Hearing of the Immigration, Refugees and Border Security Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee - "Securing the Borders and America's Points of Entry, What Remains to be Done"

Statement

Hearing of the Immigration, Refugees and Border Security Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee - "Securing the Borders and America's Points of Entry, What Remains to be Done"

Chaired By: Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)

Witnesses: Panel I: John Torres, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; David V. Aguilar, Chief, Office of Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection; Thomas Winkowski, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, Customs and Border Protection; Panel II Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ); Richard Wiles, Sheriff, El Paso County, Texas; Chad Foster, Mayor, City of Eagle Pass, Texas; Dr. Douglas Massey, Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Princeton University; Samuel Franklin Vale, President, Starr-Camargo Bridge

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

Back Save transcript E-mail transcript Print transcript

SEN. SCHUMER: Come to order. And I apologize for being a bit late. Let's get right started.

Less than three weeks ago I presided over a hearing of this subcommittee entitled, "Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2009: Can We Do It and How?" After listening to the bipartisan testimony from the expert panelists and after hearing from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle during and after the hearing, I became cautiously optimistic that we can pass strong, fair, practical and effective immigration reform this year. At the very least, I'm convinced we owe the American people our very best effort to try and fix what we all acknowledge is a broken immigration system.

To that end, the Immigration Subcommittee will convene a series of hearings over the next few months entitled "Road to Immigration Reform in 2009: Clearing the Hurdles." During these hearings this subcommittee will directly address the most challenging issues that the American people and the various stakeholders want and need this Congress to resolve as part of a fair and practical immigration solution. My many conversations with the American people have convinced me that the vast majority of Americans are pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration.

But I ask my colleagues not to take my word for it. Instead, consider the recent poll numbers that support this conclusion. According to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, 61 percent of Americans would support a program giving illegal immigrants living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements. This number has risen by 11 points since December of 2007. But the same poll also reported that 74 percent of Americans think that the United States is not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants from coming into this country. This number has risen by 7 points since 2007.

The mandate of the American people cannot be any clearer. They will support better immigration laws if they can be convinced that their government is serious about drastically reducing the number of illegal immigrants entering the United States. Accordingly, the purpose of today's hearing is to determine how to further secure our borders and ports of entry so that we'll not be back 10 or 20 years from now discussing the same issues we are discussing today if we pass immigration reform later this year.

But before we begin answering this question we need to set the record straight. The American people need to know that because of our efforts in Congress our border is more secure today -- considerably more secure -- than it was when we began debating immigration reform in 2005. Between 2005 and 2009, a vast amount of progress has been made on the Southern border, the Northern border and ports of entry.

This progress includes the following: According to real-time data provided by the Department of Homeland Security, the number of people trying to illegal cross the Southwest border has decreased by 27 percent compared to last year. This figure was compiled by the Border Patrol through border apprehension numbers.

In addition, the Border Patrol tells us that at the end of fiscal year 2005 there were 11,106 Border Patrol agents. As of today there are nearly 20,000 Border Patrol agents operating between the ports of entry.

At the end of fiscal year 2005 only 241 miles of the Southwest border were deemed to be under effective control by the U.S. Border Patrol. Today the Border Patrol will tell us they are in effective control of 700 miles of the Southwest border. And as of today, approximately 625 miles of border fence have been built. And the remaining 40 miles will soon be built after disputes with private property owners are resolved.

Those are all new facts on the table as we begin to address immigration reform. And we will remove the chart briefly to make way for the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions.

Thanks for coming, Jeff.

On the enforcement side, ICE has implemented Border Enforcement Security Task Force teams that have made thousands of arrests of drug smugglers and of human smugglers.

Finally, border personnel have implemented new technologies such as sensors, light towers, mobile night vision scopes, remote video surveillance systems, directional listening devices, database systems and unmanned aerial vehicles along the border. These new technologies serve as force multipliers and allow Border Patrol to maintain control of larger segments of the border with fewer agents.

All of these measures have contributed to what The New York Times reported on May 15th, 2009 is, quote, "an extraordinary decline in the number of Mexican immigrants going to the United States." And that was based on Mexican census data.

The border experts in this hearing will show that the border is far more secure than it has ever been and with our help will be even more secure.

It's important for the American people to know that all of these measures to secure our border were enacted with the approval of the vast majority of Congress and supported by the three of us here in bipartisan way. Those of us who support immigration reform have shown our commitment to tough and serious border enforcement. You can't have one without the other, in my opinion.

But for years now the opponents of immigration reform have continually promised that they'll engage in conversation about immigration reform once Congress showed it was serious about securing the border. Our witnesses will confirm today that showing has clearly been made. And this chart, which is sort of blocked by the chair, but it shows you -- it's a very irascible chart. (Laughter.) This is the border -- Southwest border. And as you can see, the vast majority -- this is the Rio Grande River, so we don't have a fence there. But from the western edge of the Rio Grande to the Pacific Ocean, almost the whole border fence has been built. There are a few holes because of property owner negotiations, and those are going to be filled quickly. Okay. And that's 700 and some odd miles.

So it's time to end the divisive and unhelpful rhetoric which claims that nothing has been done to secure the border. It's time to reengage in the long-promised yet long-delayed conversation about how to best reform our immigration's broken immigration system, including going -- doing even more than we have done. That's not off the table at all. It's just that we've made good progress. Many people have said secure the border first, and that's what we're in good process doing. So it's now time for balanced, fair and tough immigration reform.

As the witnesses for today's hearing proves -- as the lineup of witnesses proves, this committee is determined to solicit diverse points of view in order to achieve the best solutions possible to the various policy questions we must resolve as part of our immigration reform effort.

All of these issues we will need to address as part of comprehensive immigration reform, and they're incredibly complex and multifaceted. No one person, no one viewpoint, no one discipline or one political party will have all the answers. I at least am therefore committed to hearing from all who are willing to answer tough questions about whether their proposed solutions for immigration reform are practical, effective and consistent with our values as a nation of due process, rule of law inclusiveness towards those who come here legally.

I'm confident that our distinguished panel today will move us closer towards finding the best solution for securing our borders and ports of entry, and look forward with great interest to your testimony. I thank all of you for coming.

And now I'm going to call on my colleague and the ranking member of this subcommittee, Senator Cornyn, who aside from his long Rio Grande stretch has a piece of the border fence in his state.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank all the witnesses for joining us here today, particularly the three of my constituents from Texas. Thank you for coming to explain the complexities of -- that confront us when it comes to border security and the challenges of balancing not only security with legitimate concerns about trade, which are mutually beneficial to our -- the United States and our trading partners. We have a great -- I think a great set of witnesses.

I apologize to the chairman. He knows this as well as I do. We have a Finance Committee walkthrough on health care reform, which has left the station and is barreling down the track at a high rate of speed. So I'm going to be shuttling back and forth. But I'll make it back periodically to try to exchange views.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for making border security the focus of this hearing. As you noted, Texas has a 1,200-mile common border with Mexico. And I have the opportunity to visit the border region often. And I know that border security is much on the minds of my constituents along the border.

But they also want to make sure that we pay attention to the mutually beneficial aspects of our trading relationship with Mexico and Canada. My constituents in Texas view NAFTA as a net plus for many, many reasons. And it's important that we preserve the proper balance and do both, encourage trade and also encourage and see that the federal government lives up to its responsibility when it comes to border security.

Of course, this is a problem not just for the United States but also Mexico too. And Mexican authorities have told us that a vast majority of weapons they seize from criminals in Mexico are actually smuggled from the United States. I think it's no secret that weapons come from a variety of sources, including China, North Korea and elsewhere, and some are stolen simply from stockpiles of the Mexican army by corrupt officials who move those into the hands of the cartels.

But this is a problem not just with people coming north from Mexico. Border security is -- it's a problem about things going south, namely weapons and bulk transfers of cash as part of massive money laundering operations of the cartels and the like.

I think it's important too -- and Mr. Torres I see is here from ICE to recognize the administration's stated commitment -- at least that's what I read in the newspaper -- to expand the current program started in the last administration of identifying violent criminals in custody of our sheriffs and police in various county and municipal jail facilities. We know that the people that suffer most from violence perpetrated by these criminals is in fact the Hispanic community and minority community itself because many times these criminals realize they can assault, steal and otherwise cheat members of the minority community who are here without a visa and perhaps be -- have impunity because they're afraid to complain. So this is a very positive development in my view, and I'm glad to read of ICE's and the administration's commitment to continuing and expanding this program.

I mentioned NAFTA. Forty percent of our bilateral trade crosses through the Port of Laredo, the largest inland land port in the United States. More than 12,000 trucks and 1,200 rail cars cross the border at the Port of Laredo each day.

I think it's also in the vein I alluded to earlier talking about legitimate trade and visits. We had a little bit of a challenge early on, Mr. Chairman, trying to treat our guests who were complying with our immigration laws the same if they came from Canada as opposed to coming from Mexico. Early on we -- working with then-Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge we were able to secure an extension of the so-called visa laser program or border crossing card where Mexican individuals who have those cards are properly screened. I mean, they're not a threat to the United States. They basically want to come here and buy our goods and services and increase -- and help stimulate our economy.

I think our goal should be ultimately to treat all of our guests who comply with our visa and immigration laws exactly the same. And I look forward to the time when we will treat our visitors from Canada and Mexico exactly the same when they are complying with all of our laws.

I appreciate the chart showing the construction of what the Border Patrol likes to call tactical infrastructure, other people call fencing and other people call the wall. Depending on how close you get to the border, it becomes more and more controversial.

But as I was telling Chief Aguilar, we have been able to work most notably in places like Hidalgo County with the county judge, Judge Salinas, and his team down there, Judge Cascos in Cameron County and elsewhere, to try to come up with the win-win solutions. And in fact, many private property owners have said they are worried about the increasing level of violence and intrusion across Mexico not from people who want to simply come to work but violent criminals, people smuggling arms and smuggling drugs. And so they are concerned and are working in cooperation with our Border Patrol and law enforcement personnel as well.

