[Senate Hearing 106-441]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-441
THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL BORDER PATROL AT THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN
BORDERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL BORDER PATROL AT THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN
BORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES TO FURTHER DETER ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND
DRUG SMUGGLING
__________
APRIL 27, 1999
__________
Serial No. J-106-20
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
63-522 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
Manus Cooney, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Minority Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Immigration
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan, Chairman
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JON KYL, Arizona CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
Lee Liberman Otis, Chief Counsel
Melody Barnes, Minority Chief Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Abraham, Hon. Spencer, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan... 1
Grassley, Hon. Charles E., U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa... 4
Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona............ 4, 6
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from the State of California 11
Schumer, Hon. Charles E., U.S. Senator from the State of New York 21
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Statement of Gus de la Vina, chief, U.S. Border Patrol,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington, DC......... 12
Panel consisting of Ron Sanders, chief, Chief Patrol Agents
Association, U.S. Border Patrol, Tucson, AZ; Hon. Gail Griffin,
State Representative, Sierra Vista, AZ; and Robert Lindemann,
Senior Patrol Agent, Detroit Sector, and Union Steward,
National Border Patrol Council, Detroit, MI.................... 27
ALPHABETICAL LIST AND MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Griffin, Ms. Gail:
Testimony.................................................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Kyl, Hon. Jon: Article from the Los Angeles Times: Migrants,
Border Town Feel the Squeeze, dated Apr. 26, 1999.............. 8
Lindemann, Robert E.:
Testimony.................................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Sanders, Ron:
Testimony.................................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
de la Vina, Gus:
Testimony.................................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
APPENDIX
Additional Submissions for the Record
Letter to Senator Abraham and Committee Members, from Les
Thompson, Chairman, Cochise County, AZ, Board of Supervisors,
dated Apr. 26, 1999............................................ 43
Public Law 104-208--Sept. 30, 1996: Title I, Subtitle A--Improved
Enforcement at the Border, from 1996 Immigration Act (IRIIRA).. 45
Article by Michelle Mittelstadt, Associated Press: Border Patrol
Won't Make Goal of Adding 1,000 Agents This Year, dated Apr.
27, 1999....................................................... 46
Various Articles to the Editor................................... 49
THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL BORDER PATROL AT THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN
BORDERS
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Immigration,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Spencer
Abraham (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Also present: Senators Grassley, Kyl, and Schumer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SPENCER ABRAHAM, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Senator Abraham. We will begin the hearing, and I welcome
you all to this hearing on the U.S. Border Patrol and the need
for additional personnel.
I apologize for our arrival time here. Senator Kyl and I
were on the floor, as were most of the members of the Senate,
to observe a moment of silence in tribute to and in remembrance
of the students and teacher who were killed in Littleton, CO
last week. We appreciate everybody's patience with us today,
and I would just like to begin with a brief opening statement.
Senator Kyl has a statement, I believe, as well, and if we are
joined by other members, we will certainly provide them the
opportunity to comment further.
Welcome to today's Senate Immigration Subcommittee hearing
on the need for additional border patrol at the northern and
southern borders. Illegal immigration and drug smuggling are
serious problems in America. Our U.S. Border Patrol is the
first line of defense to deter illegal entry. The job it does
is critical.
In 1998, the Border Patrol made more than 1.5 million
apprehensions. It also made more than 6,600 drug seizures that
year, including 871,417 pounds of marijuana and 22,675 pounds
of cocaine. Despite these efforts, according to the INS, there
still are an estimated 250,000 or more new illegal immigrants
in the United States each year. The majority come across our
borders surreptitiously or otherwise. This is an intolerably
high amount and I am committed, as I know this subcommittee is
committed to provide the support required to bring it down.
In border communities and States like Arizona, Texas, and
California, the impact of illegal immigration is felt more
severely than anywhere else in the United States. One
manifestation of this impact: people are entering the country
illegally by racing across privately-owned property, sometimes
in large numbers. The property owners have been seeking help
from the Federal Government to prevent this kind of
trespassing, but to no avail. Like many other Americans, they
want the Federal Government to do more to stop this illegal
conduct, and they want that help as soon as possible.
This committee has tried to help, but in my judgment at
least, the Administration has not done its part. Despite a
specific mandate from this committee this year, the President
has failed to request funding for a single additional border
patrol agent, and in my judgment that is wrong.
Three years ago, Senator Kyl took the lead, and I supported
his efforts through an amendment to the 1996 Immigration Bill
to include a provision that mandated a net increase of 1,000
new border patrol agents a year in each of the following fiscal
years through fiscal 2001. But in only one of those years,
fiscal year 1999, did the President's budget even ask for the
funds necessary to hire the required agents.
In response to that request, this year's appropriations
bill includes enough money for 1,000 new net hires.
Unfortunately, I am advised, that the INS apparently will not
be able to meet this objective, this 1,000 net new agent mark
by the end of the year. Furthermore, to repeat, the President's
budget for the upcoming year, fiscal year 2000, does not
request funds for a single new border patrol agent.
We will hear today from witnesses who will tell us what is
happening on our southern border and the substantial problems
people are confronting there every day. That is just one reason
to increase the border patrol. The lack of adequate manpower is
not a southern border problem alone. In Detroit, fewer than 20
border patrol agents in the Detroit sector are expected to be
responsible for four large midwestern States: Michigan, Ohio,
Indiana, and Illinois, an area covering hundreds of miles of
border. This small number of border patrol agents also must
assist INS investigators in responding to local law enforcement
requests in these four States. In addition, overall there are
fewer than 300 border patrol agents responsible for the nearly
4,000-mile-long border the United States shares with Canada.
I appreciate that this year the INS has announced that, for
the first time in a decade, it will add an additional seven
agents in Detroit as part of an increase of 22 agents at the
northern border. It remains to be seen whether these agents
will, in fact, materialize in light of the INS's difficulties
in meeting the recruitment goals. However, even if they do,
they will not even fully make up for the agents Detroit has
lost over the last 10 years.
In any event, the small number of new agents is just a
start, and in my judgment, just a drop in the bucket. I do not
see how we can possibly expect our border patrol agents, no
matter how hardworking they may be, to cover areas this immense
with so little manpower. This is like having two referees for
the entire National Football League or one ticket taker for the
entire University of Michigan football stadium.
Simply put, the time has come to add more border patrol
agents. The time has also come to allocate a significant net
increase in the number of agents on the northern border.
Moreover, the additional agents at both borders must come with
the additional vehicles and equipment essential for these
agents to perform their vital functions. Attracting and
retaining border patrol agents, particularly in a strong
economy, is a challenge, and I understand that. The committee
is interested in hearing more about the nature and the causes
of difficulties with both.
I have heard reports of attrition rates of border patrol
agents that are very alarming. Particularly in law enforcement
where men and women are expected to confront dangerous
situations, we do not want to lose officers just as they gain
more experience and are at the peak of their performance. If
that is where the problem lies, then it is time to solve it.
So today I am calling on the INS and the Office of
Personnel Management to work together to establish a new salary
structure for border patrol agents that is more comparable with
those of other law enforcement agencies at the Federal level.
There is ample support in Congress in providing the resources
needed to hire more border patrol agents, and I have called
this hearing today to find out what else we can do.
But even a very supportive Congress cannot force this
approach on an unwilling administration. We need cooperation
and solutions. With the President's cooperation, I am confident
that we can recruit, hire, and retain the border patrol agents
necessary to provide a much stronger deterrent to illegal
immigration and the importation of illegal drugs.
Finally, let me just say that this is the subcommittee's
first hearing this session to address border patrol hiring
issues. I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say
that unless Congress begins to receive better answers and an
indication of more progress from the Administration on this
front, I do not think it will be our last. In fact, I can
guarantee it will not be our last.
And I say all of this as a prelude to our first panel, and
I want to make it very clear that I know I speak for the other
members here that this subcommittee has great confidence in the
men and women in the border patrol, from the top on down. The
frustration we have is the problems continue to occur, as the
incidents continue to occur, and as the constituent complaints
continue to increase; and as Congress continues to try to do
what we believe are the required steps for us to take to
address the problem, it is extraordinarily frustrating to feel
that we are not making any progress. And so what we are trying
to do today is to figure exactly why we cannot address this and
what we need to do beyond what has already happened in order to
do so.
So I hope we can have a good start here today and find out
from both of our panels exactly what the nature of the problems
are that we confront, as well as where we go from here, and
certainly, as I said, this does not have to be by any means the
last hearing on this topic if it does not prove to fully
address or satisfy the concerns that we have.
And so with that said, let me turn--I see we have been
joined also by Senator Grassley. So as the next ranking member,
I will turn to you if you would like the make an opening
statement, and then we will go to Senator Kyl, who I know has a
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF IOWA
Senator Grassley. I do not have a formal opening statement,
and my State obviously is not on the border, as anybody who
knows American geography can tell you. But what the border
patrol does on the border affects who and what gets to my
State, so I am interested in this hearing.
And from that standpoint, I point out that methamphetamine
is a growing epidemic in areas of the midwest. Most of this
drug is coming from Mexico, although too much of it is also
produced in very dangerous homemade labs in the respective
States. It has been a little difficult for us to get a handle
on how and to what extent the cartels use illegal aliens to
transport these drugs. I would like to get some idea from this
hearing of how this process works, how the border patrol is
involved in stopping it, and what if anything more needs to be
done on our part to stop this illegal activity.
And then I would point to the fact that I had a hearing in
the International Drug Caucus, which I chair, regarding
corruption on the border, and Commissioner Meissner was very
responsive in attending that hearing. The Border Patrol numbers
have doubled in the last 4 years, and there is a major problem
that was brought out in our hearing, that many new agents have
had to be absorbed and promoted in such a short time that there
are many people in posts of authority who have relatively
little experience; and she was speaking obviously about INS,
but we have also had a lot within the Border Patrol to absorb,
and how is the agency dealing with this problem of lack of
experience and training in supervisory positions.
So those might be some things that can be addressed at this
hearing. Thank you.
Senator Abraham. Thank you very much, Senator Grassley.
Senator Kyl has been taking the lead on many of these
issues for some time on the subcommittee and in the Senate in
particular. As I indicated, I was the chief sponsor of the
amendments which included in the 1996 legislation to increase
the Border Patrol, and so I know he has considerable interest
in this hearing and has been a major reason why we are here
today, because we have been talking about it, and he has
certainly been urging this committee to focus on these issues.
So I want the thank Senator Kyl for the leadership he has
had on this and turn to him now for his statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
ARIZONA
Senator Kyl. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I very much
appreciate your willingness to hold this hearing to highlight
the problems. I would like to ask unanimous consent that my
statement be presented in the record, since I will deviate from
that.
Senator Abraham. Without objection.
Senator Kyl. As well as a recent article from the Los
Angeles Times about Douglas, AZ. It is entitled ``Migrant
Border Towns Feel the Squeeze'', and it describes the situation
in some detail; and a member of our own state legislature, Gail
Griffin, will be testifying more about that in a moment.
Also, to quickly acknowledge what you said, our concern
about what is happening on the border has nothing to do with
the quality of our Border Patrol and the fine agents and the
other officials that assist on the border. They do a tremendous
job under very difficult circumstances, and I know that they
all appreciate the fact that they have the support of the
Congress.
Let me quickly reiterate what you said, Mr. Chairman, about
the amendment that you and I and Senator Feinstein sponsored
that was added to the Immigration Bill of 1996 which called
for--which mandates the addition of 1,000 agents for 5 years to
try to build our strength up to the level that we need.
President Clinton signed the bill and yet has requested the
funding for the agents only once since the bill went into
effect, and the current budget, as you point out, did not
propose for any funding for increase either in Customs Service
agents or Border Patrol agents. So it is going to be very
difficult for us to find the funding in this year's bill to
appropriate the money for the training of those agents.
In a recent Appropriations Committee hearing, INS
Commissioner Doris Meissner confirmed that her original fiscal
year 2000 budget request did, in fact, include the funding for
the 1,000 agents, but the funding was rejected by the
President's budgeting office. Our Nation's drug czar, Barry
McCaffrey, has often stated the need for 20,000 agents
nationwide. In Tucson, AZ, Sector Chief Ron Sanders, who will
testify today that the Chiefs Association supports 20,000
agents nationwide, the same as Barry McCaffrey.
A newly released study by the University of Texas Center
for U.S.-Mexico Research said that 16,133 agents are needed on
the southwestern border to effectively curtail illegal
immigration and drug smuggling. That is just on the
southwestern border. Now we have currently about half that
many. Board Patrol strength is approximately 8,000 agents, so
we have a long way to go.
The situation with respect to the U.S. Border Patrol is
that it is responsible for 93 percent of INS's illegal
immigrant apprehensions, and with respect to drugs coming into
the United States in the 1998 fiscal year, the border patrol
was responsible for 51 percent of total marijuana seized on the
border, 36 percent of cocaine seized, and 25 percent of
methamphetamine. Incidently, last month 28,000 pounds of
marijuana was seized, a record, just one month, just in the
Tucson sector alone.
The State Department estimates that 60 percent of the
cocaine entering the United States enters through the southwest
border, and an estimated 16,000 lives are lost every year in
the United States as a result of illegal drug use.
Mr. Chairman, two of the witnesses today, Ron Sanders and
Gail Griffin, are going to testify about conditions on the
Arizona border, and my statement here contains some material
relative to that, but let me just put it in fairly specific
terms. Last month, in just the Tucson sector on the border in
Arizona, 60,000 apprehensions. Now, that is 2,000 a day. Those
are apprehensions. The rule of thumb is at least 2 or 3 times
as many people cross without being apprehended.
Now, let us just stop and think about that for a moment.
Here is one sector in one State on the border. Two thousand
people every day are apprehended. Think about that. And maybe 2
or 3 times that many are not apprehended. This Los Angeles
Times article notes that 1 day last month 600 illegal
immigrants massed and started to cross the border all at once
in broad daylight. Fortunately, the border patrol agents were
able to apprehend some and disperse the rest.
