson, or Phoenix, or on
the border. They cannot afford the $45 for that visa.
Mr. Kolbe. Mr. Capin, is that your experience as well?
Mr. Capin. I happen to be of the same opinion as Mayor
Borane. I believe that the average Mexican worker cannot afford
to pay--and I don't want to disagree with Mayor Borane, but it
is really $50 to $53.
It is $45 for the visa, but then they have to pay a certain
amount of money for delivery, and for long distance telephone
calls. So the total cold be $50 or $53. It is a deterrent to
the free trade, and it is also hurting the merchants along the
border, because those people are not crossing anymore.
Mr. Kolbe. I don't know if you have experienced, or if it
has been a case in Nogales, but in Douglas you have experienced
this, and that is the problem of student visas for Cochise
College.
They are supposed to have a student visa to come across.
These are people who come across paying full tuition and
wanting to take a couple of classes a Cochise College to better
themselves from Agua Prieta, but they are not supposed to use a
laser visa. They are supposed to have a student visa.
But if they have a student visa, they are supposed to be
full-time. So it is a real Catch-22. They are not eligible in
any way to come across under that, and that is a real detriment
to the college and to the community isn't it?
Mayor Borane. Yes, absolutely, and that is something that I
have spoken to your office about, and I think as soon as
possible that we should really address that as quickly as
possible.
Mr. Kolbe. I agree. Do you know if that has been a problem
in Nogales with Pima College?
Mr. Capin. I really have no idea.
Mr. Kolbe. Mr. Chairman, I will submit some other questions
for the record. I thank you very much.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Shadegg.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you. Let me start first with you, Chris,
and Larry. You heard Customs testify that they spend a fair
amount of time trying to sort out who is responsible for
putting a drug load ito a semi; whether it was the shipper, or
the importer, or whether it was the trucking company.
Do you see any reason why we should spend our time and
energy sorting out that kind of an issue?
Mr. Roll. Well, there is a certain threshold. There is a
legal standard for forfeitures, if that is what you are talking
about, forfeitures in the State of Arizona. And that legal
standard has to be met before a forfeiture can go forward in
the State of Arizona. And that does require some knowledge of
the use of the vehicle.
Mr. Shadegg. I would like to explore that further. I don't
know of there is such a legal requirement at the Federal level.
Mr. Dickson, I hear you saying that one of the serious problems
you have is that the INS will not want to pick up these illegal
aliens or the immigrants whom you treated and cared for,
regardless of the status they are in when they get here.
And I hear you saying that we ought to be providing that
care since these are our neighbors, etc. Do you see any limit
to that? Do you believe we should provide whatever care is
needed at whatever level, and that it ought to be our job to
provide that care?
How do we as a nation deal with the issue of 41 uninsured
Americans not getting health care, or getting health care only
in emergency rooms, and plenty of American citizens falling
short of the health care that we won't argue that they deserve;
vis a vis illegal immigrants, or maybe compassionate leave or
compassionate mission immigrants getting care from you and the
financial burden that puts on the taxpayer, whether that is the
Cochise County taxpayer or the Federal taxpayer?
Mr. Dickson. First of all, most of the people that are
legal immigrants in the larger cities fall into----
Mr. Shadegg. No, I am not asking you about legal
immigrants----
Mr. Dickson. Illegal immigrants.
Mr. Shadegg. Did you say illegal?
Mr. Dickson. Yes. They will fall under the Federal
Medicaid/MediCal, and here we call it AHCCCS program, because
they can establish that they have been residents of this State
or in this city for 30 days.
The people we are talking about cannot establish that, and
therefore AHCCCS does not pay for this care, although the money
that the Federal Government specifically designated for this is
being used in the access program.
So I don't know how you solve this one, Congressman, for
the simple reason that I would not want to be a port entry
person when that ambulance pulls up and tries to do a check and
stop them from coming over.
We are required to do a certain level of care on everybody
that walks into our emergency room, and I am going to shock
people. I think that some of the law is good, and it ensures a
level of a standard of care and stops dumping between health
care providers.
But the fact is that once you start with a person into the
system, we can go no less than what we would do for people with
insurance or Arizonans. Ours is different than those up in San
Diego, or in Los Angeles.
We have a transient population and a border crossing
population, which is a different situation. I know that if you
go to attack the problem of UDA care throughout the United
States, it is billions of dollars, and I think that your
Medicaid, and MediCal, and your AHCCCS programs do address
those situations.
But our situation is totally different. It does not qualify
for those types of safety valve programs, or safety net
programs that you have. I think we also should approach the
State of Mexico, the Country of Mexico, and work with them to
develop their health care system along the border.
