[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. 744 AND THE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986: LESSONS
LEARNED OR MISTAKES REPEATED?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 744
__________
MAY 22, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-174 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
LAMAR SMITH, Texas Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama ZOE LOFGREN, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
JIM JORDAN, Ohio JUDY CHU, California
TED POE, Texas TED DEUTCH, Florida
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
MARK AMODEI, Nevada SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho JOE GARCIA, Florida
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
[Vacant]
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MAY 22, 2013
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 1
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 3
WITNESSES
Julie Myers Wood, President, Compliance, Federal Practice and
Software Solutions, Guidepost Solutions
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
Chris Crane, President, National Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Council 118, American Federation of Government
Employees
Oral Testimony................................................. 26
Prepared Statement............................................. 28
David V. Aguilar, Partner, Global Security and Intelligence
Strategies (GSIS)
Oral Testimony................................................. 40
Prepared Statement............................................. 42
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statement of the Honorable George Holding, a
Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina,
and Member, Committee on the Judiciary......................... 4
Material submitted by the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 53
Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 91
Material submitted by the Honorable Pedro R. Pierluisi, a
Representative in Congress from Puerto Rico, and Member,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 97
Material submitted by the Honorable Suzan DelBene, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, and
Member, Committee on the Judiciary............................. 116
Material submitted by the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New York, and
Member, Committee on the Judiciary.......................127
deg.OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record but not Reprinted
S. 744, the ``Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration
Modernization Act'' is not reprinted in this hearing record but is
on file with the Committee and can be accessed at:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s744is/pdf/BILLS-
113s744is.pdf
S. 744 AND THE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986: LESSONS
LEARNED OR MISTAKES REPEATED?
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2013
House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:26 p.m., in room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Bob
Goodlatte (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Sensenbrenner, Smith,
Chabot, Bachus, King, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, Chaffetz,
Marino, Gowdy, Amodei, Labrador, Farenthold, Holding, Collins,
DeSantis, Conyers, Nadler, Scott, Watt, Lofgren, Jackson Lee,
Johnson, Pierluisi, Chu, Deutch, Gutierrez, DelBene, Garcia,
and Jeffries.
Staff Present: (Majority) Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff &
General Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief
Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel;
Andrea Loving, Counsel; Dimple Shah, Counsel; Kelsey Deterding,
Clerk; (Minority) Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director & Chief
Counsel; Danielle Brown, Parliamentarian; and Tom Jawetz,
Counsel.
Mr. Goodlatte. Good afternoon. The House Committee on the
Judiciary will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. We
welcome everyone to this afternoon's hearing on ``S. 744 and
the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986: Lessons Learned
or Mistakes Repeated?''
I'd like to start off by commending all of my colleagues in
both the House and Senate who have worked together in a
bipartisan manner to address the difficult but crucial issue of
immigration reform. As I expect that immigration reform
legislation will follow regular order, it is important that
this Committee carefully examine the proposals that have been
offered. Thus we will today turn to S. 744,* the omnibus
immigration reform being considered by the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*S. 744, the ``Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and
Immigration Modernization Act.''
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s744is/pdf/BILLS-
113s744is.pdf
The drafters of S. 744 promise to ensure that this is a
successful permanent reform to our immigration system that will
not need to be revisited. The drafters seek an end to the
problem of illegal immigration for once and for all. While this
is a laudable and necessary goal, their bill falls far short of
achieving it. In order to effectively deal with the problem of
illegal immigration and ensure that future generations do not
have to deal with legalizing millions more people, we need to
take a look at our past mistakes. We need to ensure that we do
not repeat them.
President Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control
Act, or IRCA, into law on November 6, 1986. The bill provided
for three main reforms: legalizing the millions of immigrants
already in the country, increasing border enforcement, and
instituting penalties for employers who hired unauthorized
workers, in order to stop the flow of new unlawful immigrants.
These reforms were based on the realization that if Congress
simply passed a legalization program we would simply be
encouraging future illegal immigration. The Select Commission
on Immigration had warned just a few years earlier that without
more effective enforcement, legalization could serve as a
stimulus to further illegal entry.
Unfortunately, IRCA's enforcement measures never
materialized, and the Commission's fears were realized. Border
security barely improved. Employer penalties were not enforced.
Now, 26 years later, all of us who want to fix our broken
immigration system are haunted by the legacy of IRCA's failure,
and we have serious concerns that S. 744 repeats some of IRCA's
mistakes.
Many advocacy groups who are ardent supporters of S. 744
are on record stating that they do not want legalization to be
dependent on border security and enforcement triggers. Indeed,
whether or not it contains triggers, the Senate bill is
unlikely to secure the border. It requires DHS to simply submit
a border security plan to initiate the legalization of 11
million unlawful immigrants. Without securing the border, and
with a simple submission of a plan, unlawful immigrants become
eligible for registered provisional immigrant status.
The legalization of unlawful immigrants continues to
advance with just a certification that the border security
strategy is substantially deployed and substantially
operational in the sole discretion of the Secretary. Note that
the strategy does not have to be complete or be even more than
a fantasy.
In addition, S. 744 ostensibly mandates employer use of E-
Verify. Now, this is a necessary element of any real
immigration reform if we want to end the jobs magnet for future
illegal immigration. However, S. 744 doesn't fully implement E-
Verify for up to 7 years. In addition, it actually forces
employers to employ, pay, and train unlawful immigrants for
years should they pursue never-ending baseless appeals of their
E-Verify nonverifications.
Further, whatever enforcement provisions are in S. 744 are
subject to implementation by the current Administration, which
fails to enforce the laws already on the books. The Department
of Homeland Security is releasing thousands of illegal and
criminal immigrant detainees while providing ever-changing
numbers to Congress regarding the same. The Department of
Homeland Security is forbidding ICE officers from enforcing the
laws they are bound to uphold. A Federal judge has already
ruled DHS' actions likely in violation of Federal law. DHS is
placing whole classes of unlawful immigrants in enforcement-
free zones. DHS claims to be removing more aliens than any
other Administration, but has to generate bogus numbers in
order to do so.
Ultimately, the American people have little trust, where
the Administration has not enforced the law in the past, it
will do so in the future. That is why real immigration reform
needs to have mechanisms to ensure that the president cannot
simply turn off the switch, any president turn off the switch
on immigration enforcement. And let me add that I do not single
out the current Administration because previous Administrations
of both parties have had similar failings. The Senate bill
contains no such mechanisms.
The last time Congress passed a major immigration reform
bill, its goal was to start with a clean slate and then stop
the flow of illegal migrants across the border. But in the
years after the bill passed illegal immigration surged. So the
question remains: Are we learning lessons from the past or
repeating the same mistakes?
While I commend the Senate for their continuing efforts to
tackle the extremely difficult task of reforming our broken
system, I must observe that S. 744 repeats many of the mistakes
of the past.
I look forward to continuing to work in the House to find
solutions to reform our broken immigration system, including
establishing effective mechanisms to make certain that our laws
are indeed enforced going forward. And I again applaud those
Members of the House, including several Members of this
Committee, on both sides of the aisle, who are working in a
constructive way to try to address this very important issue.
And at this time it is my pleasure to recognize the Ranking
Member of the Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Conyers, for his opening statement.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte.
I appreciate the fact that the ball is now in our court
here in the House. And we want to look carefully at the 1986
law and its legalization provision. Some say the bill granted
undocumented immigrants amnesty in the law signed by President
Reagan.
Most undocumented immigrants who qualified for legalization
received temporary status. Those temporary residents were
allowed to apply for a green card after just 1 year, and
agricultural workers were allowed to apply for a green card
immediately, without any period of temporary status. And so the
law in 1986 imposed neither a penalty nor a fine. And so I
think an overly critical examination of the 1986 law would be
hard pressed to say that the Senate bill provides amnesty. It
doesn't. And that's the difference. That's one huge difference.
Under the Senate bill, undocumented immigrants who register
must pay a $1,000 fine and are placed into a provisional status
for a full 10 years. Throughout that period, they of course
must remain employed, satisfy the requirements of good
citizenship, make sure they have no tax liabilities to remain
eligible for provisional status. But the one thing it does is
it takes them out of the shadows and gives them an opportunity
to earn permanent status.
Remember, too, that in 1986 they were protecting the
borders with flashlights and outdated equipment. We now have a
much more effective system. And we ought to, we're spending
about $18 billion a year on it. And we've talked to ICE and
Immigration people repeatedly about whether we're getting our
money's worth in that circumstance.
Another criticism of the 1986 law is that while the
legalization program went forward, the promised enforcement
never followed. There may be truth to this, and I am not sure.
But even if enforcement didn't increase much in the years
immediately following, it's certainly picked up now. And this
Committee I think has done a good job in trying to make sure
that it's doing a much better point in making certain that we
get enforcement.
Now, according to the analysis of the Immigration Policy
Center, the Federal Government has spent a total of $186.6
dollars on immigration enforcement. Each year, we detain and
remove record numbers of people, spend more money on
immigration than on all other Federal law enforcement efforts
combined.
And still the Senate responds to some of that criticism by
preventing undocumented immigrants from registering for
provisional status until the Department of Homeland Security
has begun to implement two new strategies: the strategy to gain
effective control of the southwest border and a southwest
border fencing strategy. And provisional immigrants cannot get
a green card unless and until the border strategies are
substantially operational or completed, and that the E-Verify,
a new technique that we think is going to be pretty effective,
is mandatory for all employers, and that the Department of
Homeland Security has an electronic exit system at air and sea
ports to identify visa overstays.
And maybe the most important way that the Senate bill
differs from the 1986 law is that it sets out to actually fix
our broken immigration system. The bill aims to prevent future
illegal immigration by facilitating legal immigration. And in
many ways the biggest failure of the 1986 legislation was that
it didn't leave us with an immigration system capable of
meeting the future immigration needs of the country, no way to
satisfy our agricultural needs and our non-agricultural needs
as well. And so as a result, we need to make sure that we fix
the system, and this discussion with our distinguished
witnesses is one way to move this forward.
I think that we can do it. I think we've got something to
build on. I applaud the other body for reporting this work
finally at last. But nothing is perfect, and perhaps we may be
the ones that help improve it. Thank you very, very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman for a fine opening
statement.
And without objection all other Members' opening statements
will be made a part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holding follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable George Holding, a Representative in
Congress from the State of North Carolina, and Member, Committee on the
Judiciary
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Our immigration system is certainly broken and in desperate need of
repair. I applaud the Senate's efforts to create a bipartisan
immigration bill. I appreciate the amount of time, energy, and
cooperation that went into forming this bill.
However, I have some concerns about the Senate's proposal. In 1986,
the nation was facing an immigration problem similar to what we are
dealing with today. There were millions of undocumented aliens living
in America, and the situation was made worse by the fact that many
employers were hiring these illegal workers off the books and paying
them less than U.S. workers. As a result, Congress passed the
Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). This legalized millions of
immigrants and established laws restricting the employment of
undocumented persons.
However, due to lax enforcement and insufficient internal controls,
IRCA has not been effective in regulating illegal immigration, and now
we are back in the same situation we were in nearly thirty years ago.
Problematically, the current Senate bill does adequately address the
enforcement failures of these immigration laws. In fact, it goes so far
as to weaken some of the enforcement laws already in existence.
For example, since 1996, the Department of Homeland Security has
operated a biometric entry-and-exit system at land, air, and sea ports
to authenticate visas of people going in and out of the U.S. The Senate
bill rolls back this requirement to require an ``electronic'' exit
system at air and sea ports only. A biometric system will only be
required at ten U.S. airports. This increases the possibility that
illegal immigration will go unnoticed or that temporary visitors will
overstay their visas.
The enforcement of existing immigration laws is one of the most
important aspects of any forthcoming immigration legislation this
Congress. If the Senate bill proceeds as currently drafted, we will be
taking a big step backward instead of moving forward. I believe we need
to take a second look at these provisions and make sure we do
immigration reform right this time.
__________
Mr. Goodlatte. We welcome our distinguished panel today.
And if you would all rise, we'll begin by swearing you in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you. And let the record reflect that
all the witnesses responded in the affirmative.
We have a very distinguished panel of witnesses joining us
today, and I'll begin by introducing all of them. Our first
witness is Julie Myers Wood, the president of Compliance,
Federal Practice and Software Solutions at Guidepost Solutions
LLC, an immigration investigation and compliance firm. Ms. Wood
served as the Assistant Secretary of DHS at Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, or ICE, for nearly 3 years. Under her
leadership, the agency set new enforcement records with respect
to immigration enforcement, export enforcement, and
intellectual property rights. Ms. Wood earned a bachelor's
degree at Baylor University and graduated cum laude from
Cornell Law School.
Our second witness today is Mr. Chris Crane, who currently
serves as the president of the National Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Council, American Federation of Government
Employees. He has worked as an immigration enforcement agent
for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security since 2003. Prior to his
service at ICE, Mr. Crane served for 11 years in the United
States Marine Corps.
Chris, we thank you for your service and being with us here
today.
Our final witness Mr. David Aguilar, the former Deputy
Commissioner of the U.S. Customs And Border Patrol. Prior to
this appointment, he was the Chief Patrol Agent of the Tucson
Sector, United States Border Patrol. In that position, Mr.
Aguilar was responsible for all operational and administrative
functions of the sector. Previously, Mr. Aguilar served in
various locations as a Border Patrol officer. He received an
associate's degree from Laredo Community College and is a
graduate of the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
Senior Executive Fellows.
Thank you all for joining us. And we will begin with Ms.
Wood. Each of the witnesses' written statements will be entered
into the record in its entirety. I ask that each witness
summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help
you stay within that time, there is a timing light on your
table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you will
have 1 minute to conclude your testimony; when the light turns
red, it signals that the witness' 5 minutes have expired.
Ms. Wood, welcome back.
TESTIMONY OF JULIE MYERS WOOD, PRESIDENT, COMPLIANCE, FEDERAL
PRACTICE AND SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, GUIDEPOST SOLUTIONS
Ms. Wood. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte,
Ranking Member Conyers, and Members of the Committee.
In my view, it's very encouraging to see the progress in
the Senate with the passage yesterday of S. 744 out of the
Judiciary Committee. And as the Chairman has indicated, this
Committee has also spent a lot of time looking and thinking
about how we can improve our immigration system. And I was
honored to be asked to testify today in my personal capacity
because as a supporter of immigration reform, I want to help
ensure that we don't repeat the mistakes of prior legislation.
As such, I think it's critical that we bring some
perspective to potential provisions in S. 744 that could be
problematic before the bill is enacted while these issues could
still be addressed. Of course, now any bill is not going to be
perfect, either from an enforcement perspective or from an
advocacy perspective. If we wait for perfect legislation, we're
never going to have a bill, all apologies to the distinguished
Members of the Committee.