We need more Border Patrol agents. We've done a good job increasing that number. But rather than state and local officials having to carry that burden, I think we need more professional law enforcement officers, namely Border Patrol and officials within DHS, to help us provide a secure border.

And then, of course, there's technology which initially has proven to be somewhat disappointing but which I hope can be improved to provide a virtual fence not a wall, not necessarily a fence, not tactical infrastructure completely.

We realize anything like that you build, and if you don't have the people or the technology to work with it, it simply is not going to be a solution but may, at least in the opinion of Border Patrol, is a tool that they can use in doing their job.

Finally, let me just say I believe that the federal government's credibility is on the line. This to me was the reason why we were unsuccessful in dealing with immigration reform previously because the American people simply did not believe us when we said we were serious about border security and had for so long done virtually nothing to deal with that problem. And they saw -- so they did not believe.

And after the '86 amnesty signed by Ronald Reagan where the American people were told if you'll accept an amnesty for 3 million people we'll really get serious about worksite enforcement and border security and the like. We saw the amnesty but no work site enforcement, no border security. And so as the saying goes, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. And the American people were not going to be fooled again.

I do believe, as the chairman has said, that we're off on a good start. I do think this is a subject -- as complex and as emotional as it can be, the order in which you talk about things is very important. And when we talk about border security, tamper-proof identification, workplace enforcement, I think that's the right order to talk about these things rather than start out talking about a pathway to citizenship for 20 million people at the beginning.

The American people will not accept a pragmatic solution to the problems confronting folks who are here without their proper visa until we regain their confidence. And I think the only way we're going to regain their confidence is by showing them that we're serious about security measures, we're serious about the rule of law, and then I believe we can come up with a comprehensive solution that makes sense, the American people will embrace.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. SCHUMER: (Off mike.)

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): Mr. Chairman, it's great to be with you. This is an important hearing. I agree that progress has been made. I have been saying that for some time and not been using divisive rhetoric to say that nothing has been done. I've been saying that it can -- that from the beginning I have believed that we can make the border a lawful place of entry into the United States, that we could eliminate lawlessness.

We are making some good progress. The question is, will we continue it, as the number of illegal entrants go down and we've got more people per illegal entrance to catch the ones that are coming illegally? So it becomes a spiral in the right direction instead of the spiral in the wrong direction.

So I see some good things happening. I see some things that are troubling. And I look forward to the hearing. Thank you for having it.

SEN. SCHUMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman (sic) -- Mr. Ranking Member.

SEN. SESSIONS: We can dream.

SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah. You're a bit a ways. (Laughter.)

Okay. Moving right along here, I would like to introduce our panel.

First, John P. Torres is the deputy assistant secretary for operations for ICE. From November 2008 to May 2009 he served as the acting assistant secretary of Homeland Security for ICE. He has now been succeeded by John Morton, with whom I've had pleasant conversations and look forward to having him appear before this committee once he gets up and running. In his present capacity Mr. Torres is responsible for coordinating the efforts of the Federal Protective Service, National Firearms and Tactical Training Unit, National Incidents Response Unit, et cetera, et cetera.

David Aguilar is the chief of the United States Border Patrol, a position he assumed on July 1st, 2004. As nation's highest-ranking Border Patrol agent, Chief Aguilar addresses the enforcement efforts of more than 20,000 Border Patrol agents nationwide. Chief Aguilar brings to the job the knowledge and expertise gained from 30 years of service on the Border Patrol. We thank you for your service.

And Thomas S. Winkowski is the assistant commissioner of the Office of Field Operations, the largest and most complex organization in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. He oversees an operating budget of ($)3.2 billion, directs the activities of nearly 27,000 employees and is responsible for operations at 20 major field offices, 327 ports of entry, 58 operational Container Security Initiative ports, and 15 pre-clearance stations in Canada, Ireland and the Caribbean.

We welcome all three of you gentlemen. Your entire statements will be read in the record. We're asking you to keep yours to five minutes here. And I, like Senator Cornyn -- the Finance Committee is discussing some very important parts of health care including hospital funds for New York. So if -- one of my colleagues may be coming here and may have to briefly sit in for me, but it doesn't express any lack of interest or the fact that I'm familiar with the statements you have submitted.

Mr. Torres.

MR. TORRES: Good morning, Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Cornyn and Senator Sessions. On behalf of Secretary Napolitano and Assistant Secretary John Morton --

SEN. SCHUMER: Could you just pull the mike a little closer? Thank you, Mr. Torres.

MR. TORRES: I thank you for the opportunity to discuss ICE's efforts and our role in securing the border through the investigation of our nation's immigration and customs laws.

As the primary investigative agency in the Department of Homeland Security, ICE protects our national security and upholds public safety by targeting transnational criminal networks and terrorist organizations that might exploit potential vulnerabilities at the borders.

Recognizing that partnerships are essential, ICE works closely with its domestic and foreign partners at the federal, state, local and tribal levels to create a seamless web of border enforcement and a united front to disrupt and dismantle transnational criminal organizations.

While immigration enforcement is a key component of ICE's mission, we cannot and do not establish enforcement priorities in a stovepipe fashion. Instead, we target the organizations that exploit our legitimate trade, travel and financial systems with all the enforcement authorities to ensure that cross-border crime is attacked from every possible angle.

Indeed, the recent escalation of violence by the drug cartels and other criminal organizations just over our border with Mexico demonstrates this point in very stark terms. As Secretary Napolitano has recently testified, the violence in Mexico is not only an international threat, it's a homeland security issue in which all Americans have a stake.

The cartels that the Mexican authorities are battling are the same criminal organization that put drugs on our streets and use violence as a tool of their trade. Illegal money, drugs, weapons flow both ways across our border and inextricably link the U.S. and Mexico in our efforts to combat the drug cartels. Our two countries share a nearly 2,000-mile border, billions of dollars in trade, a commitment to democracy and the need to prevail against the transnational threats of organized crime.

We as a DHS family are not in a wait-and-see mode. The violence along our Southwest border requires a comprehensive and bilateral effort. Secretary Napolitano issued an immigration and border security action directive in January of 2009 to focus on this violence using the department's wide-ranging authorities.

Additionally, in March of this year DHS announced several Southwest border initiatives designed to crack down on the Mexican drug cartels through enhanced border security.

The plan calls for additional personnel, increased intelligence capability, better coordination with federal, state, local and Mexican law enforcement authorities to target illegal guns, drugs and cash.

So in furthering that effort, we partner with -- between the federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement in the border region, which is essential to securing our nations against -- to secure our nation against the threat of cartel violence. Law enforcement agencies at all levels of the government have significant roles to play both in addressing the current border violence and in preparing scenarios where violence in Mexico could further impact the United States.

Law enforcement agencies at the state, local and tribal level have long fought border violence and have deep operational knowledge of the border region. Confronting a multifaceted threat like border violence means that federal agencies must constantly collaborate, coordinate and work together with our local partners by sharing information and resources.

With that in mind, ICE established the Border Enforcement Security Task Forces back in 2006. They are led by ICE but they work with a number of partners at the federal, state and local level to include our partners here, CBP, that are at the table. We work with DEA, FBI, ATF, U.S. attorneys' offices and local law enforcement agencies. And across the Southwest border, the Mexican government is committed to also participating in the BEST task forces. And in fact, five of those now have actual representation from the Mexican government.

The BEST model has been successful. With the help of our partners we have been able to crack down on arms trafficking, human smuggling, bulk cash smuggling, narcotics smuggling, et cetera. As such, I'd like to share with you a few of our successes: the discovery and repatriation by the El Paso BEST of one of Mexican's (sic) top 10 fugitives, the arrest of the Laredo BEST of a weapons trafficker supplying cartels with assault rifles and a number of weapons used to murder a Mexican police officer by the name of Navarro Rincon and others; the arrest by Laredo BEST of a member of the Mexican Mafia gang in possession of approximately 897 pounds of smuggled marijuana after he attempted to run over a Texas DPS, Department of Public Safety, officer; and also the arrest by the Los Angeles Seaport BEST of an arms trafficker and the seizure of 38 military-style weapons.

As such, due this success, DHS and ICE have committed to adding more resources to the BESTs. We've recently doubled the number of special agents assigned from 95 to 190, which greatly expands our ability to work with local law enforcement. We've also committed to working more closely with Mexican authorities. Assisting Mexico in our battle against drug violence and immigration violence requires strong coordination with Mexican law enforcement to ensure that Mexico and the U.S. are operating together in combating this transnational threat.

ICE engages Mexican authorities on a number of levels in our joint efforts to combat border violence. We have a border liaison officer program, for example, where we designate a number of agents across the border to work closely with our Mexican partners and establish regular meetings and contacts. We recently quadrupled the number of those border liaison officers on the Southwest border.

We've also strengthened our coordination with the government of Mexico by increasing our attache personnel overseas in Mexico by sending additional special agents to Mexico City, Tijuana, Hermosillo, Ciudad Juarez and Monterrey. Through our attache in Mexico City and associated sub-offices in Mexico ICE assists in the efforts against transnational drug trafficking, weapons, cash -- bulk cash smuggling, money-laundering syndicates in Mexico. Our attache personnel work on a daily basis with Mexican authorities to combat those transnational threats, and we've added additional officers again to all of those offices.

We've also focused on recently the illegal weapons and bulk cash smuggling into Mexico. A large number of weapons recovered in Mexico's drug war are smuggled illegally into Mexico from the United States. Clearly, stopping this flow is one of our top priorities.

In June of 2008 ICE, CBP and other federal and state partners met down in Cuernavaca, Mexico with our Mexican partners and agreed to add more resources in combination with ATF to focus on weapons -- southbound weapons smuggling and work with the vetted units down in Mexico.