But I do not think people in the Congress who are not
acquainted with border issues can fully appreciate the assault
on the community and on the families and on the schools and the
ranches nearby that this kind of challenge presents. It is not
being handled. It cannot be handled with the kind of manpower
we see.
As a result, what is happening? People are taking matters
into their own hands. Ranchers are rounding up these suspected
illegal aliens. Calls for putting the National Guard on the
border are increasing. All of this is not the way to handle the
problem, obviously. We need to hire the agents, as you pointed
out.
I am very hopeful that this hearing will shed light here in
Washington on the problems that the lack of protection for our
borders has caused in our communities. Commissioner Meissner
testified that now is not the time to beef up manpower on the
border, that the INS needs to take a breather. Well, Mr.
Chairman, when 2,000 illegal aliens are apprehended every day
in just one sector, and when 600 illegal aliens attempt to
cross the border in mass in broad daylight, it is clear that no
one at the border is taking a breather. The Federal Government
cannot afford to take a breather either.
Thank you very much for holding this hearing.
[The prepared statements and article of Senators Kyl and
Feinstein follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Jon Kyl
Mr. Chairman: I appreciate your holding this hearing today to focus
on the need for additional Border Patrol resources on our nation's
borders, and particularly in Arizona. I am particularly grateful that
the subcommittee will devote some time to the situation currently
facing the citizens of southern Arizona. Three years ago my proposal,
cosponsored by Senators Abraham and Feinstein, to add 1,000 new Border
Patrol agents to our nation's borders each year between 1997 and 2001
was unanimously accepted by the Senate Judiciary Committee and became
part of the Immigration Reform Act of 1996. President Clinton signed
this landmark legislation into law, yet he has requested the full 1,000
agents only once since then, and his fiscal year 2000 budget does not
propose any increase in Border Patrol agents. As a result, it will be
harder than ever to find the funding this year to help Congress comply
with the law.
The need for 1,000 agents in fiscal year 2000 has been established
by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In a recent
Appropriations Committee hearing, INS Commissioner Doris Meissner
confirmed that her initial fiscal year 2000 budget request did include
funding for 1,000 agents, but the funding was rejected, by the
President's budgeting office. Our nation's drug czar, Barry McCaffrey,
has often stated the need for 20,000 agents nationwide. Tucson,
Arizona, Sector Chief Ron Sanders will testify today that the Chiefs
Association supports 20,000 agents nationwide. A newly released study
by the University of Texas Center for U.S.-Mexico Research said that
16,133 agents are needed on the southwestern border to effectively
curtail illegal immigration and drug smuggling. Current Border Patrol
strength is approximately 8,000 agents.
An increase in manpower at our borders is important for the entire
nation, not just the southwestern states. The U.S. Border Patrol is
responsible for fully 93 percent of the INS' illegal immigrant
apprehensions.
Regarding the importation of drugs into the United States, in
fiscal year 1998, the Border Patrol was responsible for 51 percent of
total marijuana seized on the border, 36 percent of the cocaine seized,
and 25 percent of the methamphetamine seized. The State Department
estimates that 60 percent of the cocaine entering the United States
enters through the Southwest border, and an estimated 16,000 lives are
lost every year in the U.S. as a result of illegal drug use.
Increasing the Border Patrol is also critical to the state of
Arizona. Our two Arizona witnesses will provide testimony about
Arizona's increasingly difficult border situation in Cochise County.
Arizona Representative Gail Griffin will provide details about how
failing to secure the border has harmed Arizona. This reminds me of the
situation that erupted in Santa Cruz County, Arizona, in and around
Nogales, directly south of Tucson, in late 1993. When that occurred, I
wrote the U.S. Attorney General 10 times, and met with her, to detail
the need for additional resources for the Tucson sector. After months
of letters and meetings, the administration started to send additional
resources to Nogales, where the bulk of the illegal crossings were
taking place. And positive results were quickly felt.
Our current situation in Arizona invokes Yogi Berra's ``deja vu all
over again''--I first wrote Attorney General Reno way back in 1996 to
let her know that the situation in Douglas, Arizona was going to become
much like the Nogales situation. I also wrote Commissioner Meissner in
early 1998 about conditions in Douglas, and to request additional
resources, including funding for a new Border Patrol station and for an
extension of the recently completed fence there. I never received a
response from the INS. Attached to my testimony today is a recent
article from the Los Angeles Times that describes the situation in
Douglas.
Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that this hearing will shed light here
in Washington on the problems that a lack of protection for our borders
has caused in our border communities. Commissioner Meissner testified
that now is not the time to beef up manpower on the border--that the
INS ``needs to take a breather.'' When 600 illegal aliens attempt to
cross the border together in broad daylight, it is clear that no one at
the border is taking a breather. The federal government cannot afford
to take a breather either. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3522.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3522.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3522.003
Prepared Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein
I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing today. Adequate
staffing of Border Patrol remains a pivotal, ongoing need on the
Southwestern border of the United States. The Border Patrol has
multiple, demanding responsibilities including reducing the influx of
illegal narcotics into our country. We need to make sure that the
Border Patrol has adequate personnel to do this critical job right.
The President's fiscal year 2000 budget increases funding for
border patrol by 14 percent from $917 million in fiscal year 1999 to $1
billion in fiscal year 2000, of which $50 million would be allocated
for additional enforcement technology at the border. However, I am
dismayed that there is no funding for the 1,000 new border patrol
agents authorized under the 1996 Immigration Act (IRIIRA).
IRIIRA requires the hiring of 1,000 new Border Patrol agents each
year between 1997 and 2001. If the President's proposal remains
unchanged, this will be the first year that the Federal government has
shirked its responsibility under IRIIRA.
Without adequate staffing at the Southwest border, we will continue
to make little headway against the flow of drugs into our country.
Fifty to 70 percent of illegal drugs enter the U.S. through the
Southwest border. In fact, narcotics intelligence officials continue to
warn that an estimated 5 to 7 tons of cocaine enter this country every
single day of the year. Simply put, the Southwest border is a ``main-
street'' thoroughfare for international narcotics trafficking.
Barry McCaffrey, the Director of the Office of National Drug Patrol
Policy, says the current level of Border Patrol personnel is
``completely'' inadequate to patrol the 2000 miles of the U.S. border
with Mexico. A study by the Population Research Center at the
University of Texas supports General McCaffrey's position. The study
estimates that 16,133 Border Patrol Agents are needed to Patrol the
1,782 miles along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Right now, we have only 9,000 border patrol agents. Of even more
concern, the Border Patrol is losing excessive numbers of officers
through attrition. In just the San Diego region, the Border Patrol has
lost 163 patrol officers since the beginning of the fiscal year through
attrition. This loss, coupled with the practice of transferring agents
from San Diego to help reinforce other border sectors is detrimental to
our overall border enforcement operations.
The situation in the El Centro sector east of San Diego, is
particularly critical. The area is second in the nation in terms of
illegal activity but ranked seventh in resources. There are 445
officers assigned to the area now, with an immediate need for another
423 to help cover the 76 miles of border the sector is responsible for.
We need to bolster the numbers of our border Patrol, and keep the ones
already serving.
A shortage of vehicles is also hampering the agents' enforcement
efforts. At some stations, agents must wait for agents in the field to
drive in with their vehicles so they can relieve them. The wait is
sometimes up to two hours. That means that part of our border is
unprotected, which again is counterproductive. When we assign
additional personnel to an area, they must be given the equipment they
need to do their job.
In California, we are preventing more drugs from crossing the
border, but these increased efforts have placed an extraordinary burden
on border personnel.
For example, federal officers at California's five southern border
stations seized over 188 tons of drugs valued in excess of $308 million
during fiscal year 1998 for an increase of 44 percent over the previous
year.
INS and Customs inspectors made 5,127 seizures totaling 376,325
pounds of narcotics at the ports of entry compared to 3,356 seizures
totaling 261,111 pounds the previous year, according to Customs
sources. Meth seizures were up 93 percent from fiscal year 1997 and the
volume of meth seized was up by a staggering 342 percent.
Despite this overwhelming tide of enforcement activity, the
Administration's budget requests only 80 additional inspectors and 32
additional investigative agents.
I am committed to bolstering resources for our border Patrol
agencies so they can do their work effectively. I look forward to
hearing the testimony of the witnesses.
Senator Abraham. Thank you, Senator. We will now begin with
our first panel. For all the witnesses, I would mention that we
have our little clock here. The green indicates the beginning
of the session. I know that people bring longer statements, and
we will be happy to enter full statements into the record, but
we like to keep these statements to approximately 5 minutes.
And so the orange indicates 1 minute left, and the red
indicates time is up. We are usually pretty flexible with
respect to concluding thoughts and sections of speeches at that
point, but I hope that we can at least stay relatively close to
the time today.
Our first witness will be Gus de la Vina who is chief of
the U.S. Border Patrol. And I want to stress again my points,
and I know the other Senators share them, with respect to the
pride we have in the Border Patrol and the men and women who
serve in it from the top on down.Our purpose here today is to
figure out how to give the Border Patrol the help it needs and
the support it needs to get the job done that we all want to
see accomplished.
So we welcome you here today and appreciate your being with
us to testify.
STATEMENT OF GUS DE LA VINA, CHIEF, U.S. BORDER PATROL,
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. de la Vina. Thank you very much. I have a prepared
statement.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to
discuss with you the Immigration Naturalization Service's
efforts to control the Nation's borders.
I would like to begin by assuring you that the INS
commitment to effective border management remains unwavering.
With the strong support of Congress, we have more than doubled
the number of border patrol agents to 8,000 since fiscal year
1993. This unparalleled growth in personnel has been
accompanied by record increases in equipment and technology.
To ensure that these unprecedented resources are deployed
in the most efficient and effective manner possible, we
developed the current comprehensive strategies that establish
enforcement priorities. As a result, we have strengthened
significantly the enforcement of the Nation's immigration laws
at our border. Nowhere else is the success of the strategic
approach more evident than along the southwest border.
In 1994, Attorney General Reno and Commissioner Meissner
announced a multi-year strategy to strengthen enforcement and
to shut down the traditional illegal immigration corridors
along the southwest border. By strategically deploying new
personnel in one or two areas each year and backing them up
with equipment and infrastructure improvements, INS has
achieved considerable success in restoring integrity and safety
to the 2000-mile frontier.
We have been implementing our strategy through well-laid-
out, multi-year operations such as Operation Gatekeeper and Rio
Grande. The initial phase of these operations typically result
in an increase in apprehensions reflecting the deployment of
more agents and in enhanced technology, however as the
deterrent effect takes hold, the number of apprehensions
declines, and perhaps most important for those who live in
border communities, so do local crimes.
We can continue to concentrate resources on critical
operational areas of the southwest border, and we are adjusting
our deployments to reflect shifts in illegal crossing patterns.
As part of our expansion of Operation Safeguard, for example,
we detailed 45 Border Patrol agents to the Nogales area in
January and more detail agents are being added. The Tucson
sector will receive 350 additional out of the 1,000 funded this
year.
The infusion of agents in Arizona and elsewhere is being
backed by force-multiplying equipment and technology including
the ISIS, the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System. By
integrating day and night vision cameras with underground
sensors, this system allows a single agent in a central command
center to monitor vast terrain. Currently ISIS is being
installed in Nogales, El Paso, and Laredo, and we plan to
deploy 58 additional ISIS sites this year, including some along
the northern border.
Even with the most sophisticated high-tech tools, however,
you cannot build successful enforcement strategies unless you
have a solid foundation of high caliber personnel. The Border
Patrol has been fortunate in recent years to attract some of
our Nation's best and brightest, but it is an increasingly
difficult task. Over the past 3 years, we hired more than 5,000
new agents, which taking attrition into consideration, has
resulted in a net gain of more than 3,000 agents. In fiscal
year 1998 alone, we hired close to 2,000 agents, more than 4
times the fiscal year 1994 total.
We have been able to meet and even exceed our hiring goals,
even as we raise recruitment standards and strengthen training
programs. The extremely high standards for Border Patrol
recruits are reflected in the fact that last year only 4
percent of the some 49,000 people who applied were hired. This
year we anticipate the need to hire 2,000 agents to meet our
goal of adding 1,000 agents to our staff. Midway through fiscal
year 1999, we now estimate that we will fall short of this
goal, but not for a lack of effort.
The greatest barrier we face is a strong economy with a low
unemployment rate that affords applicants job opportunities.
The INS is not the only agency experiencing difficulty meeting
the staffing goals. We understand, for example, that some or
all of military services are having trouble meeting their
recruitment objectives.
In response to the tight labor market, we have intensified
our recruitment. Traditionally, we have drawn most of our
agents for our southwest border States. This year, we have
hired an advertising firm to increase awareness of Border
Patrol job opportunities in the rest of the United States. As
part of our recruiting blitz, we will participate in about 200
job fairs, community festivals, and other events. We are also
expanding our work on college campuses, targeting a 120-school
base on student demographic and on law enforcement curriculum.
Most of the effect on the recruiters are current Border
Patrol agents. That is why I have committed up to 200 agents to
outreach and recruitment activities on college campuses and
military installations. Our agents are also actively involved
in deployment of advertising public service announcements. We
are deeply committed to fulfilling our recruitment needs.
There is one thing we will not do, sacrifice quality. We
are intent on maintaining recruiting and training standards
that are amongst the highest in law enforcement, and with you
and your continued support, I am confident that we will be able
to do so.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you or the members of the subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. de la Vina follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gus de la Vina
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Border Patrol
operations, hiring, recruitment and retention. The Border Patrol is the
uniformed enforcement arm of the U.S. Department of Justice,
Immigration and Naturalization Service responsible for the prevention,
detection, and apprehension of those illegally entering the United
States, as well as intercepting drug smugglers between the legal ports-
of-entry. With your support, the Border Patrol has, since 1993, more
than doubled in size and received record increases in equipment and
technology. We have supported these unprecedented resources with
coherent strategies that ensure our resources are deployed in the most
efficient and effective manner possible. As a result of these efforts,
we have strengthened significantly the enforcement of immigration law
at our borders.
border management
In the area of border management, we have achieved more in the past
five years than had been accomplished in decades. Nowhere else is the
success of our strategic approach to enforcement more evident than
along the Southwest border. Before 1993, there was no comprehensive
plan for controlling this 2,000-mile frontier--and it showed. The
number of Border Patrol agents was insufficient to get the job done,
and those we did have were ill-equipped. As a result, illegal
immigrants came across the border undeterred, as did illicit drugs.