At the same time, I do think we have an obligation to the
American public to seek immigration reform that would improve
our system and not just pass our unresolved problems down to
the next generation. Today I wanted to highlight four areas
where I think improvements can be made to ensure successful
reform.
First, I think successful reform needs to protect and
assist interior enforcement efforts. In this regard, I think
one of the most critical things, when reading the bill--I think
that the bill has a lot of safety valves that really have
discretion in an immigrant's favor. And a lot of those waivers
are needed, a lot of that discretion is needed to protect the
rights of immigrants.
What the bill is missing, in my view, is the same sorts of
safety valves in terms of enforcement equities and enforcement
exceptions. For example, in section 2101, DHS is required to
provide all aliens apprehended before or during the application
period a reasonable opportunity to apply for provisional
status, and they may not remove an individual until a final
administrative determination is made. There's no exception,
none, for public safety or national security situations. There
should be a public safety exception, a safety valve in favor of
enforcement equities. I see the same sort of thing in the
general scope of the waiver provision in section 2313. So I
think we need to look at the bill and see, are there places
where there need to be waivers in favor of enforcement
equities.
Interviews, I think, should also be required before
granting legalization. Even IRCA required interviews. If you
combine this with the lack of electronic filing--and I know
it's tough, I know that's tough for USCIS--we're in a place
where we're credentialing people who we don't know and of whose
backgrounds we're unsure.
In my view, to avoid fraud, the confidentiality provisions
should be further limited in scope. Sections 2104 and 2212 in
my view have overbroad confidentiality provisions. One of the
most widespread problems back in 1986 was the confidential red
sheet and the fraud it festered. While it's understandable that
we want to encourage individuals to apply for provisional
status, it's important that there be some consequences for not
telling the truth. Under the current legislative framework,
there are no consequences. Combine that with the failure to
mandate the interview, and I think we're starting to see some
significant vulnerabilities in this area.
I think the issue of really tailoring the confidentiality
provisions is particularly important given the litigation that
occurred after IRCA. We've got to remember there's going to be
litigation here and the Secretary has to have the discretion to
provide this information when it's needed.
Next, successful reform must improve the overall
immigration court and removal process. We've got to think about
this holistically. And I do think S. 744 provides some
improvements in this area, particularly including the provision
mandating counsel for certain vulnerable populations and
increasing the legal orientation program.
However, there are certain areas that are undermined, where
current law is undermined. And one of those areas is I think
the bill effectively repeals the ability to utilize stipulated
removals. Under S. 744, stipulated removals have to be in
person. That effectively defeats the stipulated removal
process, a process that over 20,000 individuals have used over
the past few years.
Third, I think successful reform must fully address the
third border, create an exit system that is biometric, and
doesn't just include air, but also includes land, that's a
comprehensive exit system.
And finally, successful reform must provide effective tools
to reduce unlawful employment. And thinking about the magnet
and how we can reduce it, I think there are two provisions in
S. 744 that are very problematic. The first one is that
legislation appears to prohibit employers from using tools to
combat identity theft. And that is something that I think is
very troubling to employers. The second thing is I think the
extraneous appellate processes, those are going to bog down the
employment system and make a system really not work.
As a former enforcement chief and veteran of the last
debate, I know these are tough issues. I hope that Congress
will consider looking at these issues and improving S. 744 to
address some of those law enforcement concerns.
Thank you.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wood follows:]
__________
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Crane, welcome.
TESTIMONY OF CHRIS CRANE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT COUNCIL 118, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. Crane. Thank you. And good afternoon, Chairman
Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and Members of the
Committee.
With my written testimony, I included a letter to Congress
outlining general law enforcement concerns with the gang of
eight bill on immigration reform.
In this letter the ICE union is joined by the union
representing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Both
unions represent approximately 20,000 Federal employees
handling the bulk of interior immigration enforcement.
Additionally, 113 sheriffs nationwide are represented on the
letter, as well as the National Association of Former Border
Patrol Officers. Individuals and groups continue to sign the
letter to express their concern that Senate bill 744 fails on
matters of public safety, border security, and overall
enforcement. I sincerely hope that Members of the House will,
unlike the gang of eight, include law enforcement in the
development of future legislation.
On April 18, 2013, I attended a gang of eight press
conference. The room was filled with supporters. There was a
lot of joking, a lot of laughing. There was a lot of talk about
what a great humanitarian effort this bill represents. I
remember thinking how at that very moment ICE agents on our
southern border were being overwhelmed by a dramatic increase
in illegal aliens crossing the border, most claiming to have
entered based on rumors of the new gang of eight amnesty,
thousands of these aliens being unaccompanied children,
runaways, making the treacherous trip across the border by
themselves.
Crossings by illegal aliens seeking amnesty will likely
continue for years. Many may die or be victimized. ICE is
already offering transfers to permanently move more officers to
the border.
There is a reason why many in law enforcement have
repeatedly said let's slow this down, let's take the time to do
this right, starting by putting enforcement mechanisms in place
that will deter illegal entry and stop tragedies like this from
happening.
``Enforcement'' is not a dirty word. Enforcement saves
lives. Our union has been telling America and Congress that ICE
and DHS officials are ignoring public safety, the agency's law
enforcement mission, and the laws enacted by Congress, carrying
out their own personal political agendas. I hope that the
targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, as well as other
scandals recently in the media, to include ICE and DHS lies
uncovered last week regarding hundreds of criminal and
convicted felons that ICE recently released into U.S.
Communities without warning, will lend credence to what we have
been saying for years.
There is no oversight of political appointees and other
high-ranking managers within Federal agencies. The heads of DHS
and ICE have overridden Congress and determined that certain
laws will not be enforced. They came to this conclusion shortly
before our Nation's last presidential election. Employees
reported that managers at ICE headquarters told employees that
amnesty-related policies had to be implemented in advance of
the election. Policies implemented by ICE and DHS managers have
become so contrary to law and public safety that ICE agents
have been forced to file a lawsuit against the heads of both
ICE and DHS.
According to Ken Palinkas, union president of employees,
and employee of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
high-ranking managers within USCIS have implemented similar
policies. USCIS employees are being pressured to approve all
applications, even when red flags are present. Proper
investigation of applications is not being done. USCIS
employees are discouraged by managers from denying
applications. Palinkas says USCIS has become an approval
machine, that officers are discouraged from placing illegal
aliens into immigration proceedings and discouraged from
contacting ICE agents in cases that should have ICE's
involvement.
In closing, as law enforcement officers we have never taken
a position on matters such as the numbers or types of visas to
be issued or a path to citizenship. We simply seek to assist in
creating laws that can and will be enforced and that provide
for public safety. In our opinion, the single most significant
task that Congress must complete in any immigration reform
legislation is that every opportunity to take away or limit the
authority and discretion of political appointees and Presidents
so that the laws enacted by Congress will be followed and
enforced. Thank you. And that concludes my testimony.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Crane.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crane follows:]
ATTACHMENT
__________
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Aguilar, welcome.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID V. AGUILAR, PARTNER, GLOBAL SECURITY AND
INTELLIGENCE STRATEGIES (GSIS)
Mr. Aguilar. Good afternoon, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking
Member Conyers, and distinguished Members of the Committee. It
is truly a pleasure to be here this afternoon to testify on S.
744. I've testified many times before this Committee, before
other Committees as chief of the Border Patrol in Tucson
Sector, the most active sector in the United States, as
national chief of the Border Patrol, as Deputy Commissioner of
Customs and Border Protection, and lastly, as Acting
Commissioner of CBP.
I believe this is the first time that I testify as a plain
citizen, the most important position that any one of us can
actually hold. I look forward to testifying today along with my
distinguished and fellow members here.
I believe that the subject of today's hearing is of
critical importance to the Nation. Our country has been
struggling with the issue of immigration reform for many
decades. It is a matter that captures our Nation's attention
and generates deep, some would say visceral emotions. One thing
that the vast number of Americans agree on, and I also agree on
this, is that our Nation's immigration system is in fact
broken.
I spent 35 years working the borders of our country at many
levels within the organizations responsible for the security of
those borders. We have made tremendous advances in securing our
Nation's borders. Illegal immigration that flows across our
borders must be controlled. That is something that we have to
do. But we must understand that controlling the illegal flow of
persons is but one of the many challenges that the men and
women who stand the line face each and every day. Officers and
agents also combat the illegal flow of narcotics, criminals,
criminal organizations, weapons, bulk currency, and cartel
activities into our country. Controlling, mitigating, managing,
and addressing each and every one of these flows is critical to
the security of our Nation.
But right now, the most taxing and workload-intensive
aspect of the job that we do, that I used to do, is the work
that goes into controlling the illegal flow of people. A
comprehensive and balanced immigration reform plan that
guarantees a workable legal flow of immigrants in the future
and thereby diminishes the flow of illegal entrants would allow
the men and women who secure our borders to focus time and
resources on those other threats and would significantly
enhance our Nation's security overall.
The best way to do this is to successfully design and
implement a comprehensive and balanced immigration reform bill
that will finally respond to the demands of the American people
and fix our broken immigration system. Despite the advances in
border security that we have made over the years, and there
have been many, this is a problem that we cannot fix through
enforcement alone. We need an immigration system that allows us
to meet our Nation's labor needs, further enhances our border
security efforts, implements an employment verification system
with meaningful employer sanctions for violators, and provides
a tough but fair path to legal status for the current
unauthorized population.
The importance of providing for future legal flows must be
taken into account. I believe this is the most important lesson
that we can learn from IRCA 1986. We need to make sure that
people who come here to join close family members or to fill
needed jobs, American jobs, come in through the ports of entry,
are subjected to background checks, and are admitted legally
for proper reasons and under appropriate conditions. Based on
my current review of the bipartisan Senate immigration reform
bill, I believe that it contains the general foundational
pieces to set up such a successful system.
Before I speak too much on this, but I need to put this in
current context, is allow me to provide that context. During
IRCA there was about 3,000 United States Border Patrol agents
along the entire southwest border. Today there are 21,380
operating along our Nation's southwest border. We literally
operated with technology at the time that consisted of handheld
flashlights, Vietnam-era sensors, very little lighting on the
border, and certainly none of the outstanding technology that
our agents work with today. Fencing infrastructure was
nonexistent.
The difference between then and now is stark. We are at a
time of opportunity. Our Nation's borders are safer and more
secure than they have ever been before. The flows of illegal
crossings are at their lowest point in over 40 years. Since its
inception, DHS has added a tremendous amount of resources and
capabilities to the borders.
Our partnership with Mexico is something that we must speak
about. It has come a long way. We work very closely with our
partners in Mexico on both sides of the border. There is a
resolute effort to bring control to our borders. There is a
recognition on the parts of U.S. officers and Mexican officers
that we have a joint responsibility to secure our borders.
Reduce crimes along the southwest border by 40 percent.
More border fence and infrastructure than ever before, 650
miles of border fence and infrastructure. Largest civilian law
enforcement air force in the world, including 10 UAS's. Over
23,000 Customs and Border Protection officers at our ports of
entry. An 80 percent reduction of apprehensions along our
Nation's southwest border since the peak year in 2000 when we
apprehended over 1.6 million and a 40 percent reduction in
apprehensions just from 2008. It is against this backdrop of
record border enforcement that we must view the bipartisan
immigration reform bill that is now moving through the Senate.
A critical component of any comprehensive and balanced
immigration reform system includes a strong means to crack down
on the draw of jobs magnet. We have discussed already what it's
going to take to do that. A key lesson that we should take away
from the debacle of IRCA 1986 is that it addressed legalization
of the illegal population and implemented what turned out to be
a very, very weak employer sanctions program. We must address
that.
The Senate bill appears to meet a lot of things that we
have spoken about today. And critically important, it provides
for continued enforcement resources to be acquired and applied
under strategies to be developed by DHS and CBP.
Chairman, Committee, I look forward to any questions that
you might have of me.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aguilar follows:]
__________
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Goodlatte. We'll now proceed with questioning under the
5-minute rule. And before I do so, I would ask unanimous
consent to enter into the record four letters expressing
concern over Senate bill S. 744. One from Senator Chuck
Grassley from the Judicial Conference--I'm sorry. One to
Senator Chuck Grassley from the Judicial Conference of the
United States, sent on May 7 of this year. Another from the
National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, sent to
the so-called Senate gang of eight on May 2. The third item is
an open letter from the Coalition Against S. 744, a group of
over 150 conservative leaders in the U.S., noting that this
will legislation is defective and urging a no vote. The final
letter, submitted by Mr. Crane, comes from the National
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council of the American
Federation of Government Employees,* a diverse group of law
enforcement officers and their representatives, expressing
concern regarding S. 744 within the law enforcement community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*See letter, page 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, without objection, I would ask to enter a press
release from the American Federation of Government Employees,
dated Monday, May 20, entitled ``USCIS Union President;
Lawmakers Should Oppose Senate Immigration Bill, Support
Immigration Service Officers.''
Without objection, they will be made a part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
__________
__________
__________
__________
Mr. Goodlatte. My first question I'll address to all three
of you. And since I have several other questions I want to ask,
and I'm going to try to strictly limit all the Members' time to
5 minutes, because we have a lot of Members interested in this
issue, I'd ask you to answer as briefly as possible.
Is there any provision in S. 744 that would prevent the
President from simply deciding not to enforce the immigration
laws? Ms. Wood?
Ms. Wood. I'm not aware of any provision that would do
that.
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Crane?
Mr. Crane. I'm not aware of any provision that would do
that, sir.
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Aguilar?
Mr. Aguilar. Not aware, sir. Same here.
Mr. Goodlatte. My second question is addressed to Mr.
Crane. How broad is the executive branch's discretionary
authority in this bill? Do you think that S. 744 continues the
trend toward our Founding Fathers' fear that there will be an
all-powerful executive branch?
Mr. Crane. That is exactly my feel for this bill, Chairman.
It seems to give unlimited authority and discretion to the
Secretary of DHS.
Mr. Goodlatte. My next question is directed to Ms. Wood.
Isn't interior enforcement an essential component of
immigration policy in order to locate and apprehend illegal
immigrants who have successfully evaded U.S. Border Patrol and
who have entered legally but who chose not to leave when
required to do so? And do you believe that this bill recognizes
the critical nature of this interior enforcement with estimates
as high as 35 to 40 percent of those not lawfully present in
the United States having entered lawfully and therefore the
border enforcement issue, while very important, is by no means
the total enforcement issue that we need to focus on?
Ms. Wood. Chairman, I do think that the interior
enforcement provisions could be strengthened, that the exit
provision in particular could be strengthened, which would
really help us to address the problem of overstays more
effectively.