TMC has put in a perinatal unit in Mexico so that the high
risk babies would not be sent across the border, and they would
take such a great loss. That is I think a very good genesis
type of program.
We should work with them, and recognize that Guadalupe
Hildalgo put a border here, but we are all part of the same
community down here.
Mr. Shadegg. You said that AHCCCS covers most of these
people, but the problem is that as I understand it, at least at
the hospitals in Maricopa County, those immigrants who are here
without the permission of the law do not use their proper name,
and do not acknowledge their----
Mr. Dickson. Well, they do not want to get caught. They are
hiding.
Mr. Shadegg. And so that winds up being a cost not picked
up by AHCCCS, or a cost picked up by the Federal Government,
but a cost picked up by the hospital itself.
Mr. Dickson. Yes, and the other users and payers of the
hospital, yes.
Mr. Shadegg. I just don't see how we can openly pick up the
tab for everyone in Mexico who wants to get American health
care, and I think that is a serious problem and when we look at
the millions of Americans who don't get adequate health care.
Let me conclude by asking a different question. We have
heard since we arrived here, or at least Congressman Souder and
I last night, some conflicting testimony. We have heard from
some that in the last few months, or perhaps the last year to
year-and-a-half, the quality of life and the level of crime in
the communities immediately across the border from where the
Border Patrol has intensified its efforts has improved.
That is, crime has gone down in Douglas proper, and crime
has gone down in Sonora or here, and the quality of life has
improved as a result of those efforts. Mayor Borane, you just
said you don't see that, and you said, no, it has not. I guess
I would like each of the panelists to briefly just state if you
believe it has gotten better in the last year-and-a-half or no?
Mayor Borane. Well, if I answered the question erroneously,
the quality of life has improved in Douglas, AZ, and I
apologize if I misunderstood the question. The quality of life
has drastically improved.
And the reason for that is that the Border Patrol has
effectively pushed everybody way out into the country. So we
don't see the numbers coming through the community anymore, and
we are not annoyed or bothered by the barking dogs, the chasing
people up the alley, and all the things that are associated
with that activity.
But the quality of life has improved, and the answer to
that, and I am sorry if I misunderstood the question, is yes.
It may not have gotten any better on the ranches, but it has
gotten better at least in some areas of the towns. It has
improved immensely.
Mr. Shadegg. Would all of you agree with that? Is that an
accurate characterization?
Mr. Roll. No, I wouldn't.
Mr. Shadegg. Chris, go ahead.
Mr. Roll. You asked a question about what has been our
observation as to the crime rate, and in our office over the
last 3 years, in cases received by our office for prosecution,
and just off the top of my head, but I think we have seen about
a 50 percent increase in misdemeanor cases coming to our office
for prosecution over the past 3 years, and about a 50 percent
increase in felony cases coming to our office for prosecution.
Last year alone our felony indictments rose by about 30
percent. So that reflects an increase in crimes that are filed
to our office for prosecution. One of those factors, and it is
very difficult perhaps because perhaps it is the economy, or
perhaps it is the number of agents and officers that are in the
field.
There has been a large increase in the number of at least
Federal Agents in the field in Cochise County, and that has had
some impact. We also see an impact as a result of the
immigration taking place, and that there is this alien
smuggling and drug smuggling taking place.
And we have car wrecks that result in deaths, and we have
manslaughter prosecutions, and we have rapes. A deputy in my
office just finished a trial of a Border Patrol supervisor who
was convicted in Federal Court in Tucson for raping an El
Salvadorian woman.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Capin.
Mr. Capin. I am not sure what you mean by quality of life,
but according to the Nogales Police Department and Cochise
County Sheriff, the crime rate in Nogales, AZ, has decreased
and Nogales, AZ, is a safer place to live.
But because of the different policies that I brought out in
my opening remarks, and what is in my testimony, the reduction
in people crossing our borders to shop in Arizona has caused
many problems with the businesses in Nogales.
People have lost their jobs, and people are working less
hours. They are making less money. Nogales has double-digit
inflation, and it has always had double-digit inflation since
1992. And therefore the quality of life for the citizens of
Nogales has not improved.
Mr. Shadegg. I appreciate that clarification.
Mr. Kolbe. You mean unemployment.
Mr. Capin. What did I say? I'm sorry. Double-digit
unemployment. It is the second largest unemployment in the
State of Arizona.
Mr. Shadegg. I appreciate that clarification. Anybody else?
Sheriff Dever. Keep in mind where we were a year ago and we
got to the point where we were spending almost 40 percent of
our budget on illegal immigration issues just overnight. So
while there have been some recent improvements in some areas,
overall--you know, we have 83.5 miles of border.
Of those 83.5 miles of border, 30\1/2\ of those are private
property, and it probably belongs to these folks sitting out
here in this audience. And that is continually being trashed
every day, fences cut, and those kinds of things.