To bring integrity and safety to the Southwest border, we developed
a comprehensive, multi-year Southwest border strategy in 1994. Its goal
is clear: a border that works; one that deters illegal migration, drug
trafficking, and alien smuggling, while facilitating legal traffic
through the ports-of-entry. Simply stated, the strategy is to regain
control of the border by focusing new resources on those areas where
most of the illegal crossings occur. To meet this goal, we initiated
unparalleled growth in personnel and resources. Since fiscal year 1993,
we have more than doubled the number of Border Patrol agents to
approximately 8,000, as of February 13, 1999, with the vast majority
stationed along the Southwest border. To reach this level, we hired
1,900 agents in fiscal year 1998 alone and trained them at facilities
in Charleston, SC and Glynco, GA. These new agents have been backed up
by infrared scopes, underground sensors and other force-multiplying
equipment and technology, as well as by infrastructure improvements.
As the Border Patrol Strategic Plan has matured, the Border
Patrol's strategic efforts have been directed to areas of operational
focus along the Southwest border. Our border management efforts from
1993 to 1996 concentrated on El Paso, Texas and western San Diego
county in California. In 1997, we began to expand our focus to eastern
San Diego county and Imperial county, south Texas, Arizona, and New
Mexico. ``Operation Rio Grande,'' launched in August 1997 in
Brownsville, Texas, was a special multi-year operation designed to gain
and maintain control of specific border areas through a combination of
new technology and additional staffing. At the start of the operation,
69 Border Patrol agents were detailed to Brownsville in August of 1997
to intensify existing enforcement efforts. In September 1997, we began
deploying special response teams to those ports-of-entry where we
expected increased numbers of fraudulent entry attempts. In fiscal year
1998, 260 new Border Patrol agents were added to McAllen Sector and 205
to Laredo Sector. An important feature of ``Operation Rio Grande'' has
been the integration of a broad range of INS enforcement operations.
Border Patrol agents, Inspectors at ports-of-entry, Investigators,
Intelligence analysts, and Detention and Deportation Officers are all
contributing to the operation. We are seeing lower apprehension and
reduced local crime rates as a result of the operation, indicating the
effectiveness of our deterrence strategy. The crime rate in Brownsville
alone dropped by more than 20 percent in fiscal year 1998, and the
overall apprehensions for McAllen Sector decreased by 17 percent
compared to the previous year.
In fiscal year 1998, INS extended ``Operation Gatekeeper'' through
the El Centro initiative to address changes in smuggling and illegal
crossings occurring along the border in El Centro Sector. The
initiative includes detailing additional agents to the immediate border
areas of Calexico and El Centro, California, to deter alien smuggling
operations in those areas. The El Centro Sector has been allocated an
additional 78 new agents from the fiscal year 1999 budget to bolster
the efforts of the 134 new agents deployed in fiscal year 1998. As an
indication of the positive effect on border control already
attributable to this initiative, during the first quarter of fiscal
year 1999, the sector experienced its first quarterly drop in
apprehensions after four straight years of continuous increases. While
the rate of apprehensions is still fluctuating up and down, this is to
be expected in the early stages of improved border control in any area.
But it is clear that the initiative is having an impact, in both
deterrence and control.
``Operation Safeguard'' encompasses the area of the Tucson Sector.
Tucson Sector was the busiest sector on the Southwest land border in
fiscal year 1998, and that trend continued as apprehensions increased
by 21,240 or 41 percent in the first quarter of fiscal year 1999. Some
part of the increase in apprehensions is attributable to an improved
enforcement capability made possible by adding agents, better equipment
and enforcement infrastructure to the Tucson Sector. Once the 350
agents allocated in the fiscal year 1999 budget are on-board in Tucson,
1,087 agents will have been added to the Tucson Sector since 1994.
In the areas where we have concentrated our efforts, we have
demonstrated that deterrence can work even in the most difficult
conditions. We continue to concentrate resources on critical
operational areas of the Southwest border, in support of this strategy.
Once we gain control of the Southwest border, the strategy's emphasis
will broaden to include the coastal and Northern border sectors.
There is no doubt that agent staffing and other enforcement
resources are a critical part of gaining control of the border. The
Border Patrol is developing a management tool, the Resource and
Effectiveness Model (REM), to assist planners in making decisions
regarding allocation of resources to the Border Patrol Sectors and
Border Patrol stations, and to determine the optimal mix of agents and
technology. The model does not provide the definitive number of agents
needed, but it does provide planners with important information
regarding the appropriate mix of resources given varying sets of
conditions.
The latest revised REM (software/equipment) is now being deployed
to all Sectors. Sectors are scheduled to complete entering Sector-
specific information (such as number of agents, vehicles,
apprehensions, local roads, geography, topography, weather) into the
Sector REM database this summer. When completed, planners will be able
to use the Resource Effectiveness Model to assist in designing resource
mix and allocation plans that yield the highest return.
automation and technology
Technology improvements have also played a key role in the success
of Border Patrol enforcement functions. Our technology investments make
our agents more effective in every phase of border enforcement from
deterrence to apprehensions to case processing. For example, the IDENT
system, a database based on fingerprints of apprehended aliens, allows
agents to positively identify criminal aliens and repeat crossers
previously apprehended.
In fiscal year 1998, INS began installing ISIS, the Integrated
Surveillance Intelligence System, a state-of-the-art force-multiplier.
This field-tested technology consists of poles to which day and night
vision cameras are attached, which are linked to centrally located
command centers equipped with video monitors allowing a single agent to
monitor a vast area of terrain. The ISIS system also includes ground
sensors which, when triggered, send a signal to a designated camera.
The video-monitoring site is alerted and can immediately view the site.
This technology significantly enhances Border Patrol's ability to
maximize effectiveness and agent safety. The camera may reveal anything
from armed drug smugglers requiring immediate dispatch of agent teams,
to animals requiring no response at all. ISIS is now being deployed to
Nogales, El Paso and Laredo, with 58 additional sites planned this
year. Other high tech tools include personal night vision equipment,
long range infrared scopes, encrypted radios and GPS, Global
Positioning System locators.
construction
The fiscal year 2000 construction budget request includes
approximately $34 million for 7 Border Patrol facility construction
projects. Since fiscal year 1995, INS has initiated 25 major
construction projects in support of expanding operations along the
Southwest border, with an estimated cost in excess of $110 million.
Eight additional projects, estimated at over $47 million, will be under
construction in fiscal year 1999. Additionally, over $20 million has
been spent to address safety and health problems, including the clean-
up and replacement of leaking underground fuel tanks, and for needed
renovations at existing facilities, and the repair and improvement of
border barriers, such as fences, lights and roads.
recruitment and hiring
The President's fiscal year 2000 budget maintains Border Patrol
staffing at the fiscal year 1999 authorized level of nearly 9,000
agents, which represents a 126 percent increase and approximately 5,000
agents over the fiscal year 1993 level of 3,965 agents.
We have met our hiring goals for the past four years and in fact
exceeded them for the past two years. Over the past four years, we have
hired over 6,100 new agents which, taking into consideration all
losses, has resulted in a net gain of more than 3,500 agents. In fiscal
year 1998 alone, we hired 1,900 new agents. In fiscal year 1996. we
established a satellite basic training facility in Charleston, South
Carolina, and we continually expand it to meet our training needs. With
this enormous influx of new agents, we have maintained the quality of
our training while raising our recruitment standards.
This year, we anticipate the need to hire 2,000 agents to meet our
hiring goal of increasing staffing by 1,000 agents. Through mid-year,
we had 8,038 agents on board against an end-of-year goal of 8,947.
Unfortunately, we estimate that we will fall short of this goal. The
many reasons for this include a strong economy and low unemployment
rate affording applicants multiple job opportunities. The INS is not
the only agency experiencing difficulty in meeting its staffing goals.
We understand, for example, that some or all of the military services
are having trouble meeting their recruitment objectives.
Over the years, we have developed a strong, effective hiring and
recruiting program that has met the ambitious Border hiring goals,
while maintaining extremely high standards for our recruits. In fiscal
year 1998 only 4 percent of those who applied were actually hired
(49,000 applied, and 1,971 hired). Many applicants after signing up for
our test choose not to take it, and our strict screening process
eliminates many more candidates.
Because of the tight labor market and the sheer number of
applicants needed, a single approach or targeting one group of
potential applicants will not work. We continue to institute new means
by which we can attract candidates. For instance, we are focusing our
efforts on increasing public awareness of job opportunities in the
Border Patrol. There is often little public awareness of the Border
Patrol occupation outside of the Southwest border states. With the help
of a professional advertising agency, we hope to increase awareness of
Border Patrol job opportunities in the rest of the United States, as
well as continue our efforts in the Southwest border states. By
increasing awareness, we hope to attract a diverse group of well-
qualified candidates.
We have stepped up efforts in the home states of successful
candidates. We track all of our ads with extension codes to determine
which ads draw candidates. We are also tracking which colleges our new
officers graduate from, the major they pursued, and the magazines they
read. All of this information helps us better understand where we need
to build awareness of Border Patrol careers and where we currently have
strong recruiting success.
This fiscal year, we held special hiring events in El Paso, Tucson,
and New York with another event scheduled in May in San Diego.
Additionally, for these locations, we conducted a media blitz. For
example, in Tucson we placed a Border Patrol ad in eight major papers
on two weekends in both the classified and sports sections, and in two
minority targeted publications and Military Base papers. We also aired
a radio ad 14 times on two Tucson stations, and placed a color ad in
the Arizona Highway Patrolman and Tucson Star Citizen. For San Diego,
we have ads scheduled to appear this month in nine major papers.
Additionally, INS recruits at military bases, colleges and universities
in or near San Diego, Phoenix or Tucson.
In fiscal year 1999 we will participate in 200 events including job
fairs, career days, employer workshops, transitioning military
seminars, classroom presentations, conference exhibits and community
events (e.g. fairs, festivals, Native American celebrations, etc.).
We are also actively recruiting on college campuses. We plan to
recruit at 120 key colleges identified based on student demographics
and/or law enforcement curriculum. INS has already participated in four
interactive student events (sponsored by Sports Illustrated) where we
attracted thousands of students from all academic disciplines. Also, we
will target recruitment efforts at key military bases identified by
installation population and the number of separations each month, and
40 organizations identified based on the mission and target audience of
the organization.
New Border Patrol classified and display ads have been developed
and placed in hundreds of newspapers (classified and sports sections),
college placement manuals, Black Collegian and Newsweek magazines
(metro NYC edition) and a wide variety of other journals and magazines.
In addition, we routinely fax job vacancy flyers to campus career
planning and placement offices, criminal justice faculty, military base
transition offices, and INS offices nationwide.
The INS created a new Border Patrol Careers Website, and is
starting to increase Internet advertising with links to this Website.
In fiscal year 1998, nearly 50 percent of our applicants applied to
take the test on-line and the other 50 percent used the Telephone
Application System. This year, the number of candidates applying over
the Internet has increased to 70 percent. We are pursuing the
installation of a free job information line so applicants can call to
get more information on the Border Patrol. We also started a direct
mail campaign to separating military service members through the use of
the DOD Transition Bulletin Board and Defense Outplacement Referral
Service. As of April 14th, we will have job postings on 11 Internet
recruitment sites.
We are significantly increasing the number of Border Patrol agents
involved in recruiting. I have committed up to 200 agents, who on a
collateral duty basis will be involved in outreach and recruitment
activities on college campuses and military installations. To back up
this local recruiting initiative, we will increase our advertising,
including the development of public service announcements for radio.
In order to translate recruits into actual hires, we have revamped
our hiring process by decreasing the amount of time it takes to go
through the process from approximately 26 weeks to as little as 16
weeks. This makes the Border Patrol more attractive to candidates and
decreases the likelihood that they will accept another job during the
hiring process.
pay reform
We are working to address recruitment and retention issues by
looking at how we compensate our enforcement personnel, particularly
Border Patrol agents. For the past several years, the INS has been
working to address numerous challenges in the compensation arena. These
challenges include: (1) achieving pay equity within INS for enforcement
occupations; (2) achieving overtime pay parity with other Federal law
enforcement agencies; (3) streamlining and simplifying administration
of overtime pay; and (4) establishing a portable overtime pay system
(carried back and forth between occupations and minimizing loss of
benefits) for its enforcement occupations.
Within the INS, the grade levels for experienced officers, also
known as the journey level, in the various law enforcement occupations
(Border Patrol agents, criminal investigators, detention officers,
detention and deportation officers, and pilots, for example) differ
based on the duties of these positions and the application of
government wide Office of Personnel Management classification
standards. The current journey level grade for Border Patrol agents is
GS-9. Approximately thirty percent of the INS' Border Patrol agents are
at the GS-11 level based on performing senior level duties. In
contrast, the journey level for criminal investigators, deportation
officers, and detention and deportation officers is GS-12. This
internal difference results in losses from the Border Patrol occupation
as agents move to these other occupations (within INS and other law
enforcement agencies) for career growth.
In addition, INS law enforcement officers (with the exception of
criminal investigators) are paid a form of annual premium pay called
Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO). This form of overtime
is discretionary with the agency, and we continually examine how it is
utilized. The INS continues to be subject to significant scrutiny into
the proper use of AUO. Since AUO is discretionary and criteria bound
(i.e., the work cannot be administratively controlled), those law
enforcement officers earning AUO are constantly concerned that the pay
can, and may, be revoked when they no longer meet the criteria. This
greatly hampers career development for law enforcement officers earning
AUO, including Border Patrol agents, who potentially are penalized by
the loss of AUO for accepting assignments to law enforcement positions
in headquarters or regional offices, or at the INS training academies.