And then the funding stream for interior enforcement. The
funding provided for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
is not the same as the kind of funding that's provided to CBP
over the years, and we have got to make sure that the interior
of the country, those agents working there, ERO as well as HSI,
have the resources they need to do the job.
The other thing that I would say that I think is very
important is that I do think the bill limits a lot of
discretion in terms of ICE's ability to use its current
authorities to arrest and detain individuals who may have ties
to national security or terrorist organizations, but we don't
have enough evidence yet to bring criminal charges against
them. And so I think that is an area that really needs to be
focused on, you know, does the Department have enough
discretion to exercise law enforcement equities to hold
individuals or to bring certain kinds of immigration charges
against them.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
And, Mr. Crane, you--I'm sorry, Mr. Aguilar--you mention in
your testimony on page 9 that one of the key takeaways from the
debacle of the IRCA, the 1986 law, is that the same broken
system that existed before IRCA was enacted continued to exist
after the law was enacted. Mr. Crane suggests that the current
Administration blocks ICE officers from enforcing our Nation's
laws, and that is the subject of litigation right now.
What specifically does S. 744 do to ensure that the agents
responsible for enforcing our Nation's immigration laws are, in
fact, able to do so.
Mr. Aguilar. As I stated on my testimony, sir, I firmly
believe that interior enforcement is a critically important
aspect of any immigration reform bill. Carrying out basically,
as Mr. Crane put forth a few minutes ago, carrying out the laws
that are on the books currently, being allowed to do that, is
absolutely important. It has to be allowed.
I also added critically important is resourced at the right
levels. That is one of the things that was not done in IRCA of
1986. Interior enforcement was not carried out because
investigations was not resourced, beds were not available, and
frankly we just didn't have enough people to do the job.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you very much.
And I'm going to get all my questions in under the limit
here.
So, Ms. Wood, the last one is for you. And that is, why is
it problematic for a State or locality to refuse to cooperate
with ICE enforcement officers?
Ms. Wood. All kind of reasons. But, you know, one of them
is that we're paying those State and local authorities to house
illegal aliens under the SCAAP program in certain instances.
But if it's Federal enforcement and Federal authorities have
the responsibility to carry out the job, your State and local
entities shouldn't be allowed to go off on their own and create
their own law by refusing to enforce ICE detainers or refusing
to cooperate with ICE. It's been very problematic in the past,
particularly when you think about the jail environment and you
think about what ICE has tried to do with Secure Communities.
When ICE doesn't have the cooperation from an entity like the
difficulties ICE had with Cook County, for example, makes it
very, very hard to rid the streets of individuals who not only
came here illegally or are now here illegally, but also
committed serious crimes.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you very much. Thank you all.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan,
Mr. Conyers, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte.
I begin by noting, Members of the Committee, that we have
joined as our guests this afternoon the United We Dream, the
largest immigrant youth-led organization in the country, made
up of 52 affiliate organizations in 25 States that are here to
learn about what we're doing and to bear witness to their
concern and desire to see that we get the best legislation on
immigration that we possibly can. And if I may, I'd like them
to just stand up for a moment. All the people in United We
Dream.
Okay. Thank you very much. You may sit down.
We have got some big problems here. We have one witness
that is a veteran, but unrelentingly opposed to Senate bill
744. We have the former leader of ICE, who has put forward some
very important criticisms of 744 in which it might be improved.
And we have a third witness who supports S. 744. What concerns
me is that sometimes when you're comparing what it was like in
1986 with where we are in 2013, you know, looking back
sometimes you always don't get it perfectly right. Nobody's
perfect.
But, Ms. Woods, there have been a lot that's gone on in
that period of time, and no one would recognize that I think
more importantly or accurately than you. Increased resources,
agents, aircraft, build fencing, border enforcement, which we
all know was a tragedy. And so we're trying to design an
immigration system that provides a viable legal way for
immigrants to come to this country. We want a path. And at the
same time we need to combat the people that would illegally
come in, the drug smugglers, the weapons traffickers, and all.
Do you think we're on the right track here and with our
discussions today and others that we might be able to come out
of this holding our heads up, saying that we took the lessons
of 1986 and instead of trying to trash the past and glorify the
future, maybe there's something that people can seriously, in a
bipartisan way, come forward with something that we'll all be
able to acknowledge as a good faith effort.
Ms. Wood. Yes. I definitely think we are on the right
track. I think there are places where important improvements
should be made and that we have an obligation to think about
those so in 2020 we're not looking back and say, what did we do
here, this is not an enforceable thing, we have a problem from
a national security perspective. But I think because of the
long-term problems we've had with immigration, we've got to
look at reforming and changing our system. And so I'm very
encouraged that all of Congress is thinking about how can we do
that and how can we do that smartly.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much.
I just wanted, Mr. Aguilar, if he can, to add his
experience. You've been a career government employee in ICE. Do
you think we can get this thing together? Do you see that there
is hope to develop a pathway?
Mr. Aguilar. I do. I support this, with criticism and
critiques that I've outlined in my testimony.
Mr. Conyers. Yes, you have.
Mr. Aguilar. We need to fix some of the problems that have
been articulated here today, because if we don't, we may end up
with a situation like IRCA. But the support that I give is
specifically to border security. If we can reduce the flow of
illegal aliens coming into this country, we can redirect the
tremendous resource capability that we have against the other
threats, vulnerabilities, and risks that are very much real on
today's border.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. Time of the gentleman has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Sensenbrenner, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I think all of us here, and I certainly subscribe to that,
say that our current immigration system is broke. And I think
we have to look at both the legal immigration and the illegal
immigration part to figure out how to fix it and fix it in the
best way possible.
I certainly salute the people who have been working on
this. This is a minefield, and as the person who tried to do
this last, in 2005 and 2006 and 2007, let me say that this
isn't easy and it probably is the most difficult thing that the
Congress will have to face because there are so many
conflicting interests involved.
The Chairman in his opening statement referred to the
select commission that was appointed by President Carter in
1979 and was headed by Father Theodore Hesburgh, who at that
time was the president of Notre Dame University and is being
honored here this week, on his 96th birthday. Father Hesburgh
was an admitted liberal. He still is and will tell you that.
And his commission came up with a recommendation that basically
said that we have to control the border and we have to enforce
employer sanctions. And, significantly, he said that they
should not--or Congress should not have any form of
legalization or amnesty until the border control and the
employer sanctions were in place, lest that bring about an
increase in illegal immigration in the country.
Well, Congress ignored the select committee's
recommendations, passed IRCA. Father Hesburgh was right and
Ronald Reagan was wrong, because we had about 3.5 million
illegal immigrants in the country then and now we have about 11
million illegal immigrants.
The fear that I have is that unless we effectively control
illegal immigration now, we will be slowly closing the door to
legal immigration, because if one can become a citizen of the
United States after breaking our laws quicker than jumping
through all of the hoops both before their entry and after
they're here to be able to be naturalized as a United States
citizen, who's going to bother obeying the laws and filing
applications for an immigrant visa at our embassies and
consulates overseas. And that will mean that we repeat the
mistake of IRCA and probably compound it even more.
I think this is our last best chance to get it right, and
we better get it right this time, otherwise we are going to
have a system that is even worse and a problem that is even
bigger than what we have today.
Now, my question is, looking at Senate bill 744, what three
changes do you think are necessary to make sure that the
mistake of IRCA is not repeated? And in what order priority
would you suggest these changes?
And we'll start with Mrs. Wood.
Ms. Wood. Thank you. And I certainly agree that we've got
to address this now in order to avoid repeating the problems.
I think first I would deal with the employer verification
section. Five to 7 years is too long for all employees to have
to go through the system. And the inability to verify an
existing workforce is going to create an uncleared workforce.
And so there's going to be a lot of illegal migration and
problems with that workforce. And so I think that needs to be
addressed and fixed.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, it would make the existing
workforce effectively indentured servants.
Ms. Wood. That's exactly right. And unscrupulous employers
could take advantage of those individuals, you know, pay them
substandard wages or treat them poorly. It's problematic for a
whole host of reasons.
Second, I think the government's really got to address the
identity theft issue more strongly and more effectively, kind
of from day one, to give the employer some tools. And if
they're not going to give the employers tools, at least take
away the provision in 744 that appears to prohibit employers
from using some of the manual and automated tools that they are
currently using. I think that's a big problem for companies who
are really trying to wrestle with how does a good faith
exception apply to us if we repeatedly have people that evade
the existing E-Verify system. So I would focus a lot of effort
on that.
I think the second thing is resources. Make sure that
interior enforcement has enough resources and that the court
system has enough resources. If it were me, I'd revamp the
whole immigration court system. That may not be realistic. You
know, we're biting off an awful lot. But, you know, kind of
look at that.
And then third, make sure national security equities are
protected.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you.
I think my time has expired.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman's time has expired.
And the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Prior to IRCA, we had a largely unenforced border. We had
something like 2,100 border enforcement people for the entire
border. We made very little attempt to enforce the border
crossings. And yet in the 22 years between the end of the
Bracero program in 1964 and IRCA in 1986, it's estimated that
28 million people from Mexico entered the U.S. and 23.4 million
returned to Mexico, that there was a, in a largely unenforced
border and no law preventing U.S. Employers from hiring
undocumented individuals, there was a circular migration
pattern and very little net migration, illegal migration to the
United States.
But this began to change in 1986. And some people have
observed that once we started really enforcing the border and
people no longer felt free to come and go, people came here,
stayed, and brought their family because they were afraid to
try to go home and then to try to come back again. And the
median stay of undocumented Mexicans before 1986 was 2.6 years;
by 1988 it had risen to 6.6 years.
This seems to say that border enforcement spending all that
money simply got us a lot more net illegal immigration. Would
you comment on that? Ms. Wood, then Mr. Aguilar.
Ms. Wood. I'm not familiar with that, those particular
statistics. But I think, you know, we have to look at are there
unintended consequences, like you said, and would this bill
create any unintended consequences, kind of we're not happy
with. And if we have a workable program where temporary workers
can come in, where supply meets demand, then hopefully we won't
see those things.
I will say, as head of ICE, we did see seasonal shifts in
migration. So there were a lot of people that were, you know,
coming in and going back home. So we did see that sort of
activity as well----
Mr. Nadler. And less after IRCA or no big change from IRCA
or
Ms. Wood. I wasn't there in 1986, so this was more recent.
But maybe----
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Aguilar?
Mr. Aguilar. I'm a little older than Ms. Wood, so I was
there.
What you just described so adequately, Congressman, are the
results of a broken immigration system. We added border
enforcement. We should have added that. What we didn't add was
interior enforcement. What we didn't add was strong employer
sanctions. What we didn't add was strong employer verification
capabilities. And we didn't add the follow-up capabilities of
the illegal population in the country. When you add one piece
of what is required, those are the results.
Mr. Nadler. And do you think S. 744, whatever the number is
of the Senate bill, does a reasonable job of integrating these
different pieces?
Mr. Aguilar. It does a reasonable job. There are some
critiques and criticisms that we have. You've heard some of
them already. But this is first time that we actually get a
comprehensive piece of legislation that addresses what I
believe all of us think are foundational to a good immigration
system.
Mr. Nadler. And so you think that with the increased border
enforcement that we've been doing and will continue to do, and
with the E-Verification system and the verification here, and
with trying to match employee needs and employment, that is,
needs for employees and available workers, we should have a
balanced system where we can in fact enforce the law?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes. If we do this right, yes, sir.
Mr. Nadler. So this would be very different from IRCA then.
The lesson to learn from IRCA is not to do a one-sided
enforcement law without also dealing adequately with the
employment needs. Is that correct?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes. It should be comprehensive. It should be
holistic to the degree possible, as quickly as possible, in
order to go ahead and get this system in place.
Mr. Nadler. Okay.
Now, Ms. Wood, in your testimony you make one caveat that I
think is fairly striking. You say in a footnote that you will
not address the enforcement triggers in the Senate bill but
rather focus on how the bill will work if enacted. But those
enforcement triggers are presumably in the bill for a reason
and designed to help answer criticisms of the 1986 law.
Don't you think that by including enforcement triggers tied
to the registration of the undocumented and the ability of
provisional immigrants to obtain green cards, the Senate bill
guarantees that certain specific enforcement provisions will in
fact take place?
Ms. Wood. I think that there are some, you know,
limitations on the triggers and some qualifications on the
triggers. I didn't address those because I think reform needs
to happen regardless of those triggers and that we need to look
at our system regardless of those triggers, but, you know, if I
were to go through those, I think they could be stronger, that
the Secretary should have more requirements, that we shouldn't
allow litigation to keep agencies from doing things, et cetera.
Mr. Nadler. Okay. And my last question is, you begin your
testimony by saying that IRCA's two-pronged approach of
legalization and employer sanctions failed to stop the tide of
unauthorized employment. That's obviously true. But the main
reason for that, as Mr. Aguilar and I discussed a moment ago,
is that IRCA did not include additional necessary prongs. IRCA
set up two seasonal guest worker programs that are proving to
be problematic and did nothing to reform our laws to provide a
viable way for people to come to the country to fill needed
nonseasonal, lower-skilled jobs, and did nothing to help
families reunify.
So if the reason IRCA failed isn't because its enforcement
provisions weren't tough enough, but rather because the
immigration system it left behind didn't work any better than
the system that existed before the bill was enacted into law,
isn't that our main charge today, to design an immigration
system that works so well that families, businesses, and people
in search of work are encouraged to go through the system
rather than around it?
Ms. Wood. We definitely want to encourage people to go
through the system rather than around it. I do think that some
of the enforcement provisions in IRCA did fail and I think they
weren't strong enough, they weren't resourced enough. So I
think it's more than just the demand side. I think it was also
the enforcement side where there was good language but there
was not a lot of follow-up.
Mr. Nadler. I see my time has expired. Thank you.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair is now pleased to recognize the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Smith, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me address my first question to all of our witnesses
here today, and it is this. I believe that I have read the
relevant provisions of the Senate immigration bill, and in
regard to border enforcement, and I cannot find any deadline by
which the border is to be secured.
And my question, Mr. Aguilar, we'll start with you, if you
will, is there any year by which we can tell the American
people that the border will be secured under the terms of the
Senate immigration bill?
Mr. Aguilar. I think the first challenge that we have,
Congressman, and I believe you and I have discussed this
before, is the definition of ``secure.'' Secure right now
holds----
Mr. Smith. Beyond the definition of ``secure,'' let's just
assume that we agree on that. Is there any year by which, under
the provisions of the immigration bill, that the border will be
secure under any definition?
Mr. Aguilar. Let me describe what would, I think, get us to
a position of acceptance at the border.
Mr. Smith. No, no, and I understand that. With all respect,
I understand what the bill said. But is there any year by which
the American people can be assured that the border, in fact,
will be----
Mr. Aguilar. Not within the bill, not right now, no, sir.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Crane?