In summary, I do want to add that my complete statement also focuses on our efforts on immigration enforcement and record levels of that over the past couple of years. And we are committed to working with this subcommittee to address those challenges. And we're happy to answer any of our questions. Thank you.

SEN. SCHUMER: Thank you very much, Mr. Torres.

Chief Aguilar.

CHIEF AGUILAR: Thank you, sir, and good morning. Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Cornyn, Senator Sessions, Senator Specter, it is an honor and a privilege to appear before you today.

I am honored to be here with Assistant Commissioner Tom Winkowski, my good partner over at CBP, and another good partner, Deputy Assistant Secretary John Torres, who jointly we are very interested in what happens in the border. And I think jointly we'll give you a good picture of the successes that we have had and advances that we have had on the border.

Senators, next week the Border Patrol will celebrate 85 years of service having been officially established by an act of Congress in 1924 on May 28th. Over the years we have served in the Bureau of the Immigration to the departments of Labor and Justice and now within Customs and Border Protection in the Department of Homeland Security. The Border Patrol has served this nation with honor and integrity.

From a few hundred patrol inspectors -- mounted inspectors -- we have grown now to 18,945 officers as we speak today. They are, of course, deployed throughout the Northern border, Southern border, and our maritime and costal borders.

The Border Patrol is charged, as you know, with the protection of the border between the ports of entry. We are guided in all of our efforts by a solid strategy. And I have to point out, Senators, that this is an all-threats strategy that takes into account not only illegal immigration, which is a big vulnerability and poses a big threat to our borders, but it also takes into account narcotics, criminals, criminal aliens and criminal organizations that sometimes believe that they can use our borders with impunity.

With the proper mix of manpower, infrastructure and technology the Border Patrol is dedicated to achieving the goal of operational control. This comprehensive approach is critical as no one leg, no one component of our strategy can accomplish the mission alone. We are far better off now than we have ever been with respect to border security. I am confident that with our increased staffing, more tactical infrastructure and integrated technology improvements we have established a solid anchor for gaining, maintaining and expanding operational control of our borders.

There is a transformation occurring on our borders. We are transforming the borders of the United States because of the application of our strategy and the tactical infrastructure, the personnel and the technology that's being added.

The border regions, both Northern and Southern, have undergone drastic changes, transitions in the past five years. Clearly the most prominent is the establishment of our tactical infrastructure and the standup of varying styles of fencing. With the support from Congress we have now over 626 miles of fencing in place out of our total goal of 661 miles. We will accomplish that goal.

This was not an arbitrary number that we reached. Our sector chief patrol agents are the field commanders for specific geographic areas around the country, and with the assistance of their staff arrived at an achievable, sustainable and economically beneficial need for tactical infrastructure that was designed by them. We continuously assess our progress and how we can improve it. But clearly what is now in place has absolutely provided a great benefit to our mission.

In the Yuma sector, for example, our apprehension rate has plummeted from over 138,000 apprehensions that we made in 2005 to just over 8,000 in 2008. And that number continues to drop. Nationwide, we have seen a decrease from about 1.2 million apprehensions in 2005 to 723,000 in 2008. And to date, we have a 27 percent drop as compared to the same time period last year.

Along the Northern border the most noticeable change has clearly been the increase in staffing. As I just mentioned, the Border Patrol has now grown to over 18,000 agents, of which there are over 17,000 in -- 1,700 agents assigned to the Northern border. With increased staffing we have been able to expand our community outreach, conduct further operations and develop deeper partnerships with the law enforcement community as a whole. The finest example of coordinated efforts is with our Canadian counterparts through the Integrated Border Enforcement -- IBET -- Teams.

In today's 21st century world, the Border Patrol has sought to further utilize technology to assist in border security. A critical component of our strategy is technology and is being able to effectively utilize the benefits that can be gained through those enhancements. Whether developed in adoption of new -- development and adoption of new technologies such as infrared cameras, remote radio surveillance and unattended ground sensors we have been further aided in our mission. With the advent of SBInet and the P28 proof of concept, the Border Patrol took an enormous leap forward in our mission and mission capability.

The border solution is not a simple solution. When it comes to border security and our agents, they are dedicated to performing our mission. We will continue to explore new technologies and reassess our operational needs to appropriately address the vulnerability gaps. The border is a dynamic environment, and we strive to meet the demands of today as well as the challenges of tomorrow.

Thank you for the opportunity to describe our plans for border security and to highlight some of our progress to date. I look forward to any questions that you might have of us, sir.

SEN. SCHUMER: Thank you, Chief. And I want to thank both of you for your testimony. Secretary Winkowski is here to answer questions, but as I understand it, Chief Aguilar's testimony subsumes yours.

So we're going to go to questions. And first question I have for all three witnesses -- and I just want to set the record straight for the American people. First of all, I'm going to ask you directly whether you agree or disagree with the following statement. Quote, "The measures we have taken since 2005 to secure the border have been successful in significantly lowering the number of illegal immigrants seeking to unlawfully cross the border, including a 27 percent reduction this year."

Chief Aguilar, do you agree with that?

CHIEF AGUILAR: Absolutely, sir.

SEN. SCHUMER: Commissioner Winkowski.

MR. WINKOWSKI: Yes.

SEN. SCHUMER: Assistant Secretary Torres.

MR. TORRES: Yes, sir.

SEN. SCHUMER: Okay, next question: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement. Quote, "The U.S.-Mexico border is exponentially more secure today than it was in 2005 when we began discussing comprehensive immigration reform."

Chief Aguilar.

CHIEF AGUILAR: That is correct, sir. It is.

SEN. SCHUMER: Commissioner Winkowski.

MR. WINKOWSKI: Yes, I agree.

SEN. SCHUMER: Assistant Secretary Torres.

MR. TORRES: Yes, sir, it is.

SEN. SCHUMER: Okay. And I would note some of you came to office in the Obama administration and some in the Bush administration. This is not a partisan issue in any -- of any sort.

Now I'm going to read to you the main border provisions that were part of the McCain-Kennedy bill from 2006, which as I think Senator Cornyn directly diagnosed that the reason the bill failed is the American people didn't have faith that there wouldn't be a future waive of illegal immigrants if we passed that bill.

First, here is what they -- here is what it was supposed to do: develop a national strategy for border security that describes actions to achieve operational control over all borders and ports of entry; double the number of Border Patrol agents and increase the number of ICE agents by 200; establish initiatives with Canada, Mexico and Central American countries to protect the border; deploy border technologies designed to serve as, quote, "force multipliers"; to achieve greater operational control of the border; complete border fencing in the Yuma and Tucson, Arizona sectors; increase the number of helicopters and boats for use by the Border Patrol.

Have all of these metrics been met? Chief Aguilar.

CHIEF AGUILAR: Yes. Yes, sir.

SEN. SCHUMER: You agree, Secretary Torres?

MR. TORRES: Yes, sir.

SEN. SCHUMER: And Commissioner Winkowski.

MR. WINKOWSKI: Yes.

SEN. SCHUMER: Okay. So these are -- these are not law. I mean, they may be part of other laws, but this is what was laid out in the McCain-Kennedy bill. And it seems we've gone a good way for achieving it.

Okay, next question: There are a -- there are people, blogs, cable television, radio who raise the fear factor with the American people when they state that our Southwest border will not be secure unless we build a wall across the entire length of the Southwest border; that is a 2,000-mile wall. So I -- in effect what they're saying is you need a wall on the Rio Grande parts of the border not just the landlocked parts of the border, where, as I said except for 40 miles, that's been done -- 700 miles of fence.

So do you agree that we need -- do any of you agree that we need to build a fence on the rest of the border, the Rio Grande part of the border, to be secure, that that's essential for security? Chief Aguilar.

CHIEF AGUILAR: The -- no, sir. The fence that has been designed and is in progress of being built, the 661 miles, is what has been defined by the experts on the ground, the field commanders, as what is needed along with the continuing maturation of our personnel and the continued augmentation of technology that is -- that's on its way.

SEN. SCHUMER: Has smuggling or illegal crossings across the Rio Grande decreased at a rate consistent with the rate we've heard overall, 27 percent?

CHIEF AGUILAR: Absolutely, and in some cases it's even higher, sir.

SEN. SCHUMER: Even higher.

CHIEF AGUILAR: Yes, sir.

SEN. SCHUMER: So we're doing pretty well by the river. We have the natural barrier of the river I guess.

CHIEF AGUILAR: Absolutely, yes.

SEN. SCHUMER: Okay. How about you, Secretary Torres? What do you think of this idea of building -- that we need to build a fence along the 1,200 or so miles of the Rio Grande border?

MR. TORRES: Well, I agree with our expert here, Chief Aguilar. And I see that in addition to the efforts of the Border Patrol some of the enforcement initiatives that we've undertaken in the interior of the country have also contributed to the decreases in the people attempting to be smuggled in --

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, we're going to have hearings on that too.

MR. TORRES: Sure.

SEN. SCHUMER: Believe me, I feel that is the most important thing we can do. If you prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants, that will cut off the flow as effectively as anything. (Inaudible) -- can we do it and we're going to explore that.

Commissioner.

MR. WINKOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Chief Aguilar. I do think there is one thing we have to keep in mind that as we close off between the ports of entry the impact at the ports of entry. I think that's something that we need to keep an eye on.

SEN. SCHUMER: And what -- give me your analysis of how we're doing --

MR. WINKOWSKI: Well, you know, as we prevent people from coming between the ports of entry with our tactical infrastructure and our technology, they'll seek other ways of coming into the country such as through our ports of entry. And we've got to be prepared at our ports of entry, which we are. Things such as the stimulus package that was recently passed, the $720 million to really work on our infrastructure which is so sorely needed, the plus-up in staffing that we had, the upcoming implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative with machine-readable documents.