Criminal investigators, on the other hand, are paid Law Enforcement
Availability pay, which is a guaranteed 25 percent annual premium pay,
regardless of the assignment to training duties or duties at regional
or headquarters offices. The guaranteed versus discretionary aspect of
the two overtime pay systems is another motivating factor for Border
Patrol agents to leave the occupation for criminal investigator
positions.
To address these challenges, the Commissioner is studying various
alternative approaches to achieve a unified, comprehensive reform
package for INS enforcement officers, including Border Patrol agents
and Immigration Inspectors. Change in the pay and benefits for our
officers requires careful consideration of the impact any such change
will have on our workforce. We must also be mindful of the costs of any
change. The nuances of pay and the interrelationship between the
various forms of overtime pay that constitute what an employee brings
home and his or her retirement benefits are not easily explained nor
simplified.
conclusion
I look forward to continuing to work with the Subcommittee. With
your support, we can carry forward our recent improvements. We have
made great strides in addressing problem areas. I want to work with you
as we continue our efforts to improve our nation's immigration system.
Senator Abraham. Thank you. I am going to ask Senator Kyl
to preside briefly while I meet with some constituents.
Senator Kyl, you can start the questions, and I will follow
up.
Senator Kyl [presiding]. Thank you. It is my understanding,
based on your testimony, that you said that the Tucson sector
will receive 350 of 1,000 agents provided for this year; but
that is not really going to happen, is it?
Mr. de la Vina. At the present time, based on the time of
the year that we are, the 1999 deployment which called for the
1,000 agents, we will not be able to fill those numbers. We
probably will be looking at about 200 to 400 out of the 1,000.
Senator Kyl. Two hundred to four hundred out of the 1,000?
Mr. de la Vina. That is correct.
Senator Kyl. So instead of 350, the Tucson sector might get
how many?
Mr. de la Vina. It would be difficult to say. We have two
priorities established for the--based on our strategy, and that
would be Tucson and McAllen, TX.
Senator Kyl. So instead of 350, do you think maybe
someplace in the area of 100 to 150 might be a closer guess?
Mr. de la Vina. It would be somewhere in that vicinity.
Senator Kyl. So half as many as were expected?
Mr. de la Vina. That is correct.
Senator Kyl. And I gather that the 350 were based upon your
idea of what was important or necessary to deploy; is that
correct?
Mr. de la Vina. That is absolutely correct.
Senator Kyl. Now, for about a month and a half Senator
Hutchinson and I have been requesting information from INS on
ways to help with recruitment and retention to meet the problem
that you just testified to. We just passed the Soldiers and
Sailors Relief Act, as the first bill that Congress passed in
this session, to ensure that we could recruit members for the
military.
As you pointed out, INS has to face that same kind of a
challenge. So we thought we would get a good start on this. We
would introduce legislation. We would increase salaries. We
would provide for more benefits. We thought it would be a good
idea to check with INS first to see what suggestions they would
have. Three times now INS has canceled meetings with my staff.
We cannot get any information. None.
Yesterday, we had thought that we were finally going to get
some information on border patrol salaries, and the officials
called to say they could not provide the information. Can you
help me out?
Mr. de la Vina. Yes, sir. Pay reform is critical to us,
needless to say.
Senator Kyl. Well, you have got two people that have said
they are willing to do it. For a month and a half we have been
trying to help, and we get stiffed by the INS.
Mr. de la Vina. I know that I have had conversations with
Commissioner Meissner, and I know that we are studying, and she
has commissioned the HRD or human resource program to look at
the feasibility of moving the journeyman level or the journey
level from GS-9 to a GS-11, which would help us tremendously as
far as the retainment of our agents.
We are also looking at the feasibility of increasing the
salary of those who are entering in. I know that this is
ongoing. I do not know why they have not met with you, sir.
Senator Kyl. Well, anything you can do to help. We are
going to, meanwhile, just go ahead and introduce the bill to
raise it from 9 to 11 since that seems to be everybody's idea
of what ought to be done, and later on we can change it if INS
finally decides that they want to get engaged in this.
Now, one of the reasons--after recommending 1,000 agents,
Doris Meissner, Commissioner Meissner, testified to the
Appropriations Committee in a variety of ways as to why INS
really needed to take a breather, even though she herself later
acknowledged that she had, in fact, recommended 1,000 agents.
But among the reasons was the fact that there are a lot of
inexperienced agents now. The Tucson sector, as you
acknowledge, is probably the top priority, but at a minimum,
one of the two top priorities for adding new agents.
My figures show that in the Tucson sector, 80 percent of
the agents have 2 years or more of experience. So you do not
have--I mean there may be a problem of inexperienced agents at
some places along the border, perhaps in the San Diego region,
but in the Tucson sector, you could hire a lot of agents and
still have plenty of people who have been there, with 2 or more
years of experience, to help train them.
So you have got a sector that needs the infusion of new
agents. You have got 80 percent or more that have 2 or more
years of experience. So why would that be an excuse for not
putting more agents in the Tucson sector now?
Mr. de la Vina. Sir, we need Border Patrol agents. I do not
think you are going to find a Border Patrol agent say that we
do not need additional Border Patrol agents, including myself.
We do need the agents. I think that there is a concern, and I
will express the same concern, not at the expense of not having
Border Patrol agents, but we have grown tremendously. We have
added a lot of additional personnel.
One of our problems is, and specifically in your area of
Douglas, I cannot put up an infrastructure as far as a
building. We have grown from 63 agents to over 300 agents. I
don't have parking places for the agents to park.
Senator Kyl. But they will not accommodate it. You are
exactly right, and so we have an Administration that puts zero
money in the budget for this year for the new Border Patrol
station at Douglas.
Mr. de la Vina. These are some of the issues that, you
know, we are looking at. As far as the----
Senator Kyl. Let me just say we have got to stop looking
and start doing, because I have indicated a willingness to fund
these things. We requested the money for the Douglas Border
Patrol station. We have requested the money for the agents.
The Administration just created a brand new $600 million
local COPS program, announced with great fan fare. I do not
know where the money came from, but there is about $600 million
missing from Customs and INS. Now, the Federal Government--and
I am not directing this at you, but you can tell that I am
frustrated as heck. I know you are too. I know Chief Sanders
is, but the President makes a big announcement about this brand
new COPS program.
Now, the people in Tucson and Douglas and Nogales and
Phoenix and of all of other communities in the country care
about their local citizens and their cops. It is their
responsibility. The Federal Government can provide some support
for that, but that is a shared responsibility at best and
certainly first and foremost a local responsibility.
The Federal border is the Federal Government's
responsibility, and so when money is taken out of the INS and
Customs budget and put in these other programs that may have a
little bit more political appeal around the country, it is very
frustrating to me, and when we say, well, we are going to have
to study where we are going to get the money for a new Border
Patrol station in Douglas, and not having the new station is
one reason why we do not employ more agents there even though
everybody recognizes we need them, it just seems to me that our
priorities are really wrong here.
And by our, I do not mean the Congress. I do not mean this
subcommittee. I mean the Administration, and we really need
spokesmen with the agency that are willing to plead our case.
Any further comment on that?
Mr. de la Vina. This is--in 1994, we developed the national
strategy. It is an integrated incremental control of our
border. Some of the frustrations that you feel are some of the
frustrations that a lot of us felt in 1993, between 1990 and
1993, especially in the San Diego area.
San Diego was apprehending over half a million illegal
entrants on a yearly basis, where Tucson is doing 2,000 arrests
on a daily basis. San Diego, in the mid nineties, early
nineties, was doing 3,000 to 4,000 arrests. We had a
tremendous, tremendous influx of illegal entries in the San
Diego area. Back then, we had absolutely no resources. Back
then, the possibility of controlling the border was, at best,
totally remote. We were being totally overrun.
Since 1994, we developed a national strategy. It is
incremental control. It took us a considerable amount of
effort, technology, equipment, support from the Congress to get
San Diego under control. San Diego today, from the half a
million arrests that were being registered in 1993, 1994, have
now been reduced to 248.
We have another success story in El Paso, TX. El Paso, TX
was the second hottest spot along the southwest border.
Apprehensions--back then it was Chief Reyes, now the chief in
San Diego. He was the chief in El Paso--we registered close to
200,000, 300,000 arrests on a yearly basis. Again, with the
support, with the strategy that was developed, those
apprehensions have been reduced considerably where El Paso now
is registering 125,000 per year.
Senator Kyl. Can I just make a point here? The application
of fences, technology, and manpower makes a big difference.
Mr. de la Vina. Absolutely.
Senator Kyl. It could really resolve the problem, can it
not?
Mr. de la Vina. Very much so.
Senator Kyl. Thank you.
Mr. de la Vina. We anticipated that as we were moving with
the strategy or infrastructure which consisted--the corner
stone of the strategy basically is deterrents. With that, we
have three major components: personnel, equipment and
technology. We applied that in both locations. It worked.
We anticipated there would be another hot spot. We have
identified two spots, primarily Tucson in Arizona, which
encompasses basically the whole state of Arizona, and the areas
in Texas. We are presently focused in these two locations. We
initially--when I say incremental, it took San Diego 4 years
and approximately an additional 1,200 agents to bring that
under control.
We started addressing Tucson several years ago with the
infrastructure in Nogales. This is where the biggest
concentration of people entering were located. We concentrated
resources, sent additional people to those stations, built
lights--I mean we brought lights. We build fences, sent
additional resources. That area is now getting under very good
control.
As we anticipated, a shift occurred. It is occurring in the
Douglas, AZ area. We are--based on what we anticipated would
happen, we started working on Douglas over a year ago, building
an infrastructure there. We started with fences near the point
of entry. We are bringing in lights, additional resources,
getting prepared for what we are seeing right now that is
happening.
One of the things that normally happens when you move into
an operation of this magnitude with additional resources, the
apprehensions will go sky high. It takes a while for it to
level out. We know what we need to do in Douglas, AZ. We are
getting there as fast as we can. Additional resources are
required. Right now, of the 1,000 agents, 400 agents, totally,
were assigned to the Arizona area because of that specific
priority. We are doing everything we possibly can.
Unfortunately it does take some time.
Senator Abraham. We have been joined by Senator Schumer.
Senator if you would like to make an opening statement, or
if you have some questions, or a little of each.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Schumer. Well, thank you, Chairman Abraham, and I
appreciate your holding this hearing and the opportunity to say
a few words, and my concern obviously is the northern border.
We have a large border in New York State, as you know, and we
need more help there.
I have always supported an increase in border agents,
because I have realized the problems for the 18 years I have
been in the house. But when you look at the total number of
people on the northern border, it is appallingly low. I believe
there are only 300 agents on the entire northern border, and
you have stepped up efforts, as you should, which I fully
support, on Mr. Kyl's border, on the southern border.
Mr. Abraham and I and others on the northern border are
seeing an increase in people trying to come across the border,
the northern border, as the southern border gets some more
attention. Just to give you some numbers, the northern border
is 3,900 miles. The southern border is 1,800 miles. So it is a
much longer area, and again this is not an either/or situation.
We have more agents and we need some help.
There are 8 to 12 hours a day when the northern border is
unwatched, and some experts actually suggest that 500 to 600
agents would be more appropriate for a 24-hour watch. Now,
given the fact that there are 8,000 agents and the illegal
immigration reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act mandates
you to hire another 1,000 by the year 2001, we think we can get
a little help.
So a few more points about it: Buffalo, for instance in my
area which is one of the busiest, I think the second busiest
general crossing point for the northern border, has become a
focus for some who are smuggling in aliens. We need more help
there. I would make a request that we need it.
Now, I want to thank INS Commissioner Meissner for suring
up another part of our border. You know the region--we did get
an additional 22 agents between Massena in the north country
and Vermont, but even there, from what I am told, that has not
been enough to do the whole job. And so I would ask two things:
No. 1, that we fully fund the Border Patrol, and I think we
definitely should be doing that, and to increase the number of
agents in New York throughout from Plattsburgh all the way to
our western New York border in Buffalo and help us there.
I know that Operation Over the Rainbow, which successfully
targeted some of those smuggling Chinese nationals across the
New York border, was a big success, but it shows something. It
shows that we needed the help, and since that was just one
operation, I think we should make it permanent that we have the
kind of help we need. I mean, I think there is no better
testimony to the fact that we need more INS resources on the
New York-Canadian border than this.
And just one other point not related to your direct
jurisdiction, but if you would bring it back to Commissioner
Meissner, we also have a problem with INS agents. These are not
Border Patrol, but INS agents on our northern border, because
we have huge backups and, as you know, to regulate that border,
we have alternating--we have Customs agents, INS agents, Custom
agents, INS agents. The backups are huge.
In western New York and the northern frontier, we depend on
commerce by Plattsburgh and Massena, because it comes down by
Montreal by Buffalo because of Toronto, the two biggest
population areas of Canada, and in recent years the increase
and prosperity and everything else has made those borders much
busier, and the backups are enormous.
Commissioner Kelly was nice enough to visit Buffalo and
Niagra Falls with me last Friday and graciously committed to
add 25 new agents at peak hours to help. I would ask that you
convey a similar request to Commissioner Meissner, again for
our whole northern border frontier, because the backups are
enormous and we are losing out in terms of business, in terms
of traffic and everything else.
So I guess three requests: One, fully fund the border
patrol; two, on Border Patrol, give the northern border its
fair share. Three hundred agents out of 8,000 is a pretty small
ratio, particularly given that Operation Over the Rainbow shows
that we have an increased need; and No. 3, pass up to the top--
I am going to convey this myself directly, but it cannot hurt
to have it internal and external--to the commissioner and the
Attorney General that we need more agents as well, because our
commerce is getting backed up, particularly at certain times to
a point where it is really harming us.
Mr. de la Vina. I would be happy to, Senator.
Senator Schumer. Thank you.
Senator Abraham. Thank you, Senator Schumer. For every one
he gets, I want two.