Mr. Crane. None that I'm aware of, sir.
Mr. Smith. Okay.
And Ms. Wood?
Ms. Wood. None that I'm aware of either.
Mr. Smith. Okay. In that case, why aren't we setting
ourselves up for the same problems we had with the 1986 bill if
we aren't able to assure the American people that we are going
to secure the border by a time certain?
And let me reverse the order. Ms. Wood?
Ms. Wood. For the hard one, you turned over. I think----
Mr. Smith. If we don't have a secure border and there is no
guarantee that we will ever have it, why are we repeating the
same problem we had from 1986?
Ms. Wood. The reason I believe we need to address
immigration and fix it right now is because there is not enough
resources. So some of the things I think the bill does address
and should address in a different way to get toe security of
the border is an exit system. Have a real robust exit system.
Mr. Smith. I understand that, and I appreciated your answer
a few minutes ago.
Mr. Crane?
Mr. Crane. Yes.
Mr. Smith. Why are we setting ourselves up for the same
problems if we can't have a secure border----
Mr. Crane. I think that's exactly what we're looking at. I
mean, I think that there's a complete lack of interior
enforcement in this legislation. I don't think there is any
real triggers at the border. I don't think this has been well
thought through, and I think that that's exactly where we're
headed with this legislation.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Let me go to another question because Mr.
Sensenbrenner started the question. You all did not have a
chance to respond, Mr. Crane and Mr. Aguilar. And that is this,
and I am paraphrasing him: What provisions do we need in any
immigration reform bill in order to avoid the problems of 1986?
You all have given some partial responses to that, but if you
were to give the top two or three provisions that we need in
order the avoid the problems of 1986, what would those
provisions be in an immigration reform bill?
Mr. Crane first, and then we'll go to Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Crane. Okay. I think that first and foremost, like I
said in my original testimony, that we need to take away as
much discretion and authority away from political appointees.
Mr. Smith. And is that because we don't have confidence in
Administration officials or in the President to enforce
immigration laws?
Mr. Crane. That's absolutely correct.
Mr. Smith. What immigration laws has the Administration not
enforced to date?
Mr. Crane. Well, quite a few, but, you know, one, for
example, is public charges. Others being right now, illegal
entry and visa overstay. You know, basically we have to
establish that the person has been convicted of multiple
criminal offenses before we can even make an immigration
arrest.
Mr. Smith. Okay. And, Mr. Aguilar, to go back to the
original question, what provisions should we have in any
immigration reform bill so that we could avoid the experience
we had in 1986?
Mr. Aguilar. The top three would be continued border
enforcement under this Senate bill. It's the southwest border
strategy and the fence strategy. Second would be a very, very
strong and robust interior enforcement program. And thirdly, to
the discretion piece, is to ensure that we're doing everything
we can at the border and in the interior to ensure the national
security and public safety concerns are being addressed.
Mr. Smith. Now, as far as interior enforcement goes, isn't
it the case that this bill is actually weaker than current law
when it comes to interior enforcement? And I'm thinking here of
an entry/exit system. The Senate bill only has that kind of an
entry/exit system at airports and seaports, not land ports.
Current law says land ports, which of course is where most of
the illegal entries occur. So why wouldn't this bill be even
weaker than current law when it comes to interior enforcement?
Mr. Aguilar. The current bill, right now, asks for air and
sea. Do we need the land exit?
Mr. Smith. Right.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Which is current law.
Mr. Aguilar. Which is current law.
Mr. Smith. So this bill is weaker than current law?
Mr. Aguilar. And as the head of CBP, I can tell you that we
went to everything that we could. It is literally impossible at
this point in time.
Mr. Smith. I understand, but the question is, by
definition----
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, I would agree with that. Yes, sir.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you all for your questions.
Mr. Chairman, yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Crane, you talked about lack of enforcement. How do
other Administrations compare in enforcement of immigration
laws?
Mr. Crane. I could speak mainly, sir, to the Bush
administration.
Mr. Scott. Uh-huh.
Mr. Crane. And we did have some difficulties during the
Bush administration, especially during the first 4 years.
However, during the last 4 years of that Administration, they
did pick up the pace. We did start getting resources, we did
start getting more people, and we did have more flexibility to
enforce the law, in particular in jails and prisons and things
like that.
Once this Administration came on board, there was pretty
much an immediate stop to that, and we've kind of been on a
roller coaster every day with regard to who we can and cannot
enforce. And currently we can't really do a whole lot in terms
of interior enforcement.
Mr. Scott. What about deportations, how do they compare?
Mr. Crane. Well, obviously, deportations are higher and
have continued to get higher year after year.
Mr. Scott. Higher under this Administration?
Mr. Crane. Well, let me specify on this. First of all, the
interior enforcement numbers, I'm going to tell you no, because
ICE interior enforcement numbers have actually gone down.
They're taking border patrol arrests, turning them over to ICE,
and then we're removing them and counting those as ICE
enforcement numbers when in the past both agencies were doing
their own enforcement and our interior enforcement numbers were
much higher.
Now, anecdotally, I can also tell you, the last 4 years our
officers are sitting around looking at each other saying we're
not able to go out and arrest anybody, what are we doing? We
can't even get prisoner transportflights to land in respective
cities because we don't have enough people to put them on
there. So, yes.
Mr. Scott. So resources. What did sequester do to the
Administration's ability to enforce the law?
Mr. Crane. What did sequester do, sir?
Mr. Scott. Right.
Mr. Crane. Well, sequester up to this point for ICE I don't
think has had a really big effect.
Mr. Scott. Ms. Wood, what is the present law on employment
verification and how does S. 744 change that?
Ms. Wood. Right now, and in fact it was required first
under IRCA that employers have to use the form I-9. So anyone
that is hired, you have to use a form I-9 for that. There is E-
Verify, the former basic pilot system, which is not mandatory
except for Federal contractors, and some are also required to
use that if they are in a plea agreement or something with ICE.
Under S. 744, it would phase in a mandatory system like E-
Verify over a period of 5 to 7 years for all employers, and
then it would not allow those employers to use that system on
their current workforce to E-Verify essentially existing
workers. It would also limit the ability of employers to use
anti-fraud tools. So some employers in high-risk workforces use
some anti-fraud tools to prevent identity theft. This bill
appears to prohibit that while--and those employers are worried
that they could be subject to the enhanced criminal penalties
under S. 744.
Mr. Scott. Comments have been made about the fact that we
don't keep track of people when they're in the country, when
they're coming and going. How much would an entry/exit software
system cost, if you know?
Ms. Wood. I can't give a precise number. Certainly it would
be expensive to do that. Other countries do have regulated
entry and exit systems, and it has been a requirement for, I
think, 16 or 17 years to have an exit system.
Mr. Scott. Does anybody have an estimate on the cost of
that? Can anybody make a comment about those who are here
without documentation, how many got into the country legally
and because they overstayed their visa or are no longer in
school, so forth, are not presently legal? How many people got
here legally but are now not?
Ms. Wood. Some of the estimates are between kind of 30 and
40 percent of all individuals who are not currently in the
country legally. Initially came legally but then overstayed
their visas.
Mr. Scott. Is that----
Mr. Aguilar. That is correct. That's the approximation.
Ms. Wood. But we don't know. That's the problem. That's
part of--yeah, that's part of what we need to address.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama,
Mr. Bachus, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bachus. Thank you.
Ms. Wood, you wrote an article on March 28th in the
Washington Times.
Ms. Wood. Yes.
Mr. Bachus. And let me quote you: ``The government's
purpose in detaining immigrants is not to punish them, but to
ensure that they show up for hearings and comply with removal
orders. In many cases, though, detention is not the best way to
achieve these goals. Alternatives to detention are both routine
and effective. They're employed every day, not just in the
immigration system, but in the criminal justice system of all
50 States and the Federal Government.''
I also believe in that statement. Can you explain your
views on the importance of alternatives to immigration
detention and what are some of the examples?
Ms. Wood. Certainly. And let me say I do believe that there
are some individuals that must be detained; otherwise, they
won't show up for their hearings or they pose a significant
public safety threat.
Mr. Bachus. Right.
Ms. Wood. And so it's important that ICE conduct an
individualized assessment to see whether or not a particular
individual should be detained or whether there are less
restrictive means.
For many of the individuals that come through the Secure
Communities program, regardless of whether 236(c) was on the
books, those would be individuals where detention would be
appropriate. But for many others, alternatives, you know, could
work very well. And the current alternative to the detention
system, and I do assist the company that's currently providing
that, has had a lot of successes. And what we have seen is that
immigrants who are in the alternative to detention system, they
show up for their hearings, their final hearing 99 percent of
the time. And they, if they're ordered removed, they comply
with that removal order 84 percent of time. If you compare to
individuals who are not detained but not on any sort of system,
you have about a 13 percent rate of compliance for those.
So, there are really--I think there are a lot of tools that
ICE has, everything from release on recognizance, to bonds, to
alternatives working with the NGOs, to ICE-led initiatives, to
detention, and I think it's important that ICE look at all of
those to see how could we be most effective in a cost-effective
manner that when somebody is ordered removed, they actually
comply with those orders.
Mr. Bachus. Thank you. You have concerns with the Senate
bill, but I believe I also heard you say that the enforcement
provisions, and the interior enforcement, particularly, would
be stronger than what existed in the 1986 legislation. Is that
correct? I mean, I know we've been comparing the Senate bill to
the 1986 bill, and I see a lot of differences in those two
pieces of legislation.
Ms. Wood. I mean, certainly there are some portions which
are stronger than 1986. For example, the requirement at some
point that all employers go through E-Verify, that wasn't
around, you know, back in 1986, so that is an area that's
strengthened.
I do think that the bill needs a good law enforcement red
line, to go through and see are there unintended consequences,
are there tweaks where words were added in or added out that
might really affect ICE's ability to enforce law enforcement
equities when needed.
Mr. Bachus. So, Mr. Aguilar, the Tucson area of the border,
you've made tremendous strides in security there. I think you
are up to about 85 percent, or 80, 85 percent enforcement. And
I think the problems are more El Paso and other parts of the
border. How easily is it to obtain your enforcement level that
you obtained along the border in Tucson with those other areas?
Mr. Aguilar. It is attainable by adding the right type of
the requirements and needs that we have. In the case of Tucson,
it was additional personnel, infrastructure, accessibility to
the border, and technology. We have done that in Tucson and
it's worked very well. By the way, we did that in Yuma also,
and Yuma is actually in better shape than Tucson.
Mr. Bachus. That's right. I noticed it, and I want to
compliment you because, I mean, you know, we talk about an open
border, and certainly I don't think that describes Yuma or
Tucson.
Mr. Aguilar. Correct.
Mr. Bachus. So I see my time has expired. Let me say, I
don't think President Reagan made a mistake when he allowed the
3 million immigrants who were here to obtain legal status. In
fact, I think they've been great contributors to our economy,
and he said these families came to work, they came to build,
they believed in America, and I think they've made America
better. And I think the same thing can be true of the vast,
vast majority of immigrants today, and I hope we won't lose
sight of that and say in any way that Ronald Reagan was
mistaken to believe in the value of immigration or the value of
these 3 million now Americans that contribute and their
families.
Thank you.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Bachus.
The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, is recognized
for his question.
Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I served as the Ranking Member of the Immigration
Subcommittee for one term in this Congress and the one thing I
learned more than anything else is that the devil is in the
details of this. And so I think the Committee would probably be
better served and I would be better served to have the people
who have been really working on this issue have the opportunity
to ask more questions. So I'm going to yield my time to Mr.
Gutierrez rather than ask questions that other people may have
already asked.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you, Congressman Watt.
I would like to ask a question of Mr. Crane. As part of the
solution to our broken immigration system, do you believe that
we should give a pathway to legalization to the 11 million
undocumented workers that currently exist in the United States,
and do you believe that that would help with enforcement issues
here in the United States.
Mr. Crane. Well, sir, first, like I said in my original
testimony, that's something we do not weigh in on.
Mr. Gutierrez. That you don't weigh in on. I guess a
plumber wouldn't weigh in on stopping leaks either. I guess
that would be----
Mr. Crane. I'm sorry?
Mr. Gutierrez. So you don't have a----
Mr. Crane. I'm sorry, I didn't hear----
Mr. Gutierrez [continuing]. You don't have a position? You
have an enforcement position but you don't have a position on
whether or not we can allow 11 million people to legalize in
the United States? You don't think that that helps to solve the
problem of enforcement?
Mr. Crane. Well, respectfully, sir, what we're trying to do
is let America and let lawmakers craft what type of, you know,
system we're going to have in the future, whether
legalization----
Mr. Gutierrez. Let me ask Ms. Wood that. Do you think----
Mr. Crane. Sir, could I--okay.
Mr. Gutierrez. Do you think that legalizing 11 million
people that currently live in the United States would help to
secure America?
Ms. Wood. So long as we do that properly and we go through
an appropriate process, yes, I do.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you.
Mr. Aguilar, do you believe that legalizing would help the
Border Patrol that you used to head secure the border,
legalizing the 11 million that are currently here, make America
a safer place for us?
Mr. Aguilar. Doing it in the right way and the right 11
million people, yes, sir.
Mr. Gutierrez. Great. You know what, I really like the
right 11 million people, because I think the vast majority of
those that are undocumented in this country need an opportunity
and are the right kind of people that America needs and that
they are working very, very hard.
I just want to say that, to my colleagues, I've introduced
bipartisan, bicameral legislation with then Congressman Flake,
now Senator Flake, and Kennedy and McCain, and I assure you, if
you go back to that bill, it was about 700 pages, and all I got
criticism was about the first 400 pages. They said, oh, Luis,
how could you, an advocate of immigrants, ever want an E-
Verification system, how could you want more Border Patrol
agents, how could you want more entry and exit? Look at the
book? It is very much, how could you put triggers that if these
things are not accomplished, those that you care most about,
the undocumented workers in this country, don't ever achieve
American citizenship?
You want to know why? Because I detest the system, the
broken immigration system, and I want to work with the other
side of the aisle to fix that broken immigration system,
because I think--in your former job, I mean, we hear about the
sexual exploitation that exists in the armed services of our
women. Did you ever come across evidence, as I have, as I've
visited the fields in Salinas or I've gone to apple groves in
Washington State or citrus farms in California or even
Postville where I interviewed many women who talked about the
sexual exploitation that they were submitted to day in and day
out, did you ever come across that information?
Ms. Wood. Certainly ICE pursued a number of human
trafficking and sex trafficking cases, and, you know, is very
concerned about that and supporting appropriate visa program
for those individuals.
Mr. Gutierrez. And isn't sexual exploitation of
undocumented women and our broken immigration system a stain on
our society that we are allowing that to continue to happen?