SEN. SCHUMER: Have any of you noticed a change in the commitment of building the existing fence in following the law, both virtual and concrete, in the new administration? Is there any diminution of enthusiasm for that, moneys for that, et cetera?

MR. : No, sir.

SEN. SCHUMER : Chief, you've served under both administrations.

MR. AGUILAR: Absolutely. No, sir. There is a continued --

SEN. SCHUMER: Could you please pull your microphone forward?

MR. AGUILAR: I apologize. No, not only is there a continued interest, but there is also a continued testing of our thinking on the requirements. Once we have briefed, once we have identified the rationale, everybody is in agreement that we will continue to build the fence, we will continue to fund the technology requirements that we have identified.

SEN. SCHUMER: Great. Okay. I want to thank our witnesses. I am going to turn over the chair to Senator Specter for a brief while while I try to defend New York hospitals at the Finance Committee, and I will be back. I want to thank the witnesses for our testimony. This is certainly -- I have complete confidence in handing the chair over to Senator Specter. He has far more experience than I do chairing these committees, but this will be the first time he's doing it from this side of the podium.

Senator Specter?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (D-PA): Very comfortable in the center. (Laughter.)

Senator Sessions.

SENATOR SCHUMER: Well said.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): Senator Specter, I'm glad to be with you, Mr. Chairman.

Well, my good friend Chuck Schumer forgot a little of the history on the fence and how hard we had to battle and how hard I had to force votes and then we would authorize the fence and then the appropriations bill would have zero money in it for the fence, and the American people had to shut down the switchboards and we finally got some message up here.

So I don't think the politicians have in any way distinguished themselves or ourselves in this matter, but I do agree that progress is being made. And I've always believed that was possible. The numbers are at least as -- well, I'll say it this way: Based on what we've done and what we could have done in addition and didn't do, I guess we're making some pretty good progress on reducing the flow of immigration here.

But about three years ago we were arresting 1.1 million and now it's about 700-some-odd-thousand, which is still a lot. I mean, that is not a lawful border when you're arresting 700,000 annually, and we are not there yet.

Mr. Aguilar, with regard to the barriers, just for clarification, when we wrote this amendment, of course, we did not offer an amendment that would build a wall across the entire border. Somebody may call in to a talk show and say that, but that was not those of us in Congress proposed. We proposed 700 miles. Now, what are vehicle barriers and how are they different from fencing?

MR. AGUILAR: Vehicle barriers are basically designed to keep vehicles -- anything that has a carrying capacity -- across our borders. They are very specific and very unique to geographical areas that lend themselves to vehicles or any kind of carrying capacity coming across. That is a type of defense that we need to have in those specific areas.

SEN. SESSIONS: But a pedestrian could get across that barrier.

MR. AGUILAR: A pedestrian could get across that barrier, yes, sir. But by design and by implementation they are placed where pedestrians are not as likely -- there's always the possibility -- but not as likely to try and penetrate that border on foot.

SEN. SESSIONS: Well, the chairman says we've got 700 miles of fencing. How many miles of fencing and how many miles of vehicle barriers do you have today?

MR. AGUILAR: As we speak today, we have 626 miles that we have built. We will be accomplishing 661. The total number of miles, combination, that we will have in place at 661 will be 116 miles total in California, 115 in Texas, 115 in New Mexico and 313 in Arizona.

SEN. SESSIONS: How many of those are vehicle barriers and how many are fencing?

MR. AGUILAR: I'd have to get you those numbers, sir. I have them here. I'll dig them up right now.

SEN. SESSIONS: Well, I think we just need to get that straight because the legislation calls for fencing, which is better.

Let's talk a little bit about the El Paso Division. My staff has talked with some of the CBP folks there, and the fence has been built there.

Would you agree, I guess, Mr. Aguilar, I would ask you, that El Paso has seen a dramatic reduction in apprehensions there from 122,000 in '06 to 30,000 in '08?

MR. AGUILAR: Yes, sir. Those numbers are correct.

SEN. SESSIONS: I understand that crime in El Paso has dropped in general. Is that correct?

MR. AGUILAR: That is correct. It has dropped, and El Paso I believe still remains as the third largest city -- safest largest city in the nation.

SEN. SESSIONS: And I think that's a remarkable achievement, Mr. Chairman, that part of securing the border there with the fence and increased Border Patrol officers and sophisticated use of technology you've drawn that illegal entry way down and the crime rate has gone down and El Paso is one of the -- the third safest cities in America going to the numbers I had.

But you still understand averaging 48 apprehensions a day, but that's a lot better than 300 a couple of years ago.

MR. AGUILAR: Yes, sir.

SEN. SESSIONS: That's the basic trends you would see there?

MR. AGUILAR: Yes, sir. And El Paso -- just as a clarification -- takes in not only El Paso proper and the surrounding areas but also takes into account basically the entire state of New Mexico border also.

SEN. SESSIONS: Mr. Torres, one way, the thing that we can help our friends in Mexico -- and I'm really impressed with our efforts to step up their national security, to crack down on the organized gangs that even threaten the independence of the nation. And I think we should help. Isn't one good way we can help is to make a priority to prosecute the criminal gangs in our cities that are connected to these cartels in Mexico, and when you do so, you (draw ?) up the sources of their money that flow back to these cartels in Mexico and give them the power that enables them to threaten the government of Mexico.

MR. TORRES: Yes, sir, Senator. In fact over the past couple of years we've implemented a couple of programs, two programs just targeted specifically at what you're talking about. One is our Operation Community Shield, which has resulted in over 11,000 gang members that we've arrested since 2005, a number of those of which we prosecuted. But then we also have what's called Operation Repeat Offender, that we focused along the Southwest border where we take people who have committed crimes that we've identified and screened and our -- and the states' prisons and jails along the Southwest border. Actually we do it nationwide, but a lot of the focus is on the Southwest border.

We take those people away who we've identified who've committed a crime; we then -- and who have also previously been deported -- and we work with the U.S. attorney's office to prosecute them federally for re-entry after deportation statute. And historically they've been receiving close to or being sentenced close to three to five years in prison. So in effect, it takes them -- just as you said -- out of that theater of violence along the Southwest border, so we're not just deporting them again so they can try to come back in a be encountered by a Border Patrol agent or by one of -- someone --

SEN. SESSIONS: Yeah.

MR. TORRES: -- at the point of entry.

SEN. SESSIONS: I think that's a real way to help them, because some of them move back and forth and some just ship money back home to strengthen those cartels. I would just say with regard to the new administration, a number of things are being continued that are good, like Operation Streamline, and I'd like to talk a little more about that. My time's up, but the president has denied request for continuing --

SEN. SPECTER: Senator Sessions, if you want a little more time, go ahead.

SEN. SESSIONS: All right, thank you. He's denied request for additional National Guard troops there. The policy that seems to be working in the workplace, Mr. Torres, could be good if we primarily target the employers who knowingly participate in this. But also when you don't remove those who approve and to be using false IDs and are here illegally, we are back to a catch-and-release policy that I think sends an unwise message.

And I do think that some of the actions have raised real questions in my mind about the commitment of the department to state and local participation in this effort.

And finally, just to wrap up, on the question of Operation Streamline, I'm seeing good numbers. This is where in certain sectors when the Border Patrol officers apprehend someone, they're actually prosecuted -- maybe a week or two or whatever in jail. They get a misdemeanor conviction if it's their first offense, which is different from just taking them right back to the border and sending them home because they come back that next day.

What we've seen in -- what I've seen in Del Rio, Mr. Aguilar, is in '05 there was 68,000 apprehensions there. In '08, after Streamline has been in place where they are routinely prosecuted, the apprehensions are 20,000, a 70 percent decrease. In Yuma, pre- Streamline, they were 117,000 apprehensions.

After that, it dropped to 8,000, a 93 percent increase, and Laredo, there was a 56,000 in '07. And '08 is a partial Streamline; it dropped to 46,000. And in Tucson, in '07, apprehensions were 379,000 and the numbers have dropped to 126. Well, I don't have the full year on that, so that's '09 to date, 126, but it looks like a good reduction there.

So do you believe that is having an impact on the decline of interest presumably?

MR. AGUILAR: Absolutely. Where we're have implemented Operation Streamline or Streamline type operations as a part of our comprehensive approach, it is having a tremendous impact.

I'd like to just point out that one of -- the fundamentals of the border enforcement model are the ability of the Border Patrol to be able to detect, deter, identify, classify and resolve any kind of cross-border illegal entry.

The fence or the tactical infrastructure that we referred to does a lot of the deterrence. In addition to that, anything that gets past us, there has to be a consequence to it, of which Operation Streamline is part of our consequence package, if you will, that we bring to bear against anything that does get through even our enforcement model.

SEN. SESSIONS: Thank you.

Thank you for being very kind to me, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. SPECTER: Thank you, Senator Sessions.

Picking up in thread on Senator Sessions' comments with respect to the drug problem, and the smuggling of arms is a big factor: Does the Border Patrol improvements have any impact on the smuggling of weapons? That's obviously something which has given a lot of firepower, improved the capacity of the drug dealers to function parallel to the Mexican government.

Mr. Winkowski, we haven't given you a speaking part yet. Would you care to respond to that?

MR. WINKOWSKI: Yeah. Thank you, Senator. You know, as you know with part of our Southwest Border Initiative, we are conducting an assortment of outbound operations, looking for weapons as well as bulk currency going south into Mexico.

I can tell you we've had a lot of success from the standpoint of bulk currency seizing since March of this year, over $13 million going south. And from the standpoint of weapons going south, we've had some seizures but not military-grade type of weapons. It's been more handguns and shotguns and personal-use type of weapons. But we do have ongoing operations on a regular occurring basis in a (pulse?) and surge mode down on the Southwest border.