I have to say there is a certain kind of ironic, I suppose,
quality to this hearing in the sense that throughout Capitol
Hill, the hearings are held in which people come from the
agencies to tell us that they need more support to get their
job done and try to persuade sometimes reluctant authorizers
and appropriators to give them support. Here it is almost like
we have the opposite happening, which is we have all the sort
of desire, it seems, on this community on both sides of the
aisle to give the support that is needed and, frankly, go
beyond what we have done already if we are told that that is
not enough to get the job done, and yet a resistance seems to
be there, and I am not--you know, I do not want to get into all
the nuances of this, but I at least want to have a discussion
here about the challenge you confront and what we can do to try
to help it.
I am not going to get into the internal challenges that may
be confronted. That we may deal with at another time. But you
are saying as I understand it, that essentially this coming
year or during this fiscal year the expectation is that you
will add 200 to 400 agents?
Mr. de la Vina. Out of the 1999 deployment, yes, sir.
Senator Abraham. Is that a net increase?
Mr. de la Vina. That would be a net increase.
Senator Abraham. OK. And so we are going to be somewhere
between 600 and 800 short of the goal that the authorization in
the 1996 bill set. What can we do? I mean what in terms of
help. I understand an ad campaign can be helpful and so on, but
is the pay grade a problem here?
Mr. de la Vina. Pay reform is, as Senator Kyl has pointed
out, something that definitely would help. I think that with
the direction and the commitment that the commissioner has
given the HRD program to come with pay reform, I think that we
are going to see some good things come out of that one. I think
we are going to increase our entrance pay as well as the
upgrade that the Senator has mentioned between the GS-9 and GS-
11. That is going to be a big help for retention purposes.
Right now we have a retention rate of about 10 percent. So
we are losing people. There is no two ways about it. San Diego
has lost----
Senator Kyl. Excuse me. You said a 10 percent a year loss?
Mr. de la Vina. Yes. So we do lose quite a few agents, and
we do not have--we are not comparable to, say, a GS-12
investigator. It is not that we are losing them a lot to
outside agencies. We are losing them internally to
investigations, which is a journey level of a GS-12.
So if you feel any reluctance, Senator, as far as requests
or what have you, you have to understand I have been in the
Border Patrol for 29 years, and it has been very--it has been a
rocky road. I was the chief in San Diego from 1990 to 1995, and
those early years from 1990 to 1993, we were operating with no
resources. We had nothing. I mean, we did not have--we kept our
vehicles running with baling wire and chewing gum. I had 800
agents to handle close to a half a million apprehensions that
were being registered. The best technology we had was a pen.
In 5 short years, I mean with your help, with the support,
we have grown tremendously. So it has been like Christmas in
July for the Border Patrol. Yes, we are still a long way from
the mark, but I have got to tell you, we have come a heck of a
long way, and any help is absolutely, you know, requested and
appreciated.
We handle the toughest border entry point along the
southwest border. San Diego, CA was impossible to control, and
I think Senator Feinstein will verify to that. I mean, yes, we
would catch maybe 2,000, 3,000, 4,000 people. We were losing a
heck of a lot of people. You go down there now. The strategy
has worked. It took us time. It took the personnel equipment
and resources.
So you are not going to hear us say that we are reluctant
to accept any help because you have helped us tremendously, and
in order to control this border, we have proven that we can get
a foothold on the border. We have taken care of the two hottest
locations traditionally, historically, along the 2,000 miles,
and we can do that.
Senator Abraham. In order to meet the goal, though, of
1,000 new agents per year, I guess you are indicating that we
need to basically recruit about 1,800 new people then? Hire
1,800 new to get 1,000 net?
Mr. de la Vina. Well, actually it is going to be more than
that, Senator. Right now, I think with the 1998 figure, we had
to hire 5,000 to show a net of 3,000 agents. We have to make at
least 120,000 contacts to come up with the 2,000 figure for
next year.
What we are--I think one of the biggest things that we are
coming up with right now, and it is going to be at a sacrifice
in cost, would be the recruitment efforts that the Border
Patrol is going to initiate. I have assigned close to over
150,000 agents that will be devoted to doing this recruitment
and targeting these locations that I have mentioned, but it is
a tough market right now, very tough.
Senator Abraham. In terms of the issues that relate to
compensation and so on, is there anything--do you see any
impediments or potential problems to this occurring?
Mr. de la Vina. I think it is a win-win all the way around.
I think with pay reform, it would solve a lot of our problems.
I do not see any deterrents that say--the instructions or the
direction that I have gotten, so I know this is what is
happening, is that the commissioner will not--wants to increase
and does not want to hurt any agent, or let us say any category
of agents, or personnel in any capacity on this pay reform
issue.
Senator Abraham. Where does it stand exactly? Just to
clarify for us, what has to still happen for that to----
Mr. de la Vina. I met with HRD yesterday on this specific
issue, and I think they are close. I think they have got--you
know, they are still working. I hate to say that, that they are
still working on it, but unfortunately that is what it is. They
have got some of the issues resolved, and I think that if I had
to give you a time frame, we are a heck of a lot closer than we
were a year ago.
Senator Abraham. Who should we speak to if we wanted to get
more information?
Mr. de la Vina. I would be happy to convey that. If not,
you can--you know, to the commissioner.
Senator Abraham. OK. Does this involve OPM as well as INS?
Mr. de la Vina. Yes, it is a combination. In order to
sustain--in other words, in order to sustain that GS-9 level,
our HRD program must make sure that the classification is
correctly certified and that they meet this criteria that OPM
has established. That is a difficult process to do. That takes
a considerable length of time, but it is beginning to look a
lot better, or I feel that it is beginning to look a lot
better.
Senator Abraham. Senator Kyl, do you want to ask some more
questions?
Senator Kyl. No, just two quick observations. Our bill is
in counsel right now, I am informed, so hopefully we will have
it introduced by tomorrow or at least by the end of the week,
and if you have any suggestions after it is introduced as to
how to improve it, I will expect that you or the commissioner
will get those to us.
Mr. de la Vina. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kyl. And second, I would just reiterate something.
I appreciate everything you have said about the work that you
did in San Diego. I am well aware of it. Duncan Hunter used to
tell me all about the great work you were doing there, and I
know when we put the fences up. When we got the agents there,
it made all the difference in the world.
We have done the same, to some extent, in Texas. It has
been squeezed to Arizona. That is where they are coming through
now, and the Representative from Arizona--I just cannot remain
silent with an Administration that recognizes the nature of
this problem and then requests zero funding. You do not hire
any new agents with zero funding. We will have to try to find
the money to put it back in, but in the meantime, I think we
have to tell the truth.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Abraham. Senator, thank you. I just echo the
statements, and from a perspective of the northern border, as
Senator Schumer has indicated and as I mentioned in my opening
remarks, when we are dealing with a small number of agents
trying to cover that wide an area, happily they are not the hot
spots that you have referenced in the southern border, but it
is still a challenge; and I guess the thing I want to leave you
with is the following:
One of the things that has been a little frustrating to me
in the time that I have had this chairmanship, is it seems
like--and I do not want to characterize it. It seems like a
resistance. It seems like people keep telling us well, if we
only could do X or Y or Z, then something might happen or we
will get the results we want, and I guess what I want to leave
you with is the following request. If there are other things
you need, we need to know about it. We cannot guess. I mean, we
are not experts--you are--as to the resource requirements, and
so what I would hope is that if we somehow address the pay
grade issue, that we would not then be told, well, now the
problem is that we have inadequate training facilities or that
the next thing we would hear is that, well, there are not
enough parking spots.
I understand that, but let us get it all out on the table
at one time. Let us not sort of move from one impediment to
another so that we never solve the problem, because it is clear
to me that to assimilate that large a number of new people does
require other resource allocations, whether it is for vehicles
or for communication equipment or for even parking spots, but I
do not want to hear about it piecemeal, because then I know
nothing will ever get done. We will keep just sort of moving
from one to another of these individual problems, and therefore
never have a comprehensive solution.
And so I think I speak for Senator Kyl and I in saying let
us--you know, we like the blueprint, not just the problem of
the day, because the problem of the day can be addressed, but
then we have got another set of hearings to figure out what the
next impediment is. So I urge you and I urge everybody at the
INS to try to give us the full blueprint, because I am struck
by the extent of Congressional support to provide assistance in
this one area.
It is the one area where there does not seem to be the
slightest debate and controversy of either a partisan sort or
of a monetary sort or anything else, but what is frustrating
people, and I think what is eroding confidence here a little
bit, is the sense that, you know, even when sort of there is a
desire, there does not seem to be a blueprint to get to the
finish line.
So for today, we will at least bring down the curtain, but
I hope you will let us know comprehensively what it is that
would make the package complete, not just the pay, but the
other things that would have to also be part of a successful
solution; and with that, I want to thank you. I know it is a
lot easier to come up here and hear other news, but I think it
is important that we kind of get these issues ventilated a
little as well. We appreciate your being here.
Mr. de la Vina. Thank you very much.
Senator Abraham. Thank you.
We will now have our second panel join us. We are going to
hear in this second panel from three witnesses, if you would
all come forward. Joining us on this panel is, first, Ron
Sanders, who is the chief of the chief patrol agents
association as well as the Border Patrol sector chief for the
Arizona border with Mexico; Gail Griffin, who is a State
Representative from Sierra Vista, AZ; and Robert Lindemann, who
is a senior patrol agent in the Detroit sector and a 15-year
veteran, as well as the union steward for the National Border
Patrol Council.
Before we go any further, I do not know, Senator Kyl, if
you want to make any additional introductory remarks.
Senator Kyl. Well, I might just with respect to Gail
Griffin. Actually, since I do not know Mr. Lindemann, I cannot
say anything nice about him.
Mr. Lindemann. I used to live in your area.
Senator Kyl. Is that right?
Mr. Lindemann. How is that?
Senator Kyl. In that case, I will say why did you leave?
No, I am sure you got transferred.
I will just make this very brief statement. Ron Sanders has
been enormously helpful to me. Every time I want information,
we are able to get it. We go to the border, he is there to
point out things to us. He represents his people very, very
well. He has given us a lot of good suggestions. He has
answered a lot of questions, and I think he tells the truth
when he is describing the situation on the border. He has made
a big difference there.
Gail Griffin, a member of our state legislature has been
thrust into the limelight here because her constituents have
been beating a path to her door in a way that--well, let us put
it this way: It has gotten everyone's attention, and she has
had to juggle the problem of angry constituents who want
answers to questions now and with the professionals who are
clearly tasked with the job of controlling the border with a
Federal Government that I am sure she is a bit frustrated with,
wondering why we cannot get some relief, and perhaps the last
panel suggested some of the problems for Representative
Griffin.
But I am delighted there at least two Arizona and one
former Arizona constituents on this panel here today. Thank
you.
Senator Abraham. Thank you all very much. I sort of went
through the clock explanation already. So we will turn to each
of you now for opening statements.
Chief Sanders.
PANEL CONSISTING OF RON SANDERS, CHIEF, CHIEF PATROL AGENTS
ASSOCIATION, U.S. BORDER PATROL, TUCSON, AZ; HON. GAIL GRIFFIN,
STATE REPRESENTATIVE, SIERRA VISTA, AZ; AND ROBERT LINDEMANN,
SENIOR PATROL AGENT, DETROIT SECTOR, AND UNION STEWARD,
NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL, DETROIT, MI
STATEMENT OF RON SANDERS
Mr. Sanders. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to
share with you the views of the membership of the Chief Patrol
Agents Association on the need for additional Border Patrol
agents. We appreciate your past efforts to provide the Border
Patrol with the support and resources necessary to strengthen
the enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws.
During this fiscal year, it is anticipated that the Border
Patrol will arrest 1,600,000, and we will seize 1,200,000
pounds of marijuana. Our arrests and seizures, coupled with the
hundreds of thousands of violators that we do not catch,
clearly indicate we need additional resources.
On February 25, 1999, former chief patrol agent and current
representative Sylvester Reyes testified that his staff has met
with all five Texas Border Patrol chiefs and they stated that
they desperately need more agents. He indicated that he thought
the response would be the same if every Border Patrol chief
were asked the same question.
I have spoken with the 21 Border Patrol chiefs, and 20 of
the 21 believe that they desperately need more agents. The
chief patrol agent in San Diego feels confident that he has the
personnel necessary to maintain the control that has been
established in his sector, however attrition is a major
concern. San Diego lead the nation in attrition, and at the
current time, loses one agent every day or some 365 agents per
year.
Other sectors have similar problems. I have spoken to
Senator Kyl about this problem. He is very interested in
finding ways that this agency can maintain a highly trained
professional work force. The Border Patrol has a growing need
for additional high caliber agents. It does not make sense to
spend large sums of money training these agents, only to lose
them to other agencies and private industry. We look forward to
working with Senator Kyl and other members of Congress to solve
this costly problem.
During July 1998, the Population Research Center at the
University of Texas at Austin completed a study entitled ``An
Estimate of the Number of Border Patrol Personnel Necessary to
Control the Southwest Border''. The study estimated that 16,133
Border Patrol agents would be needed to control the 1,782 miles
along the U.S. border. In addition, we believe that the
northern border and interior locations should be staffed with a
force of 4,000 Border Patrol agents.We should strive to have an
on-duty force of 20,000 Border Patrol agents if we are to be
effective in our mission of controlling the borders of the
United States.
In 1994, the Border Patrol developed a strategic plan to
control illegal immigration along the southwest border. This
plan called for sending most of the enhancement personnel to
areas that had the heaviest volume of illegal immigration
entries. At that time, those areas were El Paso, TX and San
Diego, CA. The strategy was successful in shifting large
numbers of illegal aliens into other sectors, however we have
not received sufficient resources to deal with the increases of
illegal entries brought on by this strategy.
We are witnessing a dramatic increase in the number of
complaints received from ranchers, farmers, local law
enforcement agencies, and providers of social services that
have been impacted by these shifts in illegal immigration
patterns. The plan has not been revised since it was
implemented in 1994. This association has asked that the plan
be updated on a quarterly basis.
A strategy that works in San Diego may not be the best
strategy for Tucson. The terrain, social, and political
climates are not the same at each location, and the local
sector chiefs need the ability to manage the unique problems
that they face in their individual sectors. We do not feel that
we have a strong interior enforcement program, and the illegal
alien population inside the United States is growing at an
alarming rate.