Ms. Wood. I mean, all kinds of exploitation is a stain on
our system. It means that we should move forward in a positive
manner.
Mr. Gutierrez. Because when we do separate--Ms. Wood, would
you agree we do separate American citizen children from their
parents, that there are millions of American citizen children
whose parents are undocumented, and when they are picked up and
deported they leave behind their American citizen children?
Ms. Wood. Obviously they can make the decision to take
those kids with them. But those are all the reasons why the
current system----
Mr. Gutierrez. I just wanted to make sure that somebody
from your position that was invited by the majority, would you
just agree that this is what happened? So we agree that there
are millions of American citizen children who shouldn't wake up
every day to fear an ICE agent knocking on their door and being
snatched from their parent's arms, but it happens.
And I just want to conclude by saying, to say that it
immediately stopped when this Administration. This
Administration has deported 400,000 people a year at a record
pace each and every year during the last 4 years. It has a
voracious appetite for deportations. And you know what? I want
to end that, but I want to end it in a smart, effective way,
and we will give you the smart tools of enforcement in order to
get that done.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Smith. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr.
Gutierrez.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Marino, is recognized
for his questions.
Mr. Marino. Thank you, Chairman.
First of all, I am not going to criticize the authors of
these 867 pages, which I have in the past attempted to read and
reread. My background is prosecution and law enforcement, but I
taught a little bit, and I always told my students, the most
difficult thing to do is first draft of whatever you're
writing. It's real easy for someone else to edit it after it's
written because all the work, the brain power has gone into
getting something on paper, so I commend my colleagues.
However, with that being said, I think we need to go back
through this document, both sides of the aisle, converse more
between the Senate and the House, and I'm sure that we will be
able to edit, refine, and address issues that each one of you
brought up. I think that's critically important, to address the
issues that you brought up.
So if I may ask again, and these questions were asked in
different ways, but if each one of you could specifically
suggest on what we could do to improve this new legislation but
yet at the same time holding those responsible that are here
illegally on how to address that. Do you understand my
question, Ms. Wood?
Ms. Wood. I believe so. What would I do to change the bill
while holding those responsible?
Mr. Marino. Yes.
Ms. Wood. I would require in-person interviews, limit
confidentiality, and have consequences for not telling the
truth for those who go through the system, and then allow law
enforcement to use that information as we look at further
legalizations or adjustments. So that would be one thing.
Second thing would be to develop a biometric exit system
which would help people--hold them accountable by making sure
we know who is going in and out, and have it also affect the
land borders, not just sea and water. And third would be really
to fix the employment verification.
Mr. Marino. Mr. Crane, please?
Mr. Crane. Well, sir, kind of on your first comments, I'd
just like to say a lot of our frustration, I think, on the law
enforcement end comes into play because of the way this is
being handled by the gang of eight, the way it's being shoved
through so fast.
You know, this has been going on for a while. We've got a
little bit of time. We need to get this right. I think an
important part of that is we need to bring law enforcement in,
people that actually do this job out in the field, and take a
look what's working now and what's not working.
Mr. Marino. Let me stop you right there. I agree with you
100 percent. In my past life in industry, I brought in the
frontline people when we sat down to build a factory, per se,
and got not only input from the architects and engineers, but
from the people who were going to work that line and produce a
product. I agree with you. We absolutely have to bring in the
frontline officers. We have to interview as many as we possibly
can. We have to get your thoughts down in this process.
Now, I don't know how much that was done, but if it were
done at all, I suggest that we do it even more intently and
take our time on these documents.
Now, there was an issue, I agree with my colleague on the
other side of the aisle concerning what do we do with the
children. That's not only a factual issue but an emotional
issue that we need to deal with. But would you please explain
again, you brought up a little bit in detail on what has been
referred to in the media about this Administration cooking the
books on those that they've sent back. And my colleague, my
friend on the other side said, you know, there were
astronomical numbers. Again, would you explain how you perceive
those numbers to be inflated?
Mr. Crane. Basically, the information we have has come from
a lawsuit. It's information that we never had before. And those
numbers indicate that basically Border Patrol apprehensions,
people that initially would have just been turned back,
voluntary returns, are being taken into custody, turned over to
ICE, then ICE is, you know, moving them down the border and
doing a deportation. So previously more and more of those
numbers would have been ICE internal arrests and deportations.
Mr. Marino. Is it correct to say that you could have sent
them back across right then and there?
Mr. Crane. It's correct to say that the Border Patrol----
Mr. Marino. Border Patrol.
Mr. Crane [continuing]. Could have sent them back in most,
if not all of those cases instead of turning them over to ICE.
Mr. Marino. Ms. Wood, I see you shaking your head. Do you
agree with that?
Ms. Wood. It is my understanding that that is what
occurred.
Mr. Marino. Okay.
Ms. Wood. You know, they may have thought there was an
enforcement reason. Perhaps in their view it was a deterrent
effect to transfer these individuals over into ICE custody. But
it was a change in prior practice and it did affect, you know,
approximately 20,000 removals a year.
Mr. Marino. Okay.
Mr. Aguilar, I see my time has expired, but quickly please?
Mr. Aguilar. All right. As a prosecutor, sir, you know the
consequences are absolutely critical for any actions illegally
done. What Mr. Crane just described is historically the Border
Patrol would in fact apprehend and just turn right back, the
so-called revolving door.
Mr. Marino. Yeah.
Mr. Aguilar. We implemented a consequence delivery system
that basically for every apprehension, because we finally had
the capability because of the lower numbers, to take each
individual alien apprehended and take a look at what
consequence should be applied in order to have an impact, a
negative impact on that person crossing back across the
country. In the past, we could have turned them back, but
placing them through formal deportation, detaining them in
front of a judge, sending them back, that process, we found,
has a dramatic impact of consequences on those aliens.
Mr. Marino. Okay. I see my time has expired, but all three
of you, do you mind if my office tries to set up a meeting
between individually the three of you because I find your
testimony to be extraordinary and I am very interested in you
educating me further on this.
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir
Ms. Wood. Yes.
Mr. Marino. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Marino.
The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, is recognized
for her questions.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And to all three of our witnesses, thank you for your
testimony.
I am mindful that there are lessons to be learned from the
1986 act. Those who criticized the enforcement efforts were
right, both in terms of employment-based. I think Mr. Aguilar's
testified quite powerfully about, you know, the amount of
efforts made, you know, and the kind of equipment they have and
the numbers of personnel. But I think there is another element,
which is, yes, there were 3 million people legalized, but there
was really no effective provision for people to come in very
well in the future.
The H-2A and the H-2B program have been very roundly
criticized both from employers and labor unions, both sides
hate them. I'm mindful that they haven't really worked all that
well in some case. And I guess, you know, I'm thinking about a
number of years ago when I chaired this Subcommittee and we had
Dr. Richard Land from the Southern Baptist Convention as a
witness, and I always mention that because I don't want to
steal his line, but he said for years and years that we had two
signs at the southern border. And Dr. Land said one sign says
``no trespassing,'' and the other sign says ``help wanted.''
And, you know, when you look at it, we have 5,000 permanent
resident visas a year for so-called unskilled. I think of it as
noncollege-educated employees. And we've got 2 million migrant
farm workers. So clearly we did not set up a system to meet
America's economic needs.
And also, you know, there is backlogs in some cases of
husbands and wives of legal residents being separated for half
a decade, you know, and so that may have also--I'm not
condoning not living within the law, but you know, families
trying to get together. That's a human phenomena.
We've had, since that time, tremendous increases in
enforcement. I note that the year I took office, 1995, ICE
detained 85,730 people. In the year 2011, they detained
429,247. So I mean, that's a dramatic change.
Here's my question to you, Mr. Aguilar. I've always admired
you. I mean, you started on the line and you worked your way up
all the way to the top of the agency, so you've seen it from
every which way. Here is the question. If you could do only one
of these two things today, further increase resources, add
agents, aircrafts, fencing, towers, sensors, or design an
immigration system that provides a viable legal way for
immigrants to come to the country to fill needed jobs or to
reunite with their loved ones, which alternative do you think
would have the greatest impact in reducing unauthorized entry
into the United States?
Mr. Aguilar. At this point in time----
Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
Mr. Aguilar.--I think the latter, and the reason for it is
because it would redirect the illegal entry of people looking
for jobs through the ports of entry; therefore, relieve the
responsibility of Border Patrol agents having to deal with, in
the case of last year, 356,000 interdictions. It could then be
redirected to the other threats.
Now, we will still deal with criminal aliens, we will still
deal with criminal organizations and all of the other things
that we spoke about. But I truly believe that by reducing that
flow of illegal people into this country, it would be one of
the biggest force multipliers that the United States Border
Patrol could receive today.
Ms. Lofgren. Now, luckily we don't have that choice before
us because we can do both. We can improve our system so it
meets the needs of the American economy and American families,
but we also can do more on enforcement, both in the workplace,
we've talked about the E-Verify system, also additional steps.
I am mindful that just last week the Homeland Security
Committee, which has jurisdiction actually over the border, not
this Committee, reported a bill, a bipartisan bill, it was
authored by Chairman McCaul, and it actually passed by voice
vote. I mean, it was a unanimous vote of a Committee I served
on for 10 years. Believe me, there were some knock-down, drag-
out fights in that Committee, but they were able to agree on
that, which I think is quite a credit to them.
So I think that we are moving in a direction to do all of
the aspects that we need to do: securing the border, enforcing
in the interior, remedying the system. You know, I read the
Senate bill twice. It's one of the values of living in
California and having a 6-hour flight every few days, put it on
my little iPad and read it. I am not saying that this is
necessarily everything, you know. But compared to our current
situation, it's an honest effort to move forward. And we need
to work together, I think, on this side of the building, in the
House, to try and do a similar effort. And I thank you very
much for your testimony.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren.
The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Amodei, is recognized for
his questions.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, in studying this I have spoken with folks from
around the country and stuff like that, and I'd like you to
respond to a theme that I keep hearing. We talk about reform,
and I don't think anybody is opposed to it. I mean, you call it
a broken system or whatever. So we'll skip all that.
Talking about border security, and the statement is this.
It doesn't matter what your interior policies are if you don't
have effective operational control over who crosses your
border. So when you talk about the order of things in terms of
securing the border, not sealing but whatever securing the
border means, I'd like you to respond to, what difference does
it make what your interior policies are if you have no control
over people coming into your country?
Ms. Wood?
Ms. Wood. Well, because, you know, approximately 40 percent
of the people who are now in the country illegally came in
legally, it's important to have interior enforcement and a
good, robust exit system. If we have the best control of our
physical border but we're not paying attention to the third
border, those who come in on visas and overstay, we're going to
continue to have a significant problem, a potential significant
underclass of unauthorized workers.
Mr. Amodei. Okay.
Mr. Crane?
Mr. Crane. Sir, I think, you know, Congresswoman Lofgren
brought up the story about the help wanted sign down at the
border, and I think we have to take that sign down, and I think
the way that we do that is we start with interior enforcement,
that we, you know, put laws in effect that, you know, employers
say, hey, you know what, there may not be that many ICE agents
out there but it's just not worth it to me to take the chance,
I'm not going to gamble with this, you know. And we start
shutting down and taking down that help wanted sign, and I
think it's a critical part to border security.
Mr. Amodei. Okay.
Mr. Aguilar?
Mr. Aguilar. Sir, that help wanted sign, that draw of
labor, our economy is on the upswing right now as we speak,
thankfully. That is going to create a bigger help wanted sign.
The resources that we have on the border right now can do so
much. If the draw continues to grow, there will come a point
where even these resources could be overwhelmed.
Now, overwhelmed on the land border, I feel confident in
saying the following: We are pretty strong there, we are very
strong there, but we're going to see them coming across the
littorals where we are not strong, we haven't gotten there yet.
Mr. Amodei. Okay.
Mr. Aguilar. So that draw, that help sign has to go away.
That help for illegal labor has to go away.
Mr. Amodei. Ms. Wood, ATD system, once you're inside,
presently is that working, in your experience?
Ms. Wood. The alternative to detention system?
Mr. Amodei. Yeah. In terms of tracking people that are----
Ms. Wood. In terms of tracking people, yes. It tracks
people through the system. It makes sure that they show up for
their court appearances. And at the end of the day it works
with them to get travel documents and help them go home.
Not everybody is appropriate for it. You know, there are
some individuals who are better suited for detention or in fact
release on recognizance. But again, it is a system, for its
population, I think it's working pretty well.
Mr. Amodei. Do you think in going forward, in trying to
craft a new policy, there ought to be a role for that?
Ms. Wood. I'm sorry, I couldn't quite hear you.
Mr. Amodei. Do you think in going forward and crafting a
new interior policy, that there ought to be a role for that to
continue in any new legislation?
Ms. Wood. You know, absolutely I think should be a role for
alternatives. S. 744 talks about alternatives to detention. I
think it's very important that there be an ability for all
entities to compete for contracts for that. But, yes, there
certainly should be a role for alternative to detention, as
well as all the other tools ICE has. You know, one thing that
ICE could do and hasn't done is look at reforming the bond
system or reforming other sorts of systems. You know, a lot has
changed since 1986, how can we use new technology to make sure
people show up, and if they're ordered remove, that they go
home.
Mr. Amodei. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield the remainder of my time to
the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to thank first Ms. Lofgren for acknowledging
that we actually have to learn some lessons from 1986. I've
been a little bit dumbfounded hearing some of the people on the
other side saying that we shouldn't take an overly critically
examination of the 1986 law. I think that's the only thing we
should be doing here, is taking a critical examination of the
1986 law, because if we repeat the mistakes of 1986, we are
going to have 11 million to 20 million illegal people in the
United States in the next 20 years.
Now, Ms. Wood, can you explain a little bit? I am a little
bit--I am not understanding what the Senate did with E-Verify.
It seems like we have been trying to fix E-Verify, make it
applicable to all employers, and now my understanding is that
the Senate bill actually changes E-Verify completely and it
starts a whole new program.
Ms. Wood. The Senate bill says that it changes E-Verify and
it's starting to develop a whole new system. And, in fact, it
has a provision that even says it repeals E-Verify in the
current system. If you talk to folks up there and you talk to
the drafters, they say that's actually a drafting issue. We
really aren't going to toss all that out. We're going to
actually encourage USCIS and the government to use E-Verify.
Now, if you ask them, does the bill require you to use the
existing system or could any Administration decide we don't
like that, we're going to create something new, they say, well,
they could do that. So I think that the language in S. 744 is
modeled on the current system by having individuals attest,
similar to section 1 of the I-9, employers attest, similar to
section 2 of the I-9, although it includes some documents that
are not currently permitted and are problematic, and that
includes an employment verification requirement.