SEN. SPECTER: What could be done, Commissioner Winkowski, on stopping the flow of those military weapons?

MR. WINKOWSKI: I think there's a number of things that we could do. One is to, you know, continue doing what we're doing from a standpoint of (pulse?) and surge. I think the other huge piece here is, you know, the over in ICE, from the standpoint of their ongoing investigations that they have ongoing in those particular issues.

The other thing that we're working very hard on, you do have legitimate weapons that are going down south, that are transiting, for example, the United States. They have all the proper State Department licenses and things of that nature, and we have been working very, very close with Mr. Torres's staff on making sure that those weapons are reaching the right end user.

So I think a combination of (pulse?) and surge operations, the investigative side, and the monitoring of the end users' side of --

SEN. SPECTER: Those legitimate weapons are not part of the problem.

MR. WINKOWSKI: Pardon me?

SEN. SPECTER: Those legitimatized weapons are not part of the problem?

MR. WINKOWSKI: Well, you know, from our standpoint those weapons that are going down and perhaps transiting the United States do have the proper licenses and we do believe we have, you know, the proper safeguards in place, working with ICE on who the end user is and making sure that it gets to the end user.

SEN. SPECTER: One final question: You see news reports from time to time about immigrants being smuggled into the United States in these large vans, so-called 16-wheelers. Have the precautions taken and improvements made so far been any help in monitoring that horrendous practice?

MR. WINKOWSKI: Yeah, you know, at the ports of entry, with the technology that we've received from the Congress this fiscal -- the stimulus package, for example, $100 million in new money for technology as well as in our fiscal year 2009 budget $30 million -- that certainly is one step in the right direction. I know there are issues interior-wise with individuals that are in cargo containers that, you know, in some cases there were deaths, that I know the chief and Mr. Torres have been dealing with.

SEN. SPECTER: Well, thank you very much, gentlemen. Senator Sessions has requested 30 seconds. You may start with 30 seconds.

SEN. SESSIONS: Mr. Aguilar, I have a number here from, I believe, your department that they're getting 323 miles of single- layer pedestrian fence, 302 miles of vehicle fence, and that's how you get the 626 number, and only 33 miles of the double-layered secondary fencing. If you --

MR. AGUILAR: That is correct.

SEN. SESSIONS: That sound correct?

MR. AGUILAR: Yes, sir.

SEN. SESSIONS: Thank you.

SEN. SPECTER: Senator Sessions, you still have seven seconds left. (Laughter.)

SEN. SESSIONS: I've already -- you've already indulged me enough, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. SPECTER: You just used your time. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

We'll now proceed with panel two: Congressman Hayworth, Sheriff Wiles, Mayor Foster, Professor Massey and Mr. Vale.

How are you, J.D.?

If you gentlemen would be seated, we want to proceed. Our first witness is the former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 until 2007 representing the 5th Congressional District of Arizona, author of a book, "Whatever it Takes: Illegal Immigrants, Border Security and the War on Terror." He now hosts an afternoon political radio show in Phoenix and serves as a consultant and motivational speaker.

Thank you for coming back to Washington, Congressman Hayworth, and the floor is yours.

MR. HAYWORTH: Senator Specter, thank you very much for this opportunity to testify. And I ask unanimous consent that my complete testimony be made a part of the record.

SEN. SPECTER: Without objection, it will be.

MR. HAYWORTH: Let me begin by highlighting two very popular words from the Washington political lexicon. The first is "bipartisan" and the second is "comprehensive." In my opinion, the federal government's inability to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws has been a bipartisan failure. First the Bush administration, now the Obama administration have both expressed the desire for so-called comprehensive immigration reform. While the term comprehensive suggests complete or all-encompassing reform, the American people see it for what it is: amnesty for those who have entered our country illegally. When members of this body attempted to move such a piece of legislation in the summer of 2007, their constituents made it clear that they wanted no part of it. The Senate switchboard was overloaded and the ill-advised legislation was abandoned.

Yet here we are again almost two years later with this same ill- advised policy objective as this committee's apparent goal. Why? Here's some genuine straight talk: because some Republicans want cheap labor and some Democrats want cheap votes. Sadly, what has been short-changed in this deficient political calculation is the border security, indeed, the national security, that our country so desperately needs.

It was my honor to serve in the United States Congress for 12 years. I was here on September 11th, 2001. Who would have thought that nearly eight years following that fateful day we as a nation would still be dithering over something as elemental to our national defense as truly securing our borders? Certainly we've enacted -- we've created new bureaucracies and enacted new laws. But if people are not obeying existing law because the government is not adequately enforcing existing law, what makes us think that any new laws will make a difference? What results is a type of public policy schizophrenia, all because official Washington views this as a political problem to be managed when in reality it's a national security problem that must be solved.

Two policy objectives indicate the gulf between the real and the ideal. First, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 was signed into law by President Bush. It requires the construction of at least 700 miles of double-layered fencing along our Southern border with Mexico, but only about 200 miles of such fencing has actually been completed because the Department of Homeland Security has chosen to count old single- layered fencing and vehicle barriers as part of the new fence. Now smugglers are using collapsible ramps to drive over those vehicle barriers.

Moreover, the Obama administration recently introduced the notion of a virtual fence, despite its initial test failures in my home state of Arizona. Perhaps the new round of testing can take place not in Arizona but at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Do you think the Secret Service would be willing to eliminate the real fence that surrounds the White House? And the irony here is that building a real border fence with real protections could create real jobs and would be a stimulus project that I believe would prove both popular and practical.

Speaking of popularity in the workplace, The Los Angeles Times reported last week that the federal government's E-Verify program, which seeks to reduce the hiring of illegal immigrants, is becoming increasingly popular, with 1,000 businesses signing up each week. Despite this, critics on both the left and right find fault with the error rate of 4 percent, which means that there's an accuracy rate of 96 percent. And Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said E- Verify is a cornerstone of workplace enforcement across the country. Yet workplace enforcement is the second policy objective which prompts contradictory reactions.

The February 24th sweep of an engine parts manufacturer in Bellingham, Washington resulted in 28 arrests.

In response, Secretary Napolitano complained that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, failed to notify her of that raid in advance and announced an investigation into the communication policies of ICE. Those arrested were subsequently released, and Secretary Napolitano later refined her response, claiming that employers would now be the focus instead of illegal workers. But with those actions, Secretary Napolitano in essence publicly berated her department's own agents for enforcing immigration law.

And that brings us back full circle. Americans want our immigration laws enforced. A man from Phoenix addressed the matter squarely in an e-mail to me. His observation, and I quote, "Wouldn't it make sense to first legislate and implement comprehensive border enforcement as well as comprehensive employee verification before we take on comprehensive immigration reform?" Yes, that makes great sense. But unfortunately, official Washington shows few signs of following common sense on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I've included the full text of Chapter 9 of my book, "Whatever It Takes," in my complete testimony. And again, I'd like to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify, and I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have.

SEN. SCHUMER: Thank you, Congressman Hayworth, former congressman.

I'm going to introduce the next four witnesses and ask them each to put their entire statements in the record and speak for five minutes each, consecutively. Richard Wiles is the sheriff of El Paso County, Texas. He's held that position since 2007. Prior to that, he served as chief of police of the city of El Paso. He's a member of the Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition, has 27 years of law enforcement experience and manages over 1,400 employees.

Do you want to add something, Senator Cornyn, since he is your constituent? We have a lot of your constituents here today.

SEN. CORNYN: We do. Thank you for that --

SEN. SCHUMER: You know what --

SEN. CORNYN: These are people who know a lot about the border, and I'm delighted their here to share their expertise. I would just say, because I want to hear from them, but hopefully the sheriff and -- can talk a little bit about the impact on local and state law enforcement officials because the federal government's failure to live up to its responsibilities and the importance of providing both the financial support to border sheriffs and other law enforcement officials to help make up the burden -- basically an unfunded mandate that the federal government has proposed on state and local officials as a result of the federal government's failure to deal with border security issues. But delighted to have him and the mayor here with us, and Sam Vale, my friend, who is very active in the Border Trade Alliance and who can talk a lot about not just border security but also the importance to our economy of trade across our borders.

Thank you very much.

SEN. SCHUMER: Okay. And we have Chad Foster, as Senator Cornyn mentioned, mayor of Eagle Pass -- city of Eagle Pass, Texas, appointed by Governor Perry to the Texas Department of Transportation Border Trade Advisory Committee, chairman of the Texas Border Coalition, member of the Alliance for Security and Trade, and co-chair of the Border 2012 Amistad District, and is a member of the Middle Rio Grande Regional Review Committee.

Douglas Massey is the rare witness not from Texas. He's the Henry G. Bryant professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He specializes in the sociology of immigration, has published extensively on immigration through the Southwest border. He's the author of two seminal books on immigration and population migration, entitled "Crossing the Border" and "Beyond Smoke and Mirrors."

And Samuel Vale -- I don't have the little sheet here, somehow it was left out, but maybe we can have Senator Cornyn introduce -- make the introduction. I'll just ask unanimous consent that Samuel Vale's introduction be added to the record.

SEN. CORNYN: Well, I mentioned that Mr. Vale, Mr. Chairman, is very active in the Border Trade Alliance as a board member. He actually is president of the Rio Grande city's Starr Camargo Bridge Company, so he knows a lot about the ports of entry and the need for funding for infrastructure, including personnel, to facilitate trade. And of course --

SEN. SCHUMER: I have some more here if you need it.

SEN. CORNYN: And so I think rather than me go on, let's just here from him.

SEN. SCHUMER: Okay, great. And also -- president of Telemundo 40, president of the Starr Camargo Bridge Company, president of the Border Pacific Railroad Company. So he has a lot of experience.

Gentlemen, each of your statements, like Congressman Hayworth's, will be read into the record.