And while alien trafficking is down somewhat in some areas,
it has increased in others, and drug smuggling is at a peak
right now. We have more drugs coming across the border than we
have ever had.
Mr. Shadegg. That is consistent with the information that I
am receiving, and I appreciate that very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Dickson. I would have to say that it is not better. We
had to close down two very necessary services, long term care,
and we had to close that down because of financial, and we just
closed our maternity program.
And that means that in an area of 4,000 square miles that
there is no maternity care or maternity unit for these women.
They now have to travel 100 miles. The degradation of the
system that has occurred over the last 2 or 3 years, it would
be the worst for me to say to you that it was better.
We have collapsed the system, and the system is in a state
of collapse. I can't say that strong enough. Doctors are
leaving, and so until we can get back to where we were 2 years
ago, and 3 years before this immigration put this burden on us.
Our medical centers in Tucson are closing down their trauma
centers. Can you imagine if this was the State of Connecticut,
or the State of Indiana, where you had 6,000 square miles with
no maternity unit.
There would be a human cry in this country that would not
stop, and that is no better. It is worse and it is going to get
worse until something is done. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. We have marked sections in southern Indiana
because some States didn't cap a legal liability on lawsuits
and some things like that; and pediatricians and wings of
hospitals shut down, and then they moved in.
Quite frankly, there would be a tremendous outrage is
citizens here realized that part of the reason that they are
losing it is because we are giving free care to people
elsewhere that is not paid.
This is a very difficult question for compassionate
individuals who want to try and help everybody when there are
finite dollars. And when we try to address this, we are
facing--I mean, every day, I have a meeting or go to a senior's
Home, or go to Wal-Mart to shop back in Indiana, and somebody
is coming up to me and telling me their problems with health
care.
We have had multiple rural hospitals close in my district
as well, and clearly there is a sorting through, and this has
put additional pressure on the system, but it is not
sustainable to think that the rest of the country is going to
pay the health care beyond a small portion.
We have to figure out how not to have illegals come in and
the best ways to do that. Clearly some supplemental assistance
needs to be done in border communities because you are
disproportionately impacted by labor demand than the rest of
the country, and demand for narcotics than the rest of the
country, and even terrorists who seek the other part of the
country.
Law enforcement is an extra burden here. Your health care,
your cities, your commerce is dependent upon those across the
border. We are trying to figure out how to balance those
things, which means you will probably never be completely
happy, and the people in my district will think I am sending
too many dollars from Indiana down here to help your problems
down here, when you are getting the financial benefits of the
trade.
And additional people move into your community and become
long time residents. You get some benefits from it as well. And
that is our tough balance. Clearly it got out of balance in
Arizona, and it became kind of a no-man's zone that we are
trying to address.
We have to watch New Mexico, and parts of Southern Texas
still are not under control, and quite frankly the elements
there can be just as bad, whether you are looking at Big Ben
National Park and that area east of El Paso as it is here in
Arizona.
And we are trying to figure out how to do a national
standard not only for illegal immigration, which is burdening
lots of our school and health care systems, and try to figure
out how to manage the workers in a responsible way, and
combined with the narcotics.
And where, for example, in Seattle last year there were 34
homicide and 64 heroin overdoses. In the United States, 18,000
deaths in this country because of drugs, and they are
predominantly coming across the border.
And all of the heroin in recent cases in my district, and
in cocaine, came across at Douglas and Nogales. So the people
who are dying in Fort Wayne, the stuff is coming through here.
Clearly we have a major narcotics problem, and now we see a
long-term terrorism problem that is expanding around the globe
as other terrorist groups, in addition to Al-Qaeda, decide to
do copycat type of things to have an impact on the policies of
Western Nations.
It is a tough time for our country, and a tough budget
time. All of you are on the front lines. But I appreciate for
you taking the time out to be here today, and I appreciate the
opportunity to hear your comments.
And I also want to thank Congressman Kolbe and Congressman
Shadegg not only for participating, but for helping us identify
who in the local areas can speak, and how to get the testimony
in, and how to have a balanced hearing so that we can learn
from the official record the problems that are facing our
Nation here on the Arizona border. With that----
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, before you close the
hearing, I do have several statements that I have been
provided, which I will submit to your staff for inclusion in
the record.
Mr. Souder. And we have a week for additional statements,
and additional comments, charts, to put into the record as
well. And with that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Note.--The report entitled, ``Border Impact--Illegal
Immigrants in Arizona's Border Counties: The Costs of Law
Enforcement, Criminal Justice and Emergency Medical Services,''
may be found in subcommittee files.]
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. John Shadegg and additional
information submitted for the hearing record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.243
-