The true judge of the enforcement success of this agency
will be the report card provided by the Census Bureau in the
Year 2000. We believe that several Congressional districts will
be changed based on population shifts caused by large
concentrations of illegal aliens in the interior of the United
States.
In order to be successful, we need an organizational
structure that will enable us to focus on our enforcement
mission. As you move forward with your work in the area of
reorganizing the INS, we ask that you provide us with an
organizational structure that will enable us to focus on a
single mission of enforcing the immigration laws of the United
States.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the sector
chiefs and the agents of the U.S. Border Patrol are proud to be
serving their country and are proud to carry out the
immigration laws that have been passed by Congress. I thank
you, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you
might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sanders follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ron Sanders
introduction
Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Senate
Subcommittee on Immigration. I appreciate the opportunity to share with
you the views of the membership of the Chief Patrol Agent's Association
on the ``The Need for Additional Border Patrol Agents at the Northern
and Southern Borders''. We appreciate your past efforts to provide the
Border Patrol with the support and resources necessary to strengthen
the enforcement of our nation's immigration laws along the borders of
the United States.
need for additional border patrol agents
During this fiscal year it is anticipated that the Border Patrol
will arrest 1,600,000 individuals that enter the United States in
violation of law. In addition we will seize 1,200,000 pounds of
marijuana. Our arrests and seizures coupled with the violators that we
do not catch clearly indicate we need additional resources to
effectively enforce the immigration laws of the United States.
On February 25, 1999, former Chief Patrol Agent and current
Representative Silvestre Reyes testified before the Committee on the
Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. He stated that his
staff had met with all five Texas Border Patrol Chiefs and they all
stated that they desperately need more agents. He indicated that he
thought the response would be the same if every Border Patrol Chief
were asked the same question.
I have spoken with the twenty-one Border Patrol Chiefs and twenty
of the twenty-one believe that they desperately need more agents and
associated support resources. Since 1993, the San Diego Sector has
received unprecedented increases in personnel, equipment, and advanced
technology. The Chief Patrol Agent in San Diego feels confident that he
has the personnel necessary to maintain the control that has been
established in his sector. However, attrition is a major concern. San
Diego leads the nation in attrition and at the current time loses one
agent per day (i.e., over 365 agents per year). The other sectors along
the southern border have similar problems with attrition. I have spoken
to Senator Kyl about this problem in the Border Patrol and he is very
interested in finding ways that this agency can maintain a highly
trained, professional work force. The Border Patrol has a growing need
for additional high caliber agents and it does not make sense to spend
large sums of money training these agents only to lose them to other
agencies and private industry. The Chief Patrol Agent's Association
looks forward to working with Senator Kyl and other members of Congress
to solve this costly problem.
During July 1998, the Population Research Center at the University
of Texas at Austin completed a study entitled An Estimate of the Number
of Border Patrol Personnel Necessary to Control the Southwest Border.
We believe that this comprehensive study presents the best estimate of
the staffing levels required to control and deter unauthorized
crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border that we have seen to date. The
study estimated that 16,133 Border Patrol Agents would be needed to
control the 1,782 miles along the U.S.-Mexico border. In addition we
believe that the northern border and interior locations should be
staffed with a force of 4,000 Border Patrol Agents, thus the
Association of Chief Patrol Agents believes that we should strive to
have an on duty force of 20,000 Border Patrol Agents if we are to be
effective in our mission of controlling the borders of the United
States.
border patrol strategic plan
In 1994, the Border Patrol developed a strategic plan to control
illegal immigration along the southwest border. This plan called for
sending most of the enhancement personnel to areas that had the
heaviest volume of illegal immigration entries. At that time those
areas were El Paso, Texas and San Diego, California.
The strategic plan called for controlling certain geographic areas
thus shifting the flow of illegal aliens into other areas along the
southwest border in the short term. As the flow of illegal aliens was
shifted, additional personnel were needed to apprehend the aliens that
were using the newly created entry corridors.
The strategy was successful in shifting large numbers of illegal
aliens into Border Patrol Sectors located in El Centro, California;
Yuma, Arizona; Tucson, Arizona; Del Rio, Texas; Laredo, Texas; and
McAllen, Texas. However, we have not received sufficient resources to
deal, with the increases of illegal entries brought on by the strategy.
Therefore, we are witnessing a dramatic increase in the number of
complaints received from ranchers, farmers, local law enforcement
agencies, and providers of social services that have been impacted by
these shifts in illegal immigration patterns.
The 1994 Border Patrol Strategic Plan has not been revised since it
was implemented in 1994. This Association has asked that the plan be
updated on a quarterly basis and that the strategy be flexible enough
to accommodate the different political, social, and economic conditions
that exist in the different sectors. A strategy that works in San Diego
may not be the best strategy for Tucson. A strategy that works in El
Paso may not be the best strategy for Del Rio. The terrain, social, and
political climates are not the same at each location and the local
sector chiefs need the ability to manage the unique problems that they
face in their individual sectors.
We believe that once illegal aliens flow through newly created
corridors provided to them by an, as yet, incomplete execution of the
national strategy, we must have a strong interior enforcement posture
to deal with those that avoid arrest on the border. We do not feel that
we have a strong interior enforcement program at the present time and
the illegal alien population inside the United States is growing at an
alarming rate. The true judge of the enforcement success of this agency
will be the ``report card'' provided by the Census Bureau in the year
2000. We believe that several congressional districts will be changed
based on population shifts caused by large concentrations of illegal
aliens in the interior of the United States.
enforcement structure
In order to be successful we need an organizational structure that
will enable us to focus on our enforcement mission of securing and
protecting the borders of the United States from illegal entries. A
well-managed border will enhance our national security and safeguard
our immigration heritage while restoring our Nation's confidence in the
integrity of the border.
As you move forward with your work in the area of reorganizing the
INS, we ask that you provide us with an organizational structure that
will enable us to focus on a single mission of enforcing the
immigration laws of the United States.
closing
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, the sector chiefs
and the agents of the United States Border Patrol are proud to be
serving their country and are proud to carry out the immigration laws
that have been passed by members of congress.
I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to appear before you
today and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Senator Abraham. Thank you very much, Chief.
Representative Griffin, welcome.
Ms. Griffin. Thank you.
Senator Abraham. We will hear from you at this time.
STATEMENT OF MS. GRIFFIN
Ms. Griffin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
speak to you today about this important issue.
I have the honor of representing District 8 which is the
southeastern Arizona border that starts at Nogales and runs
east to the New Mexico border. The majority of my district
includes the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Tucson
sector. The challenges and difficulties of illegal immigration
has never involved such tremendous fear as the situation as it
exists today. I share my constituents' frustrations as they
continue to be overwhelmed with no end or solution in sight.
The only analogy I can draw to describe the feelings is one
of utter helplessness. You can only imagine placing a 911
emergency call, only to be told there is no help available. The
safety of the citizens of the United States, the enforcement of
our laws, and the protection of our borders is a duty and
obligation we cannot shirk.
Officials from multiple levels of government are involved
in the efforts to deal with this impending crisis. City,
county, and State officials have reported tremendous strain on
their law enforcement, medical services, and their criminal
justice system. Our local law enforcement officials are unable
to turn the tide of vandalism, theft, and increasing
confrontations. The need for immediate intervention of Federal
law enforcement is emergent.
The result of border incursions have been an increased flow
of illegal narcotics, trespassing, destructive vandalism, home
invasions and thievery. It is any wonder that residents, and
particularly those who live in the remote areas, are searching
for other self-help methods to protect their families and their
property. Many area ranchers are third and fourth generation
Arizonans and are respectful stewards of the land. They well
know and appreciate the benefits of our close relationship to
Mexico and our Mexican brothers and sisters. My district
includes one of the most culturally diverse regions in all of
America, and we are proud of our heritage and respectful of our
neighbors and responsibilities.
I am also concerned for the safety of the illegal entrants
who are attempting to cross the border to seek work and are
simply trying to better their lives and are migrating to the
United States with good intentions. If steps are not taken to
stem this crisis, I am fearful many more will be wrongly
encouraged to attempt this very dangerous trip in border
crossing.
Area ranchers and residents describe the siege mentality
they are living under on a day-to-day basis. Things that we
take for granted such as a trip with our spouse to town must be
planned to allow one person to remain at home to protect
personal belongings. Trash is strewn across fields as if a rock
concert had been hosted the night before. Equipment, trucks,
cars are stolen and destroyed and fences are cut. Livestock are
stolen and killed. One rancher lost 13 cows in 1 year. They are
shot, butchered and left to rot. Homes are broken into.
Residents are afraid to go out at night. One rancher tells of
being beaten almost to death by illegals. Residents are afraid
to sleep. They are prisoners in their home.
Committee members, my constituents are pleading for help.
What are they to do? We do not know who is coming across the
border. Are they dangerous? Are they criminals? Terrorists? Are
they simply trying to better their life styles? Are they
smuggling drugs or people? Do they need medical attention? Who
are they?
Several residents have asked why their Nation seems to be
willing to protect others in the world before it protects its
own. The Federal Government's actions suggest that citizens on
or near the border are a lower priority than the international
stories currently grabbing headlines. I believe their questions
deserve answers. What are they to do? What are their rights?
This is not just a local problem, a county problem, or an
Arizona problem. It is a national problem. A recent newspaper
article reported 1,000 illegal immigrants within 10 days were
caught at the Phoenix airport with airline tickets to Chicago,
Atlanta, and other destinations.
Something must be done now. We must stop the illegal influx
of individuals crossing our border. We must enforce existing
laws and employer sanctions. We must put smugglers of drugs and
people behind bars. We must consider and implement guest
working visa programs, and we must increase resources on the
border.
Thank you once again for allowing me to testify, and thank
you for your efforts to help our situation. Senator Kyl, thank
you for bringing our--successfully communicating our needs in
our area.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Griffin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ms. Gail Griffin
Senator Abraham and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on this important
issue.
I'm Gail Griffin. I have the honor of representing District 8,
which is southeastern Arizona, it includes the southern border from
Nogales and extends east to the New Mexico border. A majority of my
district includes the Immigration and Naturalization Service's Tucson
Sector.
The challenges and difficulties of illegal immigration has never
involved such tremendous fear than the situation as it exists today. I
share my constituents' frustrations as they continue to be overwhelmed
with no end or solution in sight. The only analogy I can draw to
describe the feelings is one of utter helplessness. You can only
imagine placing a 911 emergency call, only to be told there is no help
available.
The safety of the citizens of the United States, the enforcement of
our laws, and the protection of our borders is a duty and obligation we
can not shirk.
Officials from multiple levels of government are involved in the
efforts to deal with this impending crisis. City, county, and state
officials have reported tremendous strain on law enforcement, medical
services, and our criminal justice system. Our local law enforcement
officials are unable to turn the tide of vandalism, theft, and
increasing confrontations.
The need for immediate intervention of federal law enforcement is
emergent. The result of border incursions has been an increased flow of
illegal narcotics, trespassing, destructive vandalism, home invasions,
and thievery. Is it any wonder that residents, and particularly those
who live in remote areas, are searching for other self-help methods to
protect their families and their property?
Many area ranchers are third and fourth generation Arizonans and
are respectful stewards of the land. They well know and appreciate the
benefits of our close relationship to our Mexican brothers and sisters.
My district includes one of the most culturally diverse regions in all
of America, and we are proud of our heritage and respectful of our
neighbors and responsibilities.
I am also concerned for the safety of the illegal entrants who are
attempting to cross the border to seek work and are simply trying to
better their lives and are migrating to the United States with good
intentions. If steps are not taken to stem this crisis, I am fearful
many more will be wrongly encouraged to attempt this very dangerous
trip and border crossing.
Area ranchers and residents describe the ``siege mentality'' they
are living with under each and every day. Things that we all take for
granted, such as a trip with our spouse to town, must be planned to
allow for one person to remain at home to protect personal belongings.
Trash is strewn across fields, as if a rock concert had been hosted the
night before. Equipment, trucks, and cars are stolen or destroyed and
fences are cut. Livestock is stolen or killed. One rancher lost 13 cows
in one year. They were shot, butchered, and left to rot. Homes are
broken into. Residents are afraid to go out at night. One rancher tells
of being beaten almost to death by illegals. Residents are afraid to
sleep. They are prisoners in their homes.
Committee members, my constituents are pleading for help. What are
they to do?
I am awed by reports that the Tucson Sector set a record by
apprehending 60,537 illegal immigrants in March of this year alone.
Those numbers are nothing short of staggering. When a mass of six
hundred illegal individuals recently attempted to move all at once
across the border near Douglas, my constituents asked how they might be
able to protect their families and homes if they were faced with a
similar situation. Unfortunately with the limited law enforcement
resources that currently exist in the area, there is little they could
do.
We don't know who is coming across the border. Are they dangerous?
Are they criminals, terrorists? Are they simply trying to better their
lifestyles. Are they smuggling drugs or people? Do they need medical
attention? Who are they?
Several residents have asked why their nation seems to be willing
to protect others in the world before it protects its own citizens. The
federal government's actions suggest that citizens on or near our
borders are a lower priority than the international stories currently
grabbing headlines. I believe their questions deserve answers. What are
they to do? What are their rights?
This is not just a local problem, a county problem, or an Arizona
problem. This is a national problem. A recent newspaper article
reported 1,000 illegal immigrants, within ten days, were caught at the
Phoenix airport with airline tickets to Chicago, Atlanta, and other
destinations. Something must be done, NOW!
We must stop the illegal influx of individuals crossing our
borders!
We must enforce existing laws and employer sanctions!
We must put smugglers of drugs and people behind bars!
We must consider and implement guest working visa programs!
We must increase resources on the border!
Thank you once again for allowing me to testify and for your
efforts on our behalf. Senator Kyl, thank you for successfully
communicating our urgent call on this issue. I am happy to answer any
questions. Thank you.
Senator Abraham. Thank you very much.