Sheriff Wiles, you can proceed.

SHERIFF WILES: Thank you, Chairman Schumer and Ranking Member Cornyn. Good afternoon.

First, just to clarify a previous statement made, El Paso is a large city over 700,000 residents. It has been ranked one of the -- either the second or third safest large city in the United States for the past 12 years, long before the new fence was built. I just want to make that clear. We certainly look forward to comprehensive immigration reform. We believe it's needed. My concern is that we don't make a solution that one size fits all. We don't want to lump the problems together and address it with just one solution.

From a law enforcement perspective, I see two issues. Illegal immigration and undocumented immigrants is one. And there seems to be a misperception in some communities across our country that people who illegally enter our country from Mexico do so for the purpose of engaging in criminal activity, and that could not be further from the truth. Members of the U.S. Border Patrol without hesitation will admit that the vast majority are here for economic reasons. In many respects, they enter illegally knowing that there are employers here that want and need their labor. It's as if we're waving them in with one hand and telling them to stop with the other.

What should be the law enforcement response to illegally immigration in our local communities? I'm not pro-illegal immigration. As a law enforcement officer, I respect the laws of our country and the necessity for them to be followed for an orderly and safe society. But immigration and immigration enforcement rests solely with the federal government and federal agencies. And, as you mentioned, Senator Cornyn, I believe the federal government has failed in that respect, and when the government ignores its duties and obligations, unfortunately that burden sometimes does fall on state and local officials.

In the past there's been a discussion of local, county and state law enforcement agencies assisting in the area of immigration enforcement. That's not good policy. While chief of police in El Paso, I was a member of the Major City Chiefs Association, which is comprised of the largest 64 law enforcement agencies in the United States and Canada. I was one of nine members of a subcommittee that ultimately made recommendations to the full association that were adopted in June 2006, and I've attached a copy of that report to my testimony for your review. The general recommendation is that local law enforcement should not be engaged in the enforcement of federal immigration law and although there are many reasons, I'll concentrate on two main ones.

First, we lack the resources. We can barely keep up with what our community expects us to do now.

Secondly, law enforcement -- local law enforcement depends on the cooperation of the community it serves to prevent and solve crimes. In fact, many local agencies spend large amounts of time, energy and money, a lot of federal grant money, developing relationships just for this purpose. The enforcement of federal immigration laws by local law enforcement will undermine these efforts and impair cooperation and communication between local law enforcement and the communities they serve.

Additionally, last year I attended a conference on local law enforcement and immigration enforcement put on by the Police Foundation in Washington, D.C., which was well attended. The vast majority of agency heads at the conference agreed with the findings of the Major City Chiefs Association. The Police Foundation is actually scheduled to release a new report this afternoon, discussing how local immigration enforcement challenges the public safety mission of law enforcement agencies. The report is titled, "The Role of Local Police: Striking a Balance Between Immigration Enforcement and Civil Liberties."

Federal agencies have the personnel, the training, equipment and systems in place to handle immigration enforcement. If they are deficient in any of these areas, that is something for them to overcome, not a reason to put an additional burden on local, county and state agencies which are already struggling to keep up with the demands they face.

Which leads me to the second issue, and that's the unique criminal issues faced by law enforcement agencies in our border communities. Due to the demand all across our nation, illegal drugs continue to flow north, while money and weapons flow south. In addition, we must deal with human smuggling and border crime which many times are offenses committed against undocumented immigrants, such as robbery, sexual assault, kidnapping and even homicide. These acts clearly are within our jurisdiction and responsibility and take law enforcement resources away from our neighborhoods when we have to respond to them. But we understand we have an obligation to protect all persons within our border and we respond appropriately without regard to immigration status. Our purpose is to prevent crime and, when we fail to do that, to apprehend criminal offenders. But we also understand when we arrest a drug smuggler, a drug seller, a human smuggler, or rapist, it prevents drugs and crimes from expanding into other areas of our country. In that regard, we are truly at the front lines, using local resources to address a national problem.

Our main concern is border and community security. Our position on immigration enforcement works, and it shows in the fact that we are an extremely safe community, and we want to remain one of the largest safe cities in the United States. We are growing and expanding, and we want to maintain the safety and security necessary for our citizens to be free from crime and the fear of crime. I believe that if we become involved in federal immigration enforcement that trust and respect we have with our community would fracture and fail. It would create a communication gap that would hamper our ability to continue our efforts in crime reduction. If the federal government needs the help of local law enforcement, it would better concentrated on issues related to crime. We are already working with many federal agencies on issues such as drugs smuggling, weapons trafficking, gangs, vehicle thefts, et cetera. With the proper resources, we stand ready to assist our federal and state partners on issues that are important to all of us and, most certainly, the communities we serve and represent. Ultimately, the entire nation benefits when we are successful at stopping the flow of illegal drugs and preventing criminals from continuing to victimize our citizenry. Thank you very much.

SEN. SCHUMER: Thank you.

Mayor Foster.

MAYOR FOSTER: Yes, sir. Thank you, Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Cornyn. I'm Chad Foster, again, the mayor of the city of Eagle Pass, Texas, and also the chairman of the Texas Border Coalition. I am speaking today on behalf of 2.1 million citizens, American citizens, along the 17 counties on the Texas border, which encompasses 1,250 miles. Ours is the region of contrast, exhibiting differences and similarities of language, culture, tradition and economy. The multinational, multicultural nature of our communities on both sides of the international boundary gives our region a distinct sense of place.

When the Senate last debated immigration reform, I recall the opponents of the bill saying that the border had to be secured before any visas could be reformed or any effort made to legalize the status of undocumented among us. As mentioned, these conditions have been met. Improvement and additions to our ports of entry -- in my opinion, the land ports are now our weakest link. We need your help, and we would appreciate it now. We are within sight of operational control of the border between the ports of entry, and that puts our ports under greater stress.

According to the Government Accountability Office, we need 4,000 new officers to secure the ports of entry before we place the new emphasis on southbound checks to stop the trafficking of guns and cash. We need $4 billion in infrastructure and technology. We need 1,600 more CBP officers, along with 400 canine units. We need the southbound operations to be controlled by CBP, which has training in dealing with the traveling public, and not Border Patrol, whose training with travelers is more confrontational. We need ($)130 million for 350 new ICE investigators to work on firearms trafficking and money laundering investigations, and ($)20 million for improved tactical field communications for CBP and ICE. We cannot afford to delay the ($)20 million that CBP needs to modernize its database used to identify potential criminals at the ports of entry, or the ($)50 million for Operation Stonegarden to reimburse state and local law enforcement for their participation in border actions.

The 9/11 terrorists came to the United States through ports of entry. Most undocumented immigrants enter the United States through ports of entry. Most of the illegal drugs entering our country come through ports of entry. No border wall will solve these problems. Illegal border crossings, arrests at the Texas border, have been falling for more than three years without a wall, a great tribute to the deterrence of our Border Patrol and CBP officers. Arrests this year along the Southern border are likely to be way below the nearly 1.6 million during the peak in 2000. In their headlong rush to achieve an arbitrary deadline to erect an ineffective wall, the Bush administration chose to abandon our nation's laws that commit us to preserving our environment, our culture, our history and our religious liberties. We can't afford to go down that path again, a path that waives all laws. The Chertoff waivers will affect the natural movement of animal species, including large mammals that are on the threatened or endangered species list, and cause irreparable harm to the unique eco- and bio-systems located along the Rio Grande River. They provided carte blanche for the destruction of cultural and religious artifacts that are irreplaceable to our heritage.

The avoidance and mitigation of these damages is not an inconvenience to the government. They are essential liberties and our national fabric, guaranteed to the people of the United States under Article I and II of the Constitution. We demand that Congress require the enforcement of our commitment to being a nation of laws. We support the repeal of the unconstitutional waiver authority and urge the repeal of the Secure Fence Act, in favor of measures that will provide our region with real security. The Texas Border Coalition wants to finish the job of securing the border by enacting immigration reform. We support an earned legalization program for the undocumented people who are in the U.S. today. We need an effective guest worker program to prevent the immigration policy and political failures from repeating themselves in another general immigration reform. We need more than a bill. We need that -- balanced ideological and political continuums in Congress and the nation.

SEN. SCHUMER: Thank --

MAYOR FOSTER: Thank you, sir.

SEN. SCHUMER: Thank you, Mayor.

Dr. Massey.

MR. MASSEY: Good morning, Senators.

SEN. SCHUMER: We're going to try to move things along because we have a vote at about 11:45.

MR. MASSEY: Good morning, Senators. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm a social scientist who's been studying immigration for three decades, and I co-direct a research project that has been in the field for more than 25 years and generates the largest and most reliable source of data on the behavior of documented and undocumented migrants to the United States.

During the 1970s, the United States declared a war on crime. During the '80s, it declared a war on drugs, and in the 1990s it declared it seemed to have declared a war on immigrants. In my view, these policies have more to do with domestic politics than with the underlying realities of crime, drugs or immigration, with negative consequences all around. In the case of immigration, the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act launched what proved to be a two- decade-long militarization of the Mexico-U.S. Border.

From 1980 to 2000, the number of Border Patrol agents increased by 3.7 times, line-watch hours rose by a factor of 6.5, the agency's budget increased by a factor of 12. Paradoxically, this militarization occurred as undocumented migration had reached its peak and was beginning to move downward. It also unfolded as we were drawing closer to Mexico economically by a treaty agreeing to lower the barriers to cross-border movements of goods, capital, information services and certain classes of people. Between 1980 and 2000, total trade increased nine times, business visitors by 7.4 times, treaty investors 10 times, and intra-company transferees 27 times.