Ways that it differs from the current system or what's
proposed in House bill 1772 is there's a very long lead-in time
to use the system. It's, you know, from 5 to 7 years. That
definitely can create an unclear class of workers, people that
can be taken advantage of, and you're going to have a lot of
problems with fraud in that workforce.
It also really beefs up the special counsel provisions in
terms of reducing the ability of employers to take any other
steps to prevent problems. So right now there are some
employers, like some in the meat packing industry and other
industries, that go through E-Verify but still have a big
problem with identity theft because E-Verify doesn't solve
that. So they use other tools, either manual tools or automated
tools to address it. There is some concern that language in the
Senate bill that expands the Office of Special Counsel will
reduce their ability to do that, and that's critical for them.
Mr. Smith. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank you, Mr.
Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Labrador.
And we will go now to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.
Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, the Chair and Ranking
Member of this Committee, for holding an important hearing.
And, Mr. Aguilar, it is good to see you again. Thank you so
very much for your service. I think we've worked some long
years together and thank you for your service.
Let me just at least put on the record my statement of the
existence of a bipartisan border security bill, H.R. 1417.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet
Thank you, Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Chairwoman
Miller and distinguished Members of the Committee:
I am pleased that the Committee on Homeland Security is meeting
today to mark up H.R. 1417, the ``Border Security Results Act of
2013,'' which is an example on what can be achieved when Members of
Congress reach across the aisle to find common ground and commonsense
solutions to America's border security challenges.
I believe in the years to come we will look back on today's action
as a pivotal moment in the ultimately successful effort to secure
America's borders in a manner consistent with our national values.
I am proud to have introduced this bill with my colleague from
Texas, Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson and the Chair of the
Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, Mrs. Miller.
I also want to acknowledge the outstanding work and bipartisan
cooperation of our dedicated staff: Alison Northrop, Shashrina Thomas,
Paul Anstine and Steven Giaier. Thank you!
As Ranking Member of the Border and Maritime Subcommittee, ensuring
that we have the resources, the technology, the personnel--and sound
plans and policies--to secure our nation's borders has been one of my
major legislative priorities.
That is why I am so please to have worked with all my in a
bipartisan manner to craft the measure before us today which enable DHS
to develop and implement a sound border security strategy and the
metrics to measure its effectiveness.
I am particularly pleased that the measure approved at the
subcommittee markup incorporated in the base text several of my
proposals and that the ANS before us reflects three amendments I
offered during the subcommittee markup, including:
1. An amendment providing that the border security strategy
required under the bill include input from State, local, and
tribal law enforcement as well as border community
stakeholders, including ranchers and local chambers of
commerce;
2. An amendment requiring DHS to collaborate with a DHS
National Lab and DHS Centers of Excellence in the development
of the metrics required under the bill; and
3. An amendment requiring that border security strategy
efforts to increase ``situational awareness'' not infringe or
abridge privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights protections.
I also appreciate that the ANS incorporates my suggestion that DHS
be required to develop the capability to ``forecast'' trends in border
traffic and movements, which is a more reasonable and attainable
standard than requiring it to predict those movements with certainty.
I also look forward to discussing the amendments I will offer later
during this markup, including one that I am so proud to have worked on
so closely with Mrs. Miller, my subcommittee chair.
Mr. Chairman, the reasons we have put in so much effort in making
this legislation the best it can be is because we understand that
Americans are entitled to expect that their country has secure and safe
borders and that it has operational control over who enters and what
they bring with them.
The action the Committee will take today in favorably reporting
this bill will lay the foundation for our colleagues in the Senate as
it helps to complete the essential task of providing the guidance
needed for federal law enforcement officials to achieve their mission
and improve their ability to collaborate with state, local, and tribal
law enforcement.
The resources made available through this legislation will build
upon our successful efforts to protect communities along the Southwest
border and across the country.
As I have said many times, those of us who believe that America is
the greatest nation on earth because of its cultural diversity have a
special obligation to ensure the security of our borders so we can
ensure the safety of the persons we welcome to our shores.
As the tragic events occurring in Boston last month remind us, not
everyone who seeks entry into the United States is coming to realize
the American Dream. Some come to destroy it and are willing to hurt and
kill innocent people to do it.
If we wish America to remain the welcoming place it has been for
more than two centuries, it is important that we have in place a
strategy that will enable us to maintain situational awareness and
operational control of our borders.
The bill we markup today is a step in the right direction. So is
the bipartisan and cooperative manner that all members of this
committee have worked together to produce this constructive
legislation, led particularly by Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member
Thompson, and Border Security Subcommittee Chair Miller.
So Mr. Chairman, Mr. Thompson and Mrs. Miller, I thank you for your
leadership and your commitment to protecting our communities and
keeping our nation safe.
Thank you. I yield back my time.
__________
Ms. Jackson Lee. And it has a number of answers. And I
think my friend in the Chair is aware of it, that I think is
important for me to make a comment on, and that is that it
has--this is on the House side--it has an extensive component,
Mr. Aguilar, on operational control. I think that terminology
has grown out of a lot of the work that you all have done. And
it has moved to having that operational control in place in 5
years and that there will be annual reports, and on the
southern border it's a 90 percent operational control.
Putting aside S. 744, and I know they have a border
security component, Mr. Aguilar, does that not give you, give
us a better framework? This is a bipartisan bill passed out of
the Homeland Security Committee getting ready to go to the
floor? When you have reports to Congress, when you have
measures on operational control and you seek to reach a 90
percent operational control, obviously there are resources to
be added, but you have something to be guided by, is that a
better construct than what we've had in the past?
Mr. Aguilar. Working in that direction is certainly a
better construct than what we've had in the past. The only
caution that I would give is, frankly, I was the one who began
the term operational control and defined it. When defined, it
was defined as a very tactical term for immediate juridical
line border operations. Unfortunately, it was grabbed to
describe a more strategic definition. That will not work.
Now, keeping the term but broadening the scope of the
definition will work as a benchmark and as a metric, but we
need to change the definition.
Ms. Jackson Lee. It will give you comfort to suggest that
is the case. We talk about strategy.
Mr. Aguilar. Uh-huh.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And so the strategy comes first before the
operational control. So I think your question has been asked
and answered in the structure we have put in place. I think one
of the good parts about the legislation is that it is a moving
document and it responds to what is happening at the border,
but it doesn't let the border go without attention in terms of
Congress actively involved with homeland security.
So, let me go back to E-Verify, which seems to be a popular
issue. And, Ms. Wood, on the Senate bill, even though you said
it has a question whether E-Verify is in place, one, this is a
two-body process and we get the chance to look constructively
at--we just heard Mr. Gutierrez said he's fine with E-Verify--
we want to make it right. But one of the things I think is
important, doesn't the Senate bill make the documents going to
be utilized by individuals far more secure documents?
Ms. Wood. The Senate bill does talk some about the security
of documents, yes, that's correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And so that is at least an advance as to
what people were actually showing employers, it's going to be
now more secure documents.
Ms. Wood. If there are those documents, then, yes, that is
correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. On the IRCA, why we were concerned with
that, I just want to put on the record, and you might say
``yes'' or ``no,'' one of the problems is that you have to be
continuously out of status. They only had a small number of
special agricultural visas, they had something dealing with
Cuban and Haitian visas, and then they had very limited in
terms of when you came to the country. It was some time around
1972.
The S. 744 does a little bit more on who can get status.
You may have been in status, you may have had a student visa
and you are out of status. S. 744 covers that. Is that not
correct?
Ms. Wood. That's right. It's very broad in terms of who
would be eligible, assuming you're in the U.S.
Ms. Jackson Lee. But what it means is that you will have
more people that have the opportunity to be static and
identified. Is that not correct?
Ms. Wood. That's right. There's no question there would be
more people who have opportunity, yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And so that means that we have a better
chance of being able to know who's in this country and who's
not in the country?
Ms. Wood. As long as we have a secure, you know, interview
process. I would suggest one that includes a personal interview
with the right kind of background checks and then we make sure
there's no fraud in the file, yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Aguilar, with respect to the whole
concept of comprehensive immigration reform, which I think the
Senate has made great strides, and also the difference with
IRCA was that we spend more time on S. 744 in dealing with
legal immigration. Would you speak to that, but would you also
speak to the point of the issue of family visas and family
reunification and whether or not we can see an improvement on
what the Senate has done.
First, if you could speak to the fact of how IRCA contrasts
with where we are today. We have a much broader plan, I
believe, on the S. 744.
Mr. Aguilar. It is broader in several areas, but as it
relates to border security 744 addresses the market--what I
believe to be the market-driven labor requirements for visa
purposes. It then also allows for accompanying aliens to come
into the country once visas are granted, so that will stop the
family members that weren't allowed to come into the country
before to not have to cross that border illegally, which in the
end is going to reduce the negative impact on the Border Patrol
dealing with, in the case of last year, 356,000 illegal
entrants, magnifies our capacity----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Many of them families trying to reunite?
Mr. Aguilar. I'm sorry?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Many of them families trying to get
united?
Mr. Aguilar. Some of them were, some of them were. Some of
them were first-time entrants. It's a whole array.
Mr. Smith. The is gentlewoman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador, is recognized for
his questions.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you.
Ms. Wood, let's continue our conversation about E-Verify.
I've been told by several people that it's going to take 3 to 5
years to fully implement E-Verify for all employers. Do you
agree with that?
Ms. Wood. Certainly that's what's in S. 744. At least 5
years, plus the time for USCIS to do the implementing
regulations.
Mr. Labrador. But do you think that's--do we need 5 to 7
years to fully implement E-Verify?
Ms. Wood. I think we need to do it sooner or find some way
to address the pending workforce that's not going to be covered
by that system, that's not going to have the more secure
documents, that's not going to be kind of eligible for any sort
of adjustment.
Mr. Labrador. And, do you think that's possible, for us to
do it sooner?
Ms. Wood. I do think it's possible for us to do it sooner.
It's going to be a lot of work, but this whole thing is going
to be a lot of work, and I think USCIS certainly could work
with the system they have to move forward in that direction.
Mr. Labrador. A quick follow-up question on what you were
discussing with Ms. Jackson Lee. Some of the identification
that's required for people that are in this program, it says
that an affidavit by any individual over the age of 21 can be
used to identify a person under the age of 18. Is that correct?
Ms. Wood. That's my understanding, and yeah, that's
obviously highly problematic. You know, there are always issues
with the under-18 individuals if they're trying to use their
nursery school application kind of in the past and things. So I
think reducing the number of eligible documents, you know,
would be a way of reducing fraud.
Mr. Labrador. So you think an affidavit that addresses the
fraud issue----
Ms. Wood. No, I do not. I think that permitting that is ill
advised.
Mr. Labrador. Mr. Crane, I know you've spoken about the
need for biometric-based ID to track visa holders and there's a
CRS report that indicates that such a system would require
really heavy infrastructure cost and reduced trade. And I am a
fiscal conservative first. I came here to reduce the cost of
government. So I am sensitive to these concerns. However, I am
not entirely convinced that such a system would cost as much as
the government bureaucrats claim that it's going to cost. Can
you address that issue?
Mr. Crane. Well, only, sir, to the extent that that's my
exact feeling for it, that in our offices and out in our
processing areas, we are able to put those little boxes out
there. We don't have to tear walls down or do anything
extensive. They just sit on a preexisting desk. I can't for the
life of me see how this thing is projected to cost $8 billion.
Mr. Labrador. So can you explain that a little bit? How is
it that you do it in your office? You have a little box and
what happens?
Mr. Crane. Well, yeah, I mean, we have some different
equipment now, but in the past we had a little box that sat
there and the alien put their one finger on that little box and
then they put the other one on there and we captured both index
fingers. And it's extremely effective, extremely effective.
Even just one index finger, it's extremely effective.
Mr. Labrador. Okay.
Ms. Wood, I saw you nodding your head. Do you agree with
what he's saying.
Ms. Wood. I do think that we've had some amazing advances
in technology and we should not kind of shrink from the past.
We should push and push the government to see how can we get an
effective biometric exit and do it in a cost-effective manner.
Mr. Labrador. What do you think, Mr. Crane, about the
amendment that was just made to the Senate bill, that they
actually started a pilot project for biometric exit, entry/exit
data? Is that helping you feel more comfortable with it or do
you think----
Mr. Crane. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that they had an
amendment.
Mr. Labrador. I believe there is amendment. Or what if we
just started a pilot program. Let's not worry about what they
did over there. But if we just did a pilot program with certain
exit areas, you know, the most trafficked exit areas, would
that make you feel more comfortable?
Mr. Crane. Well, my experience at ICE with pilot programs
doesn't give me a real warm fuzzy about it continuing after
this kicks off. So, I mean, I guess if we had the pilot program
ongoing right now and, you know, we could see that it was
effective and that we could see some kind of implementation
beginning, then yes, but the fact that they tell us that
they're going to start a pilot program, not really.
Mr. Labrador. Okay.
Mr. Aguilar, you said in your testimony that you believed
that a workable legal flow of legal immigration is one of the
main components of fixing the illegal immigration----
Mr. Aguilar. Yes.
Mr. Labrador [continuing]. Problem that we have in the
United States. Are you familiar with the Senate proposal on
nonfarm or non-ag legal immigration and that it starts out at
20,000 visas per year?
Mr. Aguilar. That is the W visa. That is the low-skilled
visa, yes, sir, 20,000, 35-, 55-, and 75-----
Mr. Labrador. Do you think that that's sufficient to
address----
Mr. Aguilar. That is one of the critiques that I've got,
sir, because it would be way above that. In my experience, I
think it'll be way above that.
Mr. Labrador. We would have a need that's way above that,
don't you think?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes. That's the reason for the commission, or
the commissioner under CIS to make that determination along
with the Secretary of Labor.
Mr. Labrador. Okay.
Ms. Wood, would you agree with that? It seems to me that's
such a low number that we're just going to have the same
problem again, that we're going to create a black market where
people are going to come and work illegally because there is
just not enough visas available for people to come legally.
Ms. Wood. I think there's a big potential problem with
that.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you.
Are you familiar with that issue, Mr. Crane?
Mr. Crane. Not in detail.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Labrador.
The gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Pierluisi, is
recognized.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As a former attorney general of Puerto Rico, I'm pleased to
submit two records. So I ask unanimous consent to submit two
letters for the record of this Committee. The first letter is
signed by 36 current State attorneys general, and it expresses
support for immigration reform that, I quote, ``improves our
immigration system, keeps our communities safe, and protects
our borders.'' Such reform should, I quote again, ``provide a
sensible means to deal with the immigrants who are currently in
the country without legal status but are of good character, pay
taxes, and are committed to continuing to contribute to our
society.''