We are now joined by Mr. Robert Lindemann who is an agent
in the Detroit office of the Border Patrol, and I want to
welcome you here today and thank you for the hard work that you
and your fellow agents do in our part of the world. We
appreciate it very much and appreciate your time to be with us
at this hearing.
STATEMENT OF MR. LINDEMANN
Mr. Lindemann. Thank you, sir. As the Senator said, my name
is Robert E. Lindemann, and I am steward for the National
Border Patrol Council of the Detroit Local. I have been an
agent for close to 15 years, and the Detroit sector Border
Patrol covers over 800 miles of border and has enforcement
responsibilities for four midwestern States. We do this or at
least attempt to do it with no more than 19 field agents and
one detention officer.
Since 1988, we have continuously lost agents. Still, we
continue to make more arrests. Right now, arrests are up over
40 percent over last year at this time and keep in mind that
for most of this fiscal year, we have had little or no
detention or operations funding. Several years ago, the INS
commissioner, Doris Meissner, laid out of 5-year strategic plan
to control our borders and increase interior enforcement
through resource enhancements allocated by Congress.
The southwest border has received most of those resources.
The response to the northern border was to slash operational
and detention funding. Months ago, she offered northern sectors
just 21 additional Border Patrol agent positions to help patrol
over twice the amount of border than the southwest border
occupies. Currently, the northern sectors have less than 289
agents assigned to it, compared to over 7,000 in the southwest
border.
Since the INS has stepped up enforcement to the southwest
border, arrests and drug seizures on the northern borders have
increased. Conversely, our funding and manpower has decreased.
Illegal alien street gangs are also a problem that has exploded
in the last few years in the Detroit area. Lack of detention
money allows illegal alien gang members to roam the cities and
streets unchecked, and their numbers have increased.
Patrol operations are sporadic and ineffective. Agents are
often tied up doing detention work or on other details away
from sector. This allows for only a handful of agents on duty
at any given time. Frequently, agents have no backup and must
rely on an antiquated radio system to call headquarters in
emergent situations. This prospect is a gamble at most times,
because our radio system covers little of our patrol area.
When we do locate criminal or illegal aliens, they have to
be released. The funding deficiencies also cause equipment that
should have been replaced decades ago to remain in service. A
recent request to replace nine older vehicles with excessive
mileage was previously approved by INS headquarters. But only
days after our union president testified before the House
Immigration Claims Subcommittee regarding law enforcement
problems in the northern border, funding was pulled and the
request for replacement denied. Reason: other operational
commitments.
The bottom line is there are not enough agents or
accompanying resources along the northern border that will
provide any deterrent for anyone attempting illegal entry,
contraband smuggling, or any criminal act. The INS proposal of
adding 21 agents to the northern sector is laughable and
insulting. A Detroit sector partnership study conducted a few
months ago concluded that there was a need of 104 additional
agents including critical support staff. This would afford 24-
hour protection at each of the five Detroit stations, Detroit
sector stations.
The U.S. Government has an obligation to provide for a safe
and secure border. The United States, through its government,
also has the right to determine its own immigration policy
based on lawful, orderly, and proscribed procedures, not
whenever anyone feels the urge to enter and for whatever
reason, as is the case throughout our border regions.
Part of this endeavor requires a vigilant border patrol.
For the last several--for the past several decades, this notion
has been flaunted by illegal immigrants, drug smugglers and
other foreign criminal elements residing in the United States.
I strongly urge the members of this committee to implore
the INS to rethink their current strategy of border enforcement
and immigration enforcement in general on the northern border.
They should retain the funding that was given to them by
Congress and carry out their mandate to make more secure our
Nation's borders. We as citizens of this great nation deserve
no less.
Thank you, and if you have any questions, I will answer
them as best as possible.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lindemann follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert E. Lindemann
Good afternoon, I am Robert E. Lindemann, Steward for the National
Border Patrol Council Detroit Sector Local 2499. I have been a Border
Patrol Agent for close to 15 years now. I am also a member of the
Border Patrol Tactical Unit. I want to thank Senator Abraham for
inviting me here and for his national leadership on this issue.
introduction
The Detroit Sector covers over 800 miles of border and has
enforcement responsibilities for four mid-western states. We do this,
or at least attempt it with no more than 19 field agents and 1
detention officer. Since 1988 we have continuously lost agents; still
we continue to make more arrests. Right now arrests are up 40 percent
over last year at this time. Keep in mind that for most of this fiscal
year, we have had little or no detention or operations funding.
response
Several years ago the INS commissioner, Doris Meissner, laid out a
5 year strategic plan to control our borders and increase interior
enforcement through resources enhancement allocated by congress. The
southwest border has received most of those resources. Her response to
the northern border enforcement was to slash operational and detention
funding. Months ago she offered northern sectors just 21 additional
Border Patrol Agent positions to help patrol over twice the amount of
border than the southwest border occupies. Currently, the northern
sectors have less than 289 agents assigned to it, compared to over
7,000 on the southwest border. Since the INS stepped up enforcement to
our southwestern border, arrests and drug seizures on the northern
borders have increased. Conversely our funding and manpower has
decreased.
impact of reduced funding-personnel
Recent budget cuts and reductions in manpower to the Detroit Sector
over the last decade have negatively impacted patrol operations and
trashed the morale of local personnel. Response times to police and
citizen complaints regarding illegal aliens or criminal aliens have
increased or gone unanswered. Aliens who were once detained and
deported, now have to be released. Why? Because there is no money--nor
is there any nearby INS detention facility. For example, just a week
ago USBP Grand Rapids Station had to release two Mexican nationals whom
were arrested and convicted of drug smuggling. The reason--No Money. It
was all taken away in late December 1998. Illegal alien street gangs
are also a problem that has exploded in the last few years in the
Detroit area. Lack of detention money allows illegal alien gang members
to roam city streets unchecked and their numbers have increased.
patrol operations
Patrol operations are sporadic and ineffective. Agents are often
tied up doing detention work or on other details away from sector. This
allows for only a handful of agents on duty at any given time. Often
times and at night, there are only 2 agents on duty sector wide.
Frequently agents have no back up and must rely on an antiquated radio
system to call headquarters in emergent situations--this prospect is a
gamble most times because our radio system covers little of our patrol
area. Furthermore, it is physically impossible for 19 agents to patrol
804 miles of border and simultaneously respond to police or citizen
reports of illegal aliens or other crimes.
When we do locate criminal aliens as was the case only weeks ago
they have to be released. Only days ago Patrol Agents located two alien
aggravated felons. These aliens were considered an extreme risk to our
communities and once arrested should have been detained without bond
according to statute. Instead they were left free to roam the country.
The reason--the local INS Deportations Branch had no money to detain
them. This serious lapse occurred as of Friday April 23, 1999.
outdated equipment
Funding deficiencies also cause equipment that should have been
replaced decades ago to remain in service. A recent request to replace
9 older vehicles with excessive mileage was previously approved by INS
Headquarters, but only days after our Union president testified before
the House Immigration & Claims Subcommittee, regarding law enforcement
problems on northern border, funding was pulled and request for
replacement denied. Reason: other operational commitments.
Reduced funding also impacts other resources such as,
communications and intrusion alarms. These systems are decades old and
rarely work or are unreliable when they do. Most all Southwest Border
Patrol sectors are on 3rd generation radios and enhanced communications
systems, we rely on repeater systems put up in the mid 1970's. Our
radios range from 10 to 20 years in age.
For example our radio repeater system, if we are lucky and
conditions are perfect, affords us radio coverage in about a quarter of
our sector. Generally it is only operational in the Detroit area. This
is a serious officer safety problem for our lives depend on dependable
two-way communications. It has been this way for decades and we only
now have recent indications that INS will survey the problem for later
repair-date unknown.
Our sensor systems are decades old technology and unreliable at
best in their current configuration they should have been upgraded
years ago. That may be a moot point due to manpower limitations--timely
responses to intrusions are impossible with current staffing.
retention of employees
One of the more recent problems with attracting and retaining
agents has been entry-level and the journeyman grade. The entry-level
grade, GS-5, which is about $23,000 per year for a college graduate.
Most Police departments and Federal agencies start prospective officers
at a much higher rate. The majority of Border Patrol Agents are GS-9,
less than 50 percent are GS-11 grade. We have received a large number
of college graduates in the last 5 years and many leave and go to other
agencies that have journeymen grade levels set at GS-12 and GS-13. How
can we compete with that? We can not.
We are a patrol agency but the work we do certainly should qualify
us for GS-11 grade pay. We boast the toughest academy and post academy
training of all federal agencies. We are the only federal agency that
requires a second language as well as law and language exams during our
probationary year. Failure of these exams means termination. Many other
agencies offer GS-12 level journeymen grades with no subsequent testing
after academy completion. This issue will have to be addressed or
attrition will continue.
potential threats from abroad
As a matter of fact, the Canadian government has more relaxed
immigration policy than the US; this affords citizens from many
countries to enter Canada with nothing more than a passport. A new
trend currently being seen on the northern border is the illegal entry
from Canada into the US by Mexicans. Under NAFTA, Mexicans no longer
are required a visa to enter Canada, simply a Mexican passport.
Just over 2 weeks ago, two Mexican nationals were arrested by BP
Agents entering the United States near Detroit from Canada. They stated
that due to increased enforcement efforts by USBP on the Southwest
border, it was much easier, less costly to enter Canada by commercial
aircraft and later enter the United States across the Northern Border.
They also stated that the word on the street in Mexico that BP presence
on the Northern Border was small and that nobody was being sent back or
detained. They were right. After a short interview and processing both
were released with no bond posted. No forwarding address was recorded.
They were instructed to show up for their immigration hearing and they
laughed as they walked out of the station. As pressure increases on the
Southwest border we can only expect a flood of illicit activities along
our northern border.
Also they would be required to sign a form stating they would abide
by US laws while awaiting trial. This may sound like an extreme
example, but it is what's happening on a daily basis in the Detroit
Sector when other aliens are arrested. I'm sure it occurs in other
northern border patrol sectors as well.
conclusion
The bottom line is there are not enough agents or accompanying
resources along the northern border that would provide any deterrent
for anyone attempting illegal entry, contraband smuggling or any
criminal act. The INS proposal of adding 21 agents to northern sectors
is laughable and insulting. A Detroit Sector partnership study
conducted a few months ago concluded that there was a need of 104
additional agents, not including critical support staff. This would
afford 24 hour protection at each of the 5 Detroit Sector stations.
They should also be planning for and building more detention facilities
to relieve local law enforcement from the burden of caring for
incarcerated aliens and relieving the taxpayers from the expense of
renting space at high prices for detaining these same aliens at state
and local facilities.
The US Government has an obligation to provide for safe and secure
borders. The United States through its government also has the right to
determine its own immigration policy based on lawful, orderly and
proscribed procedures, not when ever any one feels the urge to enter
and for whatever reason as is the case throughout our border regions.
Part of this endeavor requires a vigilant Border Patrol. For the past
several decades this notion has been flaunted by illegal immigrants,
drug smugglers and other foreign criminal elements residing in the US.
I strongly urge the members of the committee to implore the INS to
rethink their current strategy of border enforcement and immigration
enforcement in general on the northern border. They should retain the
funding that was given to them by Congress and carry out their mandate
to make more secure our nations borders. We as citizens of this great
nation deserve no less! Thank you and if the committee has any
questions for me I will answer them as best as possible.
Senator Abraham. Thanks very much, Mr. Lindemann.
Well, let me just begin.
Mr. Sanders, Chief Sanders, you indicated that you believe
that a force of approximately 20,000 is really the level that
it will take to make a significant impact on the reduction of
illegal immigrants; is that correct?
Mr. Sanders. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator Abraham. So as I calculate it here, that means we
need to add somewhere in the vicinity of between 11,000 to
12,000 to the border patrol from what we currently have at
current levels. And I was just doing a little calculation. At
the rate of 200 per year, it will take 55 years for us to have
the number that you require.
So here is my question. What do you think we can do? And I
will also ask Agent Lindemann the same. What can we do? What
other ideas beyond addressing the pay issue? Do you really feel
that it is going to be that difficult to find people to meet
your needs? Because that seems to be a problem. What
recommendations do you have to address the short fall?
Mr. Sanders. In October of last year, the patrol agents met
with Commissioner Meissner in Denver at her conference there,
and we told her we believed that we had a serious problem in
recruiting. We could tell from the individuals that were
entering on duty. Our classes were not full. Notification was
not being received in sufficient time. Some agents were only--
some new hires were only getting 2 days notice before they
reported in. All these things presented problems.
As time has gone on, we believe that one of the best
solutions is to turn the recruiting over to the Border Patrol.
Get it out of human resources. Let us do our recruiting. We
have a system now that where the Office of Personnel Management
is very much involved in the recruiting. This would be similar
if the Office of Personnel Management recruiting for the army,
for example. As you know, the army has their own recruiting.
They are responsible for their own recruiting. I think we need
to do that. I think the agency is finally coming around and
realizing that we would be the best recruiters and not the
Human Resources Department.
Senator Abraham. So, No. 1, you think that it would be
helpful for the Border Patrol to recruit its own, handle
recruitment or oversee it itself?
Mr. Sanders. Yes, sir.
Senator Abraham. What else?
Mr. Sanders. The pay issue. I laughed when we talked about
the GS-11 issue. I left the Border Patrol in 1975 because we
were promised a GS-11. It is kind of like your scenario of
taking 55 years. So many of us left at that time. Twenty-some
years have passed, and we are still talking about the same
thing.
We meet on a regular basis with Mr. de la Vina and Mr.
Pearson, and about 4 times a year with Commissioner Meissner.
We repeatedly stated that the Border Patrol from the chief
patrol agents on down are the most undergraded agents in the
Federal Government. It is just that simple.
The position descriptions have not been rewritten. We have
requested that they look at the chief patrol agents positions.
Many of those, including Detroit--the chief in Detroit is a
much lower level than his counter parts with the FBI, the
Customs, and so on. This has been going on for 3 years, and we
have seen very little movement in that regard. So we have
offered to help rewrite those position descriptions, but once
again, we must work through Human Resources, and it is very,
very time consuming.