Somehow, we seem to want to integrate all factor markets in North America except one and to magically build a border that's impermeable -- that is, permeable to all flows except that of workers. This fundamental contradiction was not sustainable. Nonetheless, border enforcement accelerated during the 1990s, despite the fact that the rate of undocumented migration in the United States had been falling for several years. The 1990 war on immigrants was followed by the post-9/11 war on terror, which quickly became conflated with immigration and identified with the Mexico-U.S. border despite the fact that none of the hijackers entered from the Mexico, that country has no Islamic terrorist cells, has no significant Muslim population, and by that point was experiencing a declining rate of undocumented migration. Border enforcement nonetheless rose exponentially after September 11th, with the Border Patrol budget increasing to 95 times its 1980 level and the number of line-watch hours rising 110 times.

After 9/11, deportations also began a marked increase, rising from just 11,000 in 1980 to some 350,000 in 2008, breaking old records last set during the era of mass deportations in the 1930s. As already noted, this massive increase in enforcement came during a time of North American economic integration and falling rates of undocumented migration and did not solve America's immigration problems. Although the probability of taking a first undocumented trip fell after 1990 and the likelihood of taking an additional trip fell after 2000, even more pronounced was the sharp decline in the rate of return migration. Between 1980 and 2005, the likelihood of returning to Mexico within 12 months of an undocumented entry fell by more than half.

This shift in behavior occurred because the militarization of the border increased the cost of border crossing from ($)600 to $2,200 dollars, while increasing the risk of death and injury, but had no effect on the probability of apprehension itself. Given the higher costs and risks of border crossing, fewer migrants left, but those who did leave still got across the borders because the odds of apprehension didn't rise. Once inside the United States, they hunkered down and stayed longer and in larger numbers to avoid experiencing the costs and risks of border crossing again. In sum, it was because of a decline in return migration and not an increase in entry from Mexico that the undocumented population ballooned during the 1990s.

In the past three years, estimates suggest that the undocumented population has peaked and is beginning to trend downward. This development is no doubt partly because of the remarkable acceleration in border enforcement in the wake of 9/11 and the rise of mass internal deportations, but it also reflects the evaporation of labor demand in the United States. Nonetheless, rising enforcement and growing joblessness have not prompted a significant return of already- settled migrants. As we've seen, the rates of departure have fallen to record low levels. At the same time, a quiet but massive increase in the availability of guest worker visas has provided a legal alternative to undocumented entry.

According to official data, the number of temporary legal workers entering from Mexico rose from 3,300 in 1980 to 361,000 in 2008. These data clearly indicate that Mexican immigration is not out of control. It rises and falls with labor demand and, if legitimate avenues for entry are available, migrants enter legally. The massive militarization of the border and the resumption of mass deportations occurred despite the fact that rates of undocumented migration were falling, and the perverse consequence was that these actions lowered the rate of return migration among those already here.

To solve our serious immigration problems, we need to undertake a program of legalization for those already resident in the country, especially for the more than 3 million people who entered the country as minors and are guilty of no sin except obeying their parents. We also need to provide for the legal entry of Mexicans by increasing the number of permanent resident visas and guest worker permits to levels consistent with the needs of an integrated North American economy. Unfortunately, the current immigration crisis is very much one of our own making, reflecting bad policy choices in the past. But, fortunately, this means that with better policy choices we have the power to resolve the dilemma moving forward. Thank you for your time and attention.

SEN. SCHUMER: And thank you for speeding your testimony but getting it all in. (Laughter.)

Mr. Vale.

MR. VALE: (Off mike.) Okay, I'll start again. Thank you very much, Chairman Schumer and the Ranking Member Cornyn, and the distinguished members of the committee, for the invitation to be here. My name is Sam Vale. In addition to owning and operating a private port of entry that -- the rent you pay could support all the others for a thousand years, is something that we feel efficiencies at the ports are of utmost importance to our border security. The question that you're talking about today is something that we've been talking about for 30 years, and we will be probably be talking about it for another 30 years. It's not new, and there's nothing static about the security on the border. It changes. It's different on the Canadian border. It's different on the Mexican border. It's different from port to port. The typical approach in Washington is one size fits all. That is not true. We are all different. We've got different traffic compositions, different people crossing for different purposes, so we feel that it is particularly important that we sit down and talk about these things on a port-by-port basis.

We also find that there's a great failure to understand that the daily crossers at our ports of entry are primarily the same people. We have a significant portion of our border crossers that cross each and every day. And by the way, we are also the people that generate sales taxes and property taxes, and we pay taxes to the IRS and we make money for the government. So the more we can do business, the more the government gets to have money to spend on the things that are needed for other people in the government.

We do not really need to have another security program added to what we have until we go back and examine the effectiveness of what is there. However, the need for comprehensive immigration reform is an equal priority to security because the foundation of security is identifying people. How can you leave 20 million people out of a databank and think you're going to identify people? You've got to know who's there. You've got to know who enters and who leaves the country. Our partners in Canada and Mexico are the number one people we sell goods and services to. Good grief, we want them to be able to buy our stuff.

When you talk about southbound inspections on the Southern border -- CBP has never really had that as a priority. Now, if it's about weapons, why don't we have ATF down there in greater numbers? You don't need 100, you need 200. You need 100 doing nothing but intelligence gathering. I mean, by the look of a couple of you guys, you probably have read in the history books about World War II. What was the greatest source of intelligence? The partisans. We need more people, we need more intelligence. Our ATF people have the skills today to go out in a very short term and gather more intelligence so that the southbound inspections are based on real-time information. And then you add the computer models and all the toys and all the things that they like to put into this. It is really a critically important issue.

We can also tell you that all along the border -- you want to export a gun, it doesn't have to look like a gun. It could be parts -- part going through California, part going through Texas, part going some other way. You can put them together pretty quickly, just ask any of our Special Forces how they take them apart and put them together. It's a complex process, and if they're crossing between our ports or -- I mean, if they bring stuff north, you think they might want to take something south. It's just kind of like, when you're doing trucking, you need a backhaul.

In any event, you get to something that you all did that was very good, the $720 million for a stimulus package. Unfortunately, most of that was spent on small ports that don't carry a significant portion of the traffic.

I'm a small-port guy, so I can't say anything bad about small ports, but I can tell you this: Secretary Napolitano said that she completed the Mariposa Port for $200 million designed before we had a stimulus package -- that was included in what you paid for. What we need is boots on the ground. What we need is a surge like we had in Iraq. We need a lot of people there. We need Border Patrol. We need officers. We need inspectors. We need agents. And if you want to talk about how getting north on the border is, ask ICE to design a way to come into the United States, and I'll bet you that half of their stuff gets through. So with fences, without fences, it's not a simple matter, and we've got to stop talking in Pollyanna ways. They have built a good fence in Arizona in the Marine military bombing base. Current technology stopped everybody.

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, thank you, Mr. Vale.

I want to thank all of our witnesses. We're going to try to get through the questions before the vote is called. So first I'm going to ask the same question to all five panelists, and I'd like yes or no answers, and then we'll get into the detail that I ask the first panel.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The measures that we have taken since 2005 to secure the border have been successful in significantly lowering the number of illegal immigrants seeking to unlawfully cross the border, including a 27 percent reduction this year?

Congressman Hayworth, yes or no.

MR. HAYWORTH: Mr. Chairman --

SEN. SCHUMER: Yes or no.

MR. HAYWORTH: (Laughs.) Thank you for that kind reception. Somewhat.

SEN. SCHUMER: Somewhat, okay. Fair enough.

SHERIFF WILES: I agree with him.

SEN. SCHUMER: Somewhat?

SHERIFF WILES: Yeah -- which is rare. (Laughter.)

MAYOR FOSTER: On the Texas border I believe the apprehensions have fallen since 2005 56 percent.

SEN. SCHUMER: Right.

MAYOR FOSTER: What's watering those numbers down is the other border --

SEN. SCHUMER: Okay.

MAYOR FOSTER: -- but no, they have fallen down.

SEN. SCHUMER: But you do agree?

MAYOR FOSTER: Absolutely.

SEN. SCHUMER: Dr. Massey?

MR. MASSEY: No.

SEN. SCHUMER: You do not agree?

MR. MASSEY: No.

SEN. SCHUMER: Okay.

And Mr. Vale?

MR. VALE: No. It's about all the jobs being available.

SEN. SCHUMER: Okay. But you don't believe, then, that the --

MR. VALE: I don't believe it was caused by our security measures. I think that's part of it, but not the controlling factor.

SEN. SCHUMER: Got it. Okay. Good. And second question I have is -- well, I think that answers -- let me first go to Congressman Hayworth.

You've testified that only 200 miles of border fence have been constructed. We heard the previous panel, who were the ones who were doing it, who say there's 626. Can you explain that discrepancy?

MR. HAYWORTH: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. In your absence at the end of the testimony, Senator Sessions got the accurate figures. What is happening is, there is a change and a redefinition. And as you're no stranger to the legislative process, you know the intent of Congress sometimes changes with actual implementation. In terms of what was going on on the border, what has been counted by the Department of Homeland Security is not entirely double-layered fencing, which was the original intent in the Secure Borders Act. We're counting single-layer, old-styled fencing, about 10 feet high and, more problematic, the vehicle barriers. Again, sir, in your absence it was explained that the vehicle barriers are not foolproof, that pedestrians can gain access and also we've seen reporting and documentation that with the use of collapsible ramps --

SEN. SCHUMER: But wait a second, you're saying it's not the fence you want, but there is 626 miles of a fence at least 10 foot high, one barrier? Is that true or false?

MR. HAYWORTH: No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying --

SEN. SCHUMER: No, but is that true or false?

MR. HAYWORTH: Well, there's not 600 miles of single-layer fencing. What I've just said, sir, is that there's a combination of single-layer, the double-layered fencing called for, and some vehicle barriers. What I am also pointing out, sir, is one of the problems --

SEN. SCHUMER: But you said there's only 200 miles of fencing. We're getting into the definition --

MR. HAYWORTH: Only 200 miles of double-layered fencing --

SEN. SCHUMER: Okay. It's that your testimony said?