The next letter is signed by 76 former State attorneys
general and it expresses support for comprehensive immigration
reform. The letter highlights the ways in which comprehensive
reform will ``significantly improve public safety.''
Mr. Smith. Okay. Without objection those letters will be
made a part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
__________
__________
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to begin by expressing my strong support for the
passage of comprehensive immigration reform legislation during
this session of Congress. We need to fix our broken immigration
system so that it works for all Americans, helps our economy,
and advances our national interest. I believe S. 744 provides a
solid framework for this purpose, and I'm confident that the
efforts of my colleagues in the House will also yield results.
Having said this, I must express my concern that Puerto
Rico is currently excluded in the definition of ``southern
border'' in S. 744, and therefore in the bill's strong border
security provisions. As many of you are aware, in recent years,
while the security situation on the U.S. border with Mexico has
improved by most, if not all statistics, Puerto Rico has
experienced a dramatic increase in the level of drug-related
violence on the island that is directly tied to the territory's
use as a transshipment point for illegal drugs destined for
Stateside markets.
The recent surge in violence, which has been acknowledged
by a multitude of top-ranking Federal law enforcement
officials, including Mr. Aguilar, has pushed the island's
already historically high murder rate to approximately six
times above the national average. The cause of the drug-related
violence is directly associated with the transit of illegal
narcotics into the territory through its undersecured and
underresourced maritime borders.
While there are indications that Federal law enforcement,
mostly DHS and its component agencies, has worked to increase
the operations in Puerto Rico in recent months, the underlying
security dynamics remain the same for the 3.7 million American
citizens residing in the territory.
Last year, the CJS bill recognized that efforts by the
Federal law enforcement community to reduce drug trafficking
and associated violence in the southwest border region have
affected trafficking routes and crime rates in the Caribbean.
Stated simply, if we try to plug the U.S. border with
Mexico without increasing security in America's Caribbean
border, we're just going to displace the criminal activity from
one U.S. border to another. Therefore, I believe the U.S.
territories in the Caribbean, specifically, Puerto Rico and the
U.S. Virgin Islands, must be included in any border security
package that is considered by Congress.
Do you agree with me, Mr. Aguilar?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. Absolutely. One of the things that
we must recognize is that the criminal organizations, we have
actually termed their actions displacement and entrenchment,
deflection actions, based on our successes. That is why it's so
critical that we take a look at the entirety of our enforcement
challenge that we have.
By reducing the flow of illegal aliens coming into this
country, the 356,000 last year, it gives CBP and DHS greater
capability to shift resources where those deflections or those
displacements are taking place. In addition to the money that
is being appropriated as a part of the user fee, these are the
things that will come into play and make the entirety of our
southwest border and the littorals safer and more secure.
Mr. Pierluisi. Does anybody disagree on the panel? Ms. Wood
or Mr. Crane, do you disagree with my proposition, which is to
include the Caribbean border in the southern border provisions
in this bill?
Ms. Wood. I mean, certainly I think that we should focus on
the entire country and we should certainly not exclude Puerto
Rico or any other area when we're thinking about how do we
prevent illegal migration and how do we prevent transnational
organized crime.
Mr. Crane. Did you want me on comment, sir?
Mr. Pierluisi. Yes.
Mr. Crane. No, sir, I do not disagree with you at all.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. [Presiding.] I thank the gentleman from Puerto
Rico.
The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr.
King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank the witnesses for your testimony here today.
And I've had the privilege of hearing from each of you on other
occasions as well. So I respect the level of expertise that you
bring to this panel.
I think there are a lot of things being discussed here
today that really aren't relevant to the big picture. And if
you start out with a flawed premise, the smartest people are
going to end up with the wrong conclusion. So I want to first
concede this point: That except for certain felons or those
mysterious combinations of three misdemeanors, those are the
exceptions in the bill for those that are unlawfully present in
the United States. And the bill essentially automatically says
all of you that are here now, with those exceptions and those
who came before December 31st of 2011, are hereby legal, as I
read the bill.
And then it also says that if you were deported in the past
and you're not guilty of a felony or these three mysterious
misdemeanors, then it's an invitation to come back, apply to
come back to the United States after the bill might be passed.
And as far as I can see there's no prospect that people that
haven't committed felonies or people that haven't committed
these three serious mysterious misdemeanors, there's no
prospect that those that came here after December 31st, 2011,
or might come here in the future would be either deported.
And so I call this the Always Is, Always Was, and Always
Will Be Amnesty Act, in that if you is in America illegally,
you get amnesty and you get to stay; if you was in America and
were deported, you get to come back; and if you will be in
America, there is no prospect you will be deported, and you get
to stay. The Always Is, Always Was and Always Will Be Amnesty
Act, this is the largest and most expansive amnesty act that
ever got any traction in the history of the United States of
America. And for me it's breathtaking to see how a Nation could
go through a law enforcement whiplash like we have seen since
November 6.
And so I was very surprised, after paying great attention
to the presidential race, probably longer and harder than
anybody else in this room, that somehow some guru woke up on
the morning of November 7th and concluded that Mitt Romney
would be President-elect on that day if he just hadn't uttered
a couple of words, ``self-deport.'' That was astonishing to me,
and even more astonishing was the logical disconnect of many of
the people within my own party who seemed to leap to this
conclusion that that was the right assumption.
And so I dialed this back in my memory, and, yes, I do
remember 1986. And we know that that number started out less
than a million. And the lowest number that I can see out there
of those that actually were legalized in that amnesty act were
about 2.7 million or 2.8 million; many of those numbers go 3
million or 3.5 million. We also see numbers that show that the
family reunification that resulted from that was something in
the order of at least 5 to 1. So 5 times 3 is 15. That would
mean there are something like 15 million people in this
country, not discounting deaths and those that might have gone
back, that were the beneficiaries of the 1986 amnesty act.
So I'd just pose this question: Does anybody think that
Barack Obama would be president today if the 1986 amnesty act
had not become law? And I'd turn first to Mr. Aguilar because
he had the most confused look on his face.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. Frankly, I have to tell you, I'm not
quite sure I understand the question.
Mr. King. Okay. Thanks. Because the clock is ticking, and
so I'll just make this point. Because it's more than
rhetorical. I will tell you that I don't believe Barack Obama
would be president today if Ronald Reagan hadn't made the most
colossal mistake of his career in signing the 1986 amnesty act.
He let me down that day.
And now I have people that are concluding that if we can
just pass an amnesty bill today and send to it a Democrat
President's desk, who lectured us in February, said, I'm trying
to help you, Republicans, you'll never win another national
election if you don't pass some kind of comprehensive
immigration reform--which we do concede, I think, is a
euphemism for amnesty--and yet the beneficiary of that's Barack
Obama. Now, why would we think we would get less of the same if
we did more of what we did in 1986?
And I'd point out also, when I hear the discussion about we
have to do this because of the labor force that's out there and
we need to have more than 50,000 workers in this category or
that because we think the market demands that, Milton Friedman
said you cannot coexist with an open-borders policy and a
cradle-to-grave welfare state. And we are a cradle-to-grave
welfare state. It is a wealth transfer. This is a class
leveller. This is the kind of thing that's driven by a
socialist agenda to take from the people that have and give to
the people that have not and transfer this wealth.
A hundred million Americans in this country are not in the
workforce. A hundred million. And we're talking about bringing
in a number that they're not going to limit this to 11.3
million or any other number like that. The amendment was
offered in the Senate at 33 million and rejected. So we know
this is bigger than 11 million people.
This is a transformative economic, rule of law, and
cultural change. It destroys the rule of law with regard to
immigration. You can never again restore immigration law
enforcement if you pass anything that looks like this amnesty
act. I think it transforms America forever. And I think that
people that are advocating for this have just simply started
with completely the wrong premise, it's not supported by any
kind of data that's out there and they're not willing to debate
that. They want to talk around the edges. I think we need to
get to the core of this problem and define how America became
great and how we restore the pillars of American
exceptionalism.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte [presiding]. Time of the gentleman has
expired.
And the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Deutch, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would start simply by making the observation that the
reason that America became great, the reason that America's
economy has thrived in every generation, the reason that we
find ourselves in a country that continues to be the envy the
world is because of our immigration policy. That is a point
that I think is irrefutable. I'm not sure what country we wish
to go back to that I hear my colleague talking about, but I
think as we approach this whole issue there are a myriad of
reasons for immigration reform--economic reasons, humanitarian
reasons, we can go down the list--but it is eminently clear
that we are a country of immigrants. And those who speak out so
forcefully and passionately against any sort of effort to deal
with the immigration situation that we have ignore the very
fact that we are a country that is a Nation of immigrants.
I'd like to get back to something you spoke about earlier,
Ms. Wood, and that is you talked about both--in your testimony
you talked about alternative forms of detention. I have in my
district something called the Broward Transitional Center,
which is a detention facility, it's in Pompano Beach, Florida,
houses nonviolent detainees, which include asylum seekers. Most
people housed at the facility have committed no crime or only
minor nonviolent infractions. They are not violent criminals.
And I just wanted to ask you some questions about that.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, in 2011
the United States detained an all-time high of 429,247
individuals in our immigration system in the detention system.
We spend $2 billion a year on immigration detention, $164 per
detainee per day. Alternative forms of detention can cost, as I
think you touched on earlier, anywhere between 30 cents and $14
a day. In fact, at the Broward Transitional Center, which is
used to detain 700 people who pose, for the most part, no
threat to our national security, and for the most part no
threat to the community--these are people, by the way, I would
point out, who often are picked up from buses or as a result of
traffic violations.
I'd just ask whether the whole approach to mass detention
of people who are here, who have come here illegally, whether
that mass detention secures our borders. Does that make us more
secure when we do that?
Ms. Wood. Certainly, you know, the purpose of detention is
to ensure that people who are ordered removed will go home.
And, unfortunately, over time people that were not in
detention, they were ordered removed, they wouldn't go home.
You know, the OIG said in the last study done on this that only
13 percent of individuals who are not detained, if they were
ordered removed, would go home. And so massive ignoring of
immigration court orders I think undermines our immigration
system and I do think makes our borders less secure by people
flowing in.
But to your point, you know, I think it's important to look
at who are we currently detaining and how are we doing that and
are there ways we can do that more effectively. And some of the
individuals, for example, that might be subject mandatory
detention, you know, arriving aliens or others, may not need to
be subject to mandatory detention. So having the ability to do
an individualized assessment and think about, is this person a
public safety threat or do they pose a significant flight risk,
I think makes a lot of sense. And then the government can think
more appropriately, what's our goal? Our goal is to make sure
they comply with removal orders.
Mr. Deutch. Are you familiar with and can you speak to the
bed quota requiring the detention of 34,000 people per day? Is
that a good policy for securing our borders?
Ms. Wood. I don't think that we should have a fixed number
in terms of how many individuals need to be detained. We should
focus on how can we be most effective.
I will say that with the focus on Secure Communities, most
of the people that ICE is arresting and removing are people
that are coming out of Secure Communities as well as kind of
arriving aliens. And so for many of those folks that are coming
out of the jails, you know, there may be significant public
safety concerns and it would make sense that there would be a
need to detain them. For others there's not that need. So to
have a fixed number, in some years you may need more. I think
right now ICE is detaining 37,000 individuals or something to
that nature. Other times you may need less. So to give the
agency the flexibility to use its spending most effectively I
think makes a lot of sense.
Mr. Deutch. Why is there a requirement? Where does the
34,000 come from?
Ms. Wood. I think it comes from the Appropriations
Committee. It was put in the report. They didn't have a lot of
trust in ICE over the years that ICE would spend the money in
the way that they thought appropriate. And so that requirement,
before I even came to ICE, was put in there to prompt ICE to
act in way that the Committee thought appropriate.
Mr. Deutch. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from South Carolina, the Chairman of the
Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, is recognized for
5 minutes, Mr. Gowdy.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman I want to
start by apologizing to you and to our witnesses and our
colleagues for being in another hearing this morning. Although
I'm quite certain everyone is thankful that there's not more
than one of me, I really wish I could have been here for the
entire hearing and did not have to go to the IRS. So I want to
apologize to our witnesses for being in another hearing.
And, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for all of the time
and effort that you have spent on this issue. For every 1 hour
folks see you in this room there are 10 hours that you're
working in another room where nobody sees you. So thank you for
devoting as much of your time and energy to this issue as you
have.
And with that in mind, to our three witnesses, my
constituents in South Carolina want a real remedy and not a
political remedy. This debate can be divisive. And they want a
remedy that will last a lifetime. So with that in mind, I'm
going to bounce from issue to issue and then see if we can come
up. But let me start with this.
What in the Senate bill or what can exist in a House bill
that ensures subsequent Administrations, whether they be
Republican or Democrat, can't fail to enforce whatever we come
up with in this Congress? What guarantee would you suggest we
include so we don't have this debate 3 years from now, 6 years
from now, for purely political expediency? What should we do to
make sure this is the last time we have this potentially
divisive debate as a Nation? Not all at once.
Mr. Aguilar. I'll make the following statement. Each one of
us has served. Chris is serving today. We execute the policies.
The political machines basically develop those policies. I
think that question better goes to this group as to what you
can put in there so that those that are executing the laws
execute the laws as designed. Ms. Wood, myself as Acting
Commissioner, as Assistant Schedule, we have bosses,
politicals. We have the Hill that we answer to. Policies are
put in place. We execute those policies. We don't design them.
Mr. Gowdy. No, I did not mean to suggest that you were
the----
Mr. Aguilar. No, I understand. That's why I answer in the
way I do.
Ms. Wood. I think the most effective tool for ICE
historically has been the funding streams, and the things in
the House Appropriations conference report that drive certain
ICE requirements. And so to the extent that you can use
appropriations or funding streams or cut things off, if that's
not done, that seems to drive, at least in my experience, the
agency more than anything--more than anything else.
Mr. Crane. Yeah. I think, sir, that the biggest thing that
we can do again is we can take the discretion away from the
Secretary of DHS whenever possible, and, you know, codify what
officers and agents have to do out in the field. I mean, DHS
and ICE right now has the authority--you know, the law gives us
the authority to make arrests, they can determine whether or
not we even have those authorities or not.
This bill is littered--you know, everything at the bottom
seems to say at the discretion of the Secretary of DHS. Well,
we have nothing as long as one individual or their boss,
basically the President of the United States, can determine,
you know, whether they're going to exercise that discretion or
not. And I understand that there has to be a certain degree of
discretion for agencies, but we have to work hard to take away
as much of that as possible.