Senator Abraham. I am not going to ask you to go through
everything, but I would ask you, perhaps in writing, to supply
us with a comprehensive list of recommendations that you and
your colleagues would have as to things that would help to beef
up the service to meet the authorizations that we have agreed
to.
Mr. Lindemann, do you want to add anything to that?
Mr. Lindemann. Yes, sir. Specifically, it is the pay grade.
People with college degrees and prior military are coming on
board, hired at GS-5, and they have only a hope of becoming a
GS-11. I think 20 percent of the U.S. Border agents are GS-11
patrolmen. The remainder are GS-9, and these guys are, you
know, 2 to 3, 4 years in a border sweating like, you know,
never before, working hard every day. They are looking at FBI,
DEA, and ATF, and their agents are almost automatically given--
not given. They earn it--GS-12 and GS-13 grades for their
journeyman level, and that, by and large, is our biggest
impediment to retaining people.
Senator Abraham. And you are losing--I mean the attrition
we heard about, which I know is accurate, you are losing them
to other law enforcement agencies right in the Federal
Government. Is this basically what you are saying happens?
Mr. Sanders. Yes, sir. I have lost 55 individuals since
October 1, and a majority of those have gone to other agencies,
Secret Service, ATF, FBI. They love to hire our people. They
are trained in two languages. They have a very extensive
academy, some 26 weeks of very intense training. So we make
good recruits for them.
Senator Abraham. Mr. Lindemann, let us go over the numbers
again for Detroit.
Mr. Lindemann. Yes, sir.
Senator Abraham. Exactly how many agents sign to the
Detroit region?
Mr. Lindemann. We have 19 field agents in the Detroit
sector and one detention officer.
Senator Abraham. Tell us how large that sector is again.
Mr. Lindemann. We cover--we have interior responsibilities
to four States and about 800 miles of border, and that is
spread out--and those 19 agents are spread out through five
stations. So we are just unable to mount any serious
enforcement effort almost at any given time. It is impossible
with one or two agents on duty in a car, working the City of
Detroit, for example, which I am familiar with. We get a call
or a alarm intrusion, and traffic is so heavy by the time we
get there, everything is over with.
Senator Abraham. It is a small city. It is only about a
million people.
Mr. Lindemann. Exactly. Exactly.
Senator Abraham. Two of you ought to be able to handle it.
I can imagine.
Obviously, you want more.
You indicated some numbers that seemed to be the kind of
level to provide the sort of support you need. Would you go
over those again?
Mr. Lindemann. Yes, sir. A joint partnership with the union
and our local management with Chief McLafferty recommended or
concluded that we have at least 104, and that, I do not
believe, includes support personnel. Again, with one detention
officer, you can only do so much, and he has got to drive
across the state constantly picking up prisoners, and because
there is one of him, we normally end up doing those duties as
well, taking away from the time that we actually spend doing
enforcement activities.
Senator Abraham. So the number has--so we are 85 short
based on what you have calculated?
Mr. Lindemann. Yes, sir.
Senator Abraham. And given that very few of the new agents
get assigned there, again, we are talking about a very
significant shortfall, essentially, for as far as the eye can
see.
You also mentioned that there are other impediments such as
antiquated equipment, things of that sort that have made it
much harder to perform your duties; is that right?
Mr. Lindemann. Yes, sir. Our radio system, for example,
works in probably a quarter of our area, and that is usually
only in the City of Detroit. We have one repeater that services
like--you know, like a 65-square-mile area, and sometimes you
can hit it, and sometimes you cannot. It is not uncommon to be
chasing somebody on foot, and you cannot get out on the radio.
You know, you cannot talk to headquarters on the radio. You
cannot call backup. Fortunately the City of Detroit has
provided us with City of Detroit radios to provide assistance
to us.
Senator Abraham. Would you say that this is--I mean, you
probably know people in the other northern border sectors. Is
this the same basic challenge they all have?
Mr. Lindemann. Identical. Identical. Manpower, lack of
radio coverage, lack of vehicles, lack of--no detention
officers. In Detroit, we have no INS detention facility. We
have to rely on local law enforcement to lodge our prisoners at
an exorbitant rate, and so in turn, we arrest them. We give
them a piece of paper, and they walk out the door because there
is no money, and that happens every day.
Senator Abraham. I would just say for the record that we
have requested information on detention needs as well, and I
hope that we will get a little bit more thorough information
from INS as to their needs. Again, I think this is an area
where Congress would be willing, if we were given a sense of
needs more specifically than we have so far, not only for the
detention of people apprehended but for the detention of
criminal aliens who are incarcerated to be detained for
purposes of having deportation proceedings conducted.
We still cannot get all the information we need there, and
I know there are people from INS here today, and I would urge
them to send back the message that it is all part of the same
concern we have, and the needs that we have have not changed on
that front.
I have gone over my time. So I will turn to Senator Kyl.
Senator Kyl. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your
questioning has just brought out so many important things, the
needs both on the northern and southern borders, some good
suggestions that I hope we will get; and by the way, if there
is any hint of retribution from either of the two of you, I
hope you will let the two of us know, because it is against the
law, and we will see to it that the situation is resolved
properly.
I have one question, Chief Sanders, of you. Is it true that
the estimates based on footprints, infrared technology, and
other techniques suggest that approximately three illegal
aliens get away for every one that is caught or apprehended; is
that correct?
Mr. Sanders. Yes, sir, that is true.
Senator Kyl. So at 1.6 million apprehended in the Tucson
sector. If you multiply by three, that is a 4.8 million were
not apprehended; is that correct?
Mr. Sanders. Yes, sir.
Senator Kyl. That just gives you a little bit of an idea of
the order of magnitude. This is for one sector now in 1 year.
Gail Griffin, I wanted to perhaps add two points that are,
I think, very important to make for the record, and Chief
Sanders, I think will bear us out on both of these.
One of the concerns that you raised was the fact that there
is a significant danger to the people attempting to cross, as
well as to some of the America citizens. It is my understanding
that during the hot summer months, some of these agents, in
short supply to begin with, are deployed to the remote, hot
desert areas of our border--the Barry Goldwater Gunnery Range,
where our pilots practice gunnery. There is nothing much there,
and there is certainly not any water there--for the sole
purpose of saving lives of illegal immigrants who choose to
avoid the urban areas and therefore cross the desert, and that
each year there are numerous illegal aliens who die and many
more that are saved by those agents. Is that your
understanding?
Ms. Griffin. Yes, in fact, a couple of weeks ago the
headlines in the paper was ``Baby Born in Desert''.
Senator Kyl. And Chief, I am catching you off guard here,
but any idea of the number of people who die per year?
Mr. Sanders. In Arizona, the statistics that we have, it is
approximately 30, and we consider ourself to be very fortunate,
because nationwide during that same period of time, it was
probably in a 3-year period, somewhere over 500. By expanding
those patrols into that remote desert area, we have been very
successful, but we have to take coverage from other places to
save those human lives.
Senator Kyl. That is exactly the point I was going to make.
In order to save the lives, you have to then degrade your
performance in other areas. Also, I know in the City of Nogales
where you first put the agents, there was a huge crime rate,
and I know, Representative Griffin, you made the point that not
all, by any means--in fact, only a minority of the people
crossing the border are criminal. The rest are simply seeking a
better opportunity.
But there are criminals within them, and I think, Chief
Sanders, you would agree that there is an increasingly
dangerous criminal element, more weapons used, more protection
of the drugs that are being smuggled across, but my
recollection is that you told me that once you got a pretty
good tranche of agents on the ground in Nogales, the crime rate
plummeted. I know the people in the community stopped
complaining to me about both the petty theft, the burglary, and
the assaults that they were experiencing, the break-ins and so
on, and the situation there has calmed down significantly,
again making the point that Chief de la Vina made, which is
that once you get the application of agents on the border, you
can reduce crime as well as make apprehensions significantly;
is that correct?
Mr. Sanders. Yes, sir. I would like to point out that we
successfully prosecuted 3,500 individuals in Arizona last year
for committing crimes, and it is important to realize that the
U.S. attorneys in the state of Arizona prosecuted 7,000. So the
U.S. Border Patrol provided half of the criminals that they
prosecuted.
So when we talk about an enforcement strategy, we need to
talk about prosecutors. We need to talk about U.S. Marshals,
and we need to talk about bed space. It is a total package.
What we do in the Border Patrol as our arrests go up, it
creates problems for those other agencies.
Senator Kyl. Mr. Chairman, that is a very good point. I am
glad Chief Sanders made it. The U.S. Attorney for Arizona, Jose
Jesus Rivera, was in my office last week. He is going to be
there again this week talking about this exact problem. When
you increase the number of agents, then, of course, you need to
increase the number of prosecutors, public defenders,
magistrates, judges, jail space, vehicles, all up and down the
line. It is not just one matter.
And then a final point, I know that, Representative
Griffin, you are also carrying a message from some of the
residents including one of the mayors of one of the communities
you represent, urging a greater use of the H-2 programs or a
more liberalized H-2 program; is that correct?
Ms. Griffin. The guest visa work program?
Senator Kyl. Yes.
Ms. Griffin. Yes.
Senator Kyl. And I would note to the chairman, last year
Congress responded to a specific need for high-technology guest
workers, people who could program computers and the like, and
we increased substantially the number of people that could come
into the country for that purpose. I think that the need for
unskilled labor ought to also be addressed so that we could at
least provide a safe environment for some of the people who
seek to come across, and I hope that that issue is not
forgotten in this overall discussion as well, Mr. Chairman.
And I am already late for another meeting, and I have got
to run, but I want to personally thank Representative Griffin
for being here and also Chief Sanders.
And Mr. Lindemann, I am with you too. I guess when you have
got a patient who has got a broken leg and is bleeding to
death, you try to stanch the bleeding, but you have got to take
care of the broken leg too.
Mr. Lindemann. Eventually.
Senator Kyl. I mean relatively speaking, it is as bad on
the northern border as it is on the southern.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Abraham. Senator Kyl, as I said at the outset, we
need to keep these issues on the front burner of our
subcommittee, and clearly we intend to keep them there. I think
the last comments that were made go, again, to some of the
things I was trying the suggest earlier, which is we really do
need to get a broader, not a nearer focus on impediments,
because I do not want 6 months from now, if we started
increasing the numbers, to be told, well, now the problem is
U.S. attorneys or anything else. We want to know what all the
challenges are because I think there is a real desire to try to
address them, and certainly that goes for the northern border
as much as it is for the chief hot spots that we confront.
I want to thank everybody on the panel and our audience for
being with us. We are trying to be constructive here, and I
emphasize that. So we want to certainly work with INS and with
all the affected agencies to address these problems, but we are
going to spend a lot of time in this Congress figuring out what
we can do to try to make some progress.
Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Additional Submissions for the Record
----------
Board of Supervisors,
County of Cochise, AZ, April 26, 1999.
Re: Undocumented Aliens on Cochise County/Republic of Mexico Border
Senator Spencer Abraham and Committee Members,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Abraham and Committee Members: Cochise County is under
siege. With approximately 80 miles of boundary with the Republic of
Mexico, Cochise County is experiencing the impacts of thousands of
undocumented aliens, primarily from Mexico, Central and South America,
who are crossing the Mexican border into Arizona each month. In fact,
Border Patrol statistics show that there are approximately 30,000
apprehensions in Cochise County each month. If this statistic
represents only the number of persons apprehended, imagine how many
persons are illegally crossing the border without being detected.
Consider the magnitude of this invasion--as many people are being
detained each month as live in a medium sized city.
It would be one thing if these persons came in an orderly manner
and proceeded to a destination where they can legally work. They are
instead led by ``mules'' at all hours of the day and night at many
points along the border. They are scared and hungry and desperate. They
destroy fence lines, enter onto ranches and other private property
looking for food. They litter their paths with garbage and debris,
which is then left for the property owner to remove. Cattle are
slaughtered to provide a small amount of food for undocumented persons
passing through, and the carcasses are left to rot. Other livestock die
from eating diapers and other debris left by these persons. A number of
them commit property crimes as they travel through the area. Illegal
drug traffic takes place along that same border, and that activity
poses tremendous safety risks for our residents. Cochise County is no
longer a safe place for its residents. Families are hostages on their
own property. They fear leaving their property unattended lest they
return to find their houses broken into and property taken.
The Federal Government has the responsibility to protect its
citizens from invasions of its borders. Its policies of tightening
security along other reaches of the border have funneled this level of
activity into Cochise County. Local law enforcement, with approximately
77 deputies to patrol 6,200 square miles of area, is ill-equipped to
stop this invasion. They have their hands full providing the normal
range of law enforcement activities for its citizens. Our jail houses a
substantial number of undocumented aliens who commit crimes in Cochise
County, and only partial reimbursement is received. Our court system
also bears the pressure of these international activities. In addition,
there are substantial public health costs faced by border counties. The
responsibility is the Federal Government's, and, at least in Cochise
County, it has not been met to date.
A disturbing trend is occurring, and you need to be aware of it.
The frustration level of American citizens in Cochise County is
increasing substantially. Citizens want to know what they can do to
protect themselves. The potential for conflict is increasing
dramatically, and if nothing is done soon, there is a strong likelihood
of violence. If our Government is not going to protect the people, then
vigilantism will grow and people will take steps to protect themselves.
Do you really want this in the United States of America?
Something must be done and done immediately. Your committee must
take the first steps to provide adequate security for this area. We
strongly encourage you to pass legislation and appropriate adequate
funds to add appropriate security along the Cochise County border.
While we support this funding to provide for the short-term
security of our residents, we also encourage you to look for longer-
range solutions to the problems of immigration. Otherwise, persons from
poorer nations who do not have jobs will find a way to get into the
United States. We would ask you to also contemplate programs to allow
for limited, lawful work status for aliens and tougher enforcement of
laws against United States employers who hire undocumented aliens.
Again, in closing, on behalf of the residents of Cochise County,
please take immediate steps to provide funding to address this crisis.
Sincerely,
Les Thompson,
Chairman, Cochise County Board of Supervisors.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3522.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3522.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3522.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3522.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3522.008