MR. HAYWORTH: Would you like to hear about --

SEN. SCHUMER: Is that what your testimony said?

MR. HAYWORTH: What I am clarifying for you in the question time -- and, if you'd like me to do it, I'd appreciate the courtesy of giving a chance to answer your question, sir. What I am saying to you --

SEN. SCHUMER: I'm just trying to resolve a discrepancy.

MR. HAYWORTH: Well, what I would say to you, sir, is this: Rhetorical discrepancies notwithstanding, the problem I'm trying to report to you is what has been reported in the media, in Arizona and nationally, of the way that smugglers are defeating the barriers. And if they're defeating the barriers in terms of the so-called vehicle barriers with ramps, there are real problems.

SEN. SCHUMER: That wasn't the question I asked you. I understand that you might feel we need more. I'm just asking, is there a fence, minimum 10 foot high, for the vast majority of the non- Rio Grande border? And the answer is yes. And, you know, if we're ever going to come to agreement here we have to agree on the facts. Now, you can say yes there is but it's not good enough, it's not stopping things, you don't agree with the 27 percent reduction, or it's due to something else. Those are all fair answers. But to simply put in your testimony that there's only 200 miles of fence --

MR. HAYWORTH: Two hundred miles of --

SEN. SCHUMER: -- because most people, if they looked at the fence for the other 450 miles, would say, that's a pretty big fence. You may say it doesn't work for the following reasons, but let's try at least -- I'm trying here to stick to the facts.

I want to ask you just one other question, Congressman, then I'm going to move on. I believe that Americans will accept a system, broadly defined, that's pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration. In other words, if you could guarantee to people or make people feel very good, which admittedly we didn't in the last bill -- that's why it failed; I agree with Senator Cornyn's analysis -- that we would stop the flow of future illegal immigrants, they would feel much better about a system of legal immigration. Do you agree or disagree with that? You can elaborate.

MR. HAYWORTH: Well, thank you, sir, very much.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that part of the problem has come through the process that so-called comprehensive reform means a simultaneous border enforcement with an alteration of the status of those who have come here illegally. I think it's important, and I think we've seen this in terms of a variety of policies, legislatively, that we work first with what is the crucial problem. The crucial problem is first securing the border. The second thing is having, along with that, accurate verification of employees and those who are here. And despite the diversity of viewpoints here, we've heard that. And then, and only then, can the debate about guest workers and the immigration reform that some desire move forward. So my word of caution and my perspective is, secure the border first, comprehensive employee ID --

SEN. SCHUMER: Got it. And you would agree that, in your words, we've secured it better, somewhat?

MR. HAYWORTH: Somewhat, but there's a long way to go --

SEN. SCHUMER: Okay. I understand; that's a value system. I mean, you might say we should not do anything on legal immigration until there is not a single illegal immigrant who crosses the border. It's all a value system, and you're in one place, and I respect that and appreciate it.

Mayor Foster, do you think the border enforcement measures have played a role in making El Paso more secure?

MAYOR FOSTER: Well, again, the sheriff referenced El Paso. El Paso, with a population of over 700,000, has been the second or third --

SEN. SCHUMER: Eagle Pass, I'm sorry. (Laughter.)

MAYOR FOSTER: Historically, Eagle Pass has been a very safe and tranquil city. We've had two murders in the last 10 years. We've basically a very quiet, safe border committee. I'm in Piedras Negras, our sister city, on a daily basis. Yes, we're very secure.

SEN. SCHUMER: Right. Great.

MAYOR FOSTER: Again, the focus today is on our ports of entry.

SEN. SCHUMER: And my last question to Sheriff Wiles: You said also that you thought we were somewhat effective in curtailing flows across the border. Could you elaborate on that?

SHERIFF WILES: Well, it's exactly what's been said by other members of the panel. Most of the issues that we deal with from a criminal aspect come right across the ports. Not to say that the federal agents don't do the best job they can do, but the majority of drugs, criminals, individuals that will come over here to criminalize our citizens, come right across the ports of entry.

SEN. SCHUMER: Mm-hmm. Okay. My time has expired.

Senator Cornyn.

SEN. CORNYN: Sheriff, let me follow up on that. Now, do you think the best solution to that is more federal law enforcement officials at the ports of entry or better technology or data sharing? What do you think is the right solution?

SHERIFF WILES: Well, all three of those things. And I think there has been some commitment by the present administration to do just that. We're seeing additional federal agents, especially in the area of ATF, thank goodness. We only had nine agents in El Paso until President Obama's administration committed to adding additional agents there, when we knew that many weapons -- and we understand that not all of Mexico's problems with weapons are coming from the United States, but certainly there is a problem. There are weapons from the U.S. going into Mexico. And we do our best to work with the federal agents to conduct southbound checks, to stop stolen cars, money and weapons from going into Mexico, but we needed the assistance of the federal government, who has expertise in dealing with these issues at the appropriate levels of the Mexican and U.S. federal governments. And until we got that commitment, we didn't have it.

SEN. CORNYN: And you heard me, I think, when I -- in my opening statement, talk about the administration's commitment to continue and expand the ICE program of working with local sheriffs and police chiefs to screen the prisoner population at the local level for criminals who come in the country and perpetrate crimes, as you said, I believe, largely upon other immigrants. In other words, we're not talking about people coming in without a visa --

SHERIFF WILES: Right.

SEN. CORNYN: -- we're talking about robbers, rapists, murderers. Do you support the expansion of that in the El Paso County Jail, and how do you think it's working so far?

SHERIFF WILES: Well, I think as long as it's targeted in that direction. We have a rather large county jail. It's two jails. It holds about 2,440 prisoners, and there's people coming in and out of there all the time, many of them for minor offenses: traffic offenses, public intoxication, things of that nature. And we don't want our time consumed with those type of issues. As long as it's concentrated on those type of violent offenders that potentially could hurt our community, we definitely support that.

SEN. CORNYN: Well, and if there's anything we can agree on, I hope we can agree on that. I mean it sounds like just a common-sense approach to dealing with not the whole problem, but part of the problem, and indeed, as you said, these are the people who tend to prey on others in the immigrant community. I mean, this is something we ought to be able to agree on.

SHERIFF WILES: Right. Yes, sir. Well, nobody wants criminals here, whether they're our citizens or citizens from another country, victimizing --

SEN. CORNYN: Right. I wanted to ask Congressman Hayworth, one of the -- you know, what I confront when I come down to, you know, McAllen or El Paso or Eagle Pass is my constituents say, you know, we don't have -- we don't see the problem here in terms of terrorists coming across the border. But I want to just ask the question because of your experience in Congress and the information that you, no doubt, have had access to. We know that there are people that traverse Mexico that come from other countries because of the weak border Mexico has on its own southern border. Indeed, La Frontera recently reported that the Mexican authorities in Reynosa apprehended a dozen Iranians among others who had come up through Central America, through Mexico, and attempted to come into the United States. And then we know down in South America, in the tri-border region where there's a significant Lebanese population, that there's strong financial support for Hezbollah there. Is that part of your concern?

MR. HAYWORTH: Mr. Chairman, Senator Cornyn, absolutely. And I would supplement that with the report last fall from the sheriff of Cochise County, who told me of apprehending a number of Chinese illegals coming across. But there are obviously national security concerns. And again, we're hearing diverse perspectives here, Senator, but -- different pieces of the puzzle. And while obviously the concentration from some on this panel has been ports of entry involving trade, what was the great saying from baseball, "hit 'em where they ain't"? When you've got a border as diverse and as large as ours, when you have people intent on crossing that border there is an obvious security threat. And with that knowledge, that border security is ultimately national security. That's why what you're pointing out, and other border sheriffs have pointed out, is so important and must be preeminent in our policy decisions.

SEN. CORNYN: We seem to have a recurrent theme here: In terms of Washington's perspective on the border is, it's all the same. And my experience and observation is, and certainly talking to several of my constituents in your hometowns, is that it's not, that it's quite varied. And, in fact, the federal government, while looking at this at the 30,000-foot level, said, for example, Mr. Vale, that $720 million was included for land port infrastructure, which is a good thing, but your testimony is it's not directed toward the high-volume ports of entry and it's sort of -- Congress can't pat itself on the back, in other words, say, "Way to go, we sent money for infrastructure," when in fact there is such diversity and difference of conditions there along the border. Would you agree with that? And I think you would, but would you respond to that?

MR. VALE: Yes, sir. Congress did a good job of sending the dollars. What the Congress didn't do is watch how they spent it, and that's the big issue. It was not anything that was stimulus-related. It's the kind of things that you could have done in your annual appropriations, totally legitimately.

SEN. CORNYN: Well, I happen to agree with you in things we should have done on an annual appropriations basis, because it's harder to see how stimulative that was. But they were necessary, and I'm glad Congress took that step.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity and I know we have a vote that's winding down here, so I'm going to go vote. But thanks to my constituents who are here; thanks to the entire panel for coming and sharing your expertise and perspective.

MR. FOSTER (?): Thank you for the opportunity.

SEN. SCHUMER: Thank you, Senator Cornyn.

I want to thank the panel. I had more questions, too, but we have a vote and rather than keep everybody and detain them, we're going to leave the record open for five days and we may submit written questions if you all wouldn't mind answering those. And I want to thank the panel for being here. As I said, we're going to do comprehensive hearings on every aspect, every difficult aspect of immigration reform because I believe the American people want a solution. They just don't want one perspective, they want a comprehensive solution, and you've provided a multiple of perspectives for us that we have to take into account. So thank you all for being here and thank you for your testimony.

MR. : Thank you, sir.

SEN. SCHUMER: (Sounds gavel.) The hearing is adjourned.

END.

Source