Mr. Gowdy. I want to get to a question about mandatory
detention, but your response provokes this question in me. What
is the single best way, if you were king or queen for a day and
you had to ensure border security as a trigger for anything
else that may come subsequently, what is the single best way to
convince our fellow citizens that the border is adequate--I
don't mean hermetically sealed, I mean adequately secured such
that it would trigger whatever else comes post-border security,
fully recognizing there are two borders, not getting into
internal securities. But to the extent that I'm asked about
border security more than everything else combined in my
district, what's the best way for us to make sure that we're
doing the best job we can on that?
Mr. Aguilar. At this point in time there are strategies,
there are solutions, resource solutions already in place
designed. This bill talks about the appropriations that will
allow for those expansions. That's one.
To continue the interior enforcement is critically
important, to address that continuing draw, especially in
today's economy. As the economy takes up, those hoses on the
other side of the border, not just Mexico, but other countries,
are going to open up because that help sign is going to be
there.
Mr. Gowdy. I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
your indulgence.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When John Morton, Ms. Wood, when John Morton, the Director
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, appeared before
Congress earlier this year, he noted that ICE tries to live
within the budget that Congress provided. He also argued in his
written testimony before this Committee that these budget
constraints are now further compounded by the reductions
required by sequestration, which represents a nearly $300
million cut to our budget that we must absorb over the
remaining 7 months of this fiscal year.
You point out in your written testimony that one of the
failures of previous immigration legislation was fully funding
and supporting immigration agencies who have been woefully
understaffed for the last several decades. Do you agree, ma'am,
that sequestration was a step in the wrong direction on
immigration enforcement?
Ms. Wood. Sequestration didn't help any law enforcement
agency.
Mr. Johnson. It was a step in the wrong direction.
Ms. Wood. It's certainly not helpful, absolutely.
Mr. Johnson. And it hurts, actually.
Ms. Wood. Yeah.
Mr. Johnson. It hurts immigration enforcement. Would you be
able to admit that?
Ms. Wood. If you don't have the resources, absolutely.
Sequestration reduces the resources that ICE has or that any
other agency has. Absolutely, it hurts their ability to enforce
the law.
Mr. Johnson. How about you, Mr. Crane? Would you go so far
as to admit that sequestration hurts the efforts of ICE?
Mr. Crane. Well, again, sir, I mean, I think I would have
to, you know, steal Mrs. Wood's comments on that in terms of I
don't think there's been a great big impact to ICE at this
point. But certainly if you take----
Mr. Johnson. Well, that's not my question. Now, that's not
my question.
Mr. Crane. Okay.
Mr. Johnson. My question is, can you admit that
sequestration is not good for enforcement, for ICE enforcement?
Can you admit that or do you deny? Do you admit it?
Mr. Crane. I mean, yeah, if you take money away from the
agency, yes, it's not going to be good, sir.
Mr. Johnson. It's not a good thing. I find it interesting
that you both would find it difficult to make that admission.
What I'd like to know, Mr. Crane, is does your organization
represent about, what, 7,000 of 20,000 ICE agents and
professionals?
Mr. Crane. Actually, they're ICE agents and staff, yes,
sir.
Mr. Johnson. So you represent 7,000 of the 20,000. So not
even half of them.
Mr. Crane. That's correct.
Mr. Johnson. And you're speaking on behalf of the entire
organization, though here today, is that correct?
Mr. Crane. I don't believe so, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Well, nothing in your statement indicates
otherwise. In fact, your statement indicates that you are
speaking on behalf of the organization.
But let me ask you this question. Does your organization
get dues that are checked off by the employees in their
paychecks? In other words, does your organization benefit from
the automatic dues check-offs?
Mr. Crane. Okay. So the question is, are the dues taken out
of the employees' checks?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. And taken out of all the employees'
checks.
Mr. Crane. No, sir. No.
Mr. Johnson. Just the 7,000.
Mr. Crane. Membership is optional.
Mr. Johnson. I see. Okay. Do you all receive funding from
other sources, does your organization receive funding from
other sources?
Mr. Crane. Do other sources donate money to us?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, other organizations.
Mr. Crane. No, sir. I haven't received any donations. No,
sir.
Mr. Johnson. Corrections Corporation of America.
Mr. Crane. I'm sorry?
Mr. Johnson. Has Corrections Corporation of America
contributed money to your organization?
Mr. Crane. No, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Not to you personally, but to your
organization?
Mr. Crane. Neither.
Mr. Johnson. All right. What about the American Legislative
Exchange Council?
Mr. Crane. I'm not even familiar with what that is, sir.
So, no.
Mr. Johnson. Ms. Wood, do you know what that is? ALEC.
Ms. Wood. I've heard of it, but I'm not able to speak to
it, no.
Mr. Johnson. All right. Well, now, ma'am, you mentioned in
your testimony that--you argue that focusing on criminal
immigrants leaves undocumented immigrants alone to ``plan, take
steps, cause harm.'' This is charged rhetoric that implies a
whole lot of negative stuff. So I'd ask you to clarify that
phrase. Is it your position that all undocumented immigrants
are criminals who will plan, take steps, cause harm?
Ms. Wood. No. It's certainly my position that a broad
legalization program could make sense. What I think is that
it's important for ICE to have now and in the future a layered
enforcement where they focus on a wide variety of immigration
violations, including immigration fugitives or those who have
committed other laws, not just felonies.
Mr. Johnson. Well, what did you mean by that comment,
leaving undocumented immigrants alone to plan, take steps,
cause harm?
Mr. Goodlatte. We'll allow Ms. Wood to answer the question.
The time for the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Wood. What I meant is that we need to focus and think
about layered enforcement, including enforcement of visa
overstays. If we only focus on those who have already been
convicted of felonies then we would miss some who might come
into this country, either legally or illegally, and then cause
harm. So in my view we have to look at a range of immigration
violations. But I'm certainly supportive, as I said in my
testimony, of a program of bringing individuals out of the
shadows, putting them through a proper procedure, and then
having kind of enforcement on those who violate the law further
on.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the
witnesses being here.
Mr. Aguilar, in talking--I'm sure you still talk to folks
that work to defend our borders. Have you been hearing from
them what we've been reading and hearing anecdotally, that
after talk of legalization for people in the United States,
that there's been a dramatic uptick in people coming across the
border illegally?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. And we've experienced that in the
past. That is just a part of every time that we talk about some
kind of immigration reform, especially when there are still
questions out there, there is some kind of increase. Can't give
you what that increase is. I don't know.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, you had mentioned earlier in answer to a
previous question that you believe we need to continue the
current enforcement. I'm curious, do you know how many border
officers or how many officers, agents we have that are
protecting our borders currently?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir: 21,370 is a baseline, 18,500 of
those on the southwest border, 2,212 on the northern border.
Mr. Gohmert. I figured you would know. Thank you.
Because I was reading again recently about the time that we
had absolute border security back when Woodrow Wilson was
President, and Pancho Villa, depending on your perspective, was
a hero or was an enemy. But he did have folks that crossed the
border with him, killed American families, robbed some places
in the U.S. And, of course, General Pershing never caught him.
But, in the meantime, one article indicated there was many as
158,000 National Guard troops that were sent to make sure that
we didn't have people coming across that we did not agree on.
And I thought about 158,000; others say there were tens of
thousands. Don't say that many. But that was at a time when the
United States had 100 million people in the country. Now well
over 300 million. And it just seems that it's all about
priority.
And I appreciate so much my friend Mr. Johnson from Georgia
bringing up the issue, and other friends have brought it up,
about how bad the sequestration was. And I am so glad people
are finally recognizing what I said after President Obama
proposed it, what I said after our leadership got sucked into
agreeing to it, that sequestration was a terrible way to
govern. And I very much regret that entities as valuable as the
Customs and Border Patrol got hit like they did, that our
defense got hit like they did. I thought it was a terrible
mistake. I tried to convince the Republican leadership they
shouldn't have gone along with President Obama's proposal, but
they didn't listen to me, so we got what we got.
But there's also been discussion, too, about all of the
money that is spent prosecuting people who have been deported
and come back into the country, our country, illegally, making
it a crime. I was blown away when Ms. Lofgren brought that up
this year at a prior hearing. I had no idea we were spending
that kind of money and man-hours--woman-hours and man-hours,
for those who are genetically--or generically challenged--but I
had no idea we were spending that much time going after people
that were returning into the country. And it just seems that if
we would secure our own border, we're talking hundreds of
billions of dollars to spend on other things.
So just keep coming back to this and I don't see how
there's an escape from this. Until we secure the border this is
going to be an ongoing problem. And a question was asked
earlier about is there anything in the new legislation that
will force this President to secure the border more securely
than he has been in the past, and there's nothing there. And it
just seems we're going to be back doing this again, talking
about all those who have come into the country undocumented.
I'm still back there. I really think, you know, and I note
that our friends that came in and made the appearance when my
friend Mr. Conyers recognized them are no longer around--but I
really think that if we could secure the border so--not close
it, but secure the border so people we want who had legal visas
would come in, it seems like, I really believe, we could get an
agreement on the folks that are here really quick. And that's
what I want. But I just have not heard anything in this hearing
that changes my impression that until we secure the border
we're jumping the gun on working something out here.
And I appreciate your time, Iappreciate your being here.
And I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
And recognize the gentlewoman from Washington, Ms. DelBene.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, first I'd
like to ask for unanimous consent to submit a letter into the
record, a letter from many national, local, and State
organizations regarding their feedback on the lessons to be
learned from the 1986 law.
Mr. Goodlatte. Without objection, the letter will be made a
part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
__________
Ms. DelBene. Thank you.
And I just want to thank all of you for being here for many
hours and giving your testimony.
Mr. Aguilar, you talked in your written testimony about the
successes of a secure border, how it has economic--the economic
successes of a secure border. I'm from a northern border State,
Washington, and when we talk about border security it's
incredibly important to also realize the trade and economic
activity that happens across our borders. And I wondered if you
would comment on how you would put together comprehensive
immigration reform policy in a way that would optimize and deal
with the tension that might exist between having a secure
border and also making sure we have trade and economic activity
going across.
Mr. Aguilar. Trade is an absolutely critical part of our
national security. $2.3 trillion worth of trade last year that
we've dealt with in CBP, Customs and Border Protection. $1.7
trillion worth of exports out of the country. Some of the
figures that have been thrown about that relate to immigration
enforcement spending are inaccurate. That's the simplest way I
could put it. Because when you fund a Border Patrol agent, you
fund a CBPO officer, you fund an agricultural inspector, or ICE
in the area of IPR, of trade, all this other kind of stuff, you
are also funding our country's capability to deal with the
trade that's so critically important to our country. So not
losing sight of that is absolutely critical.
Border security, 744 has the foundational principles. The
problem we find ourselves in now as a country is the following:
that we have reduced illegal immigration dramatically. In the
last 40 years, the number--we haven't seen these numbers in
over 40 years. The point of decision now is do we add funding
for additional technology, agents, fences and things of that
nature in order to continue securing that border to the degree
that at some point is going to be defined? Or do we remove one
of the flows, illegal flows that our agents and officers deal
with every day by way of a properly instituted immigration
reform bill.
By doing that, now we provide our enforcement officers at
all levels with, as I said before, with the greatest force
multiplier that we have toward security, securing our Nation's
borders.
Illegal flow of people right now is the most workload-
intensive component of border enforcement. If we apprehend a
ton of narcotics, we apprehend a ton of narcotics, we secure it
and we hand it off to DEA. There is no securing, there is no
jailing, there is no feeding, there is no medical expenses
associated with a ton of narcotics.
You apprehend one illegal alien, you have to feed, you have
to secure, you have to transport, you have to process, you have
to jail, you have to secure, you have to take before an
immigration judge, a court, do all of those things. So that is
my interest here specific to border security. By removing that
illegal flow of people, you increase tremendously and
dramatically the capability and the capacities of our border
enforcement assets.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you.
Ms. Wood, in your testimony, you commend the Senate bill
for requiring counsel for vulnerable populations, including
children and the mentally ill. And I agree with that.
There are organizations like Kids in Need of Defense who
provide legal representation to unaccompanied children who
enter the U.S. immigration system. And you talked earlier about
reform that you think we might need in our immigration court
system. And I wondered if you'd elaborate on what types of
reforms you'd like to see there that you think would help us
protect these vulnerable populations and be more efficient.
Ms. Wood. Certainly. And I do think providing counsel for
unaccompanied kids and those who have a serious mental
disability is absolutely critical. ICE attorneys try to do the
best they can to analyze these cases and see whether or not
someone has a claim for relief. But they are not the advocate
of those individuals. And so imagine coming to this country
young, by yourself, and there's nobody there to advocate our
behalf. And so I was very, very pleased to see this in the
bill.
And I think that actually studies show that aliens who have
counsel move through the immigration court system more quickly,
that they, when they understand whether or not they have a
right to a judge, sometimes they may decide to voluntarily
depart rather than drag something on for years. So I think it's
really critical to think about those who are vulnerable.
Other kinds of reforms that I think we could have include
thinking about are there idiosyncrasies in our system. If I'm
from a visa-waiver country and I come here and I overstay any
visa, I'm treated one way. If I'm from a nonvisa-waiver country
and I come here, I'm treated another way when I overstay my
visa. There's no reason why there should be a difference. And,
you know, so I think looking at where are the idiosyncrasies
and how can we resolve them.
And then I also think focusing on how can we smooth the
immigration process, how can we make the courts move quickly.
It shouldn't take 5 years to determine whether or not someone's
in the country illegally. So we should see are there
opportunities, frankly, more people to voluntarily depart, you
know, enhanced stipulated removal, with protections, of course,
and other sorts of things.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you. My time's expired. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank the gentlewoman.
And the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Chair
for--and the Chairman of Subcommittee, Mr. Gowdy, as well--for
working through this immigration mess in a methodical way. We
have to get it all fixed. There are numerous problems. There's
not just one, there are a lot of problems. And as I look at the
immigration system in this country, I think there's a problem
in every aspect of it, from border security, for people--and
people just want to cross over for the day to work.
Mr. Aguilar, you said that you believe that the border is
more secure now than it ever has been. Let me ask you this
specific question: Do you believe that the border is secure, in
your opinion, whatever that means, just yes or no, is it secure
or not?
Mr. Aguilar. No, sir. We've said it constantly before,
there is yet more to do.
Mr. Poe. And I couldn't agree with you more.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Poe. And I think it's getting worse. And I think the
problem is the drug cartels have long since quit bringing drugs
to the country to make money, they have now gotten involved in
the scourge of human trafficking, bringing young children in
this country to sell them for sexual favors throughout the
Nation. Unfortunately, my hometown of Houston is the hub of
trafficking in the United States because of its location.
That's a recent phenomenon that's getting worse. And it's
getting worse because of the border in some areas is worse. And
now we hear the stories of, on the American side, we have
American citizens and foreign nationals that are legally here
having--being extorted for money, protection, racketeering
money to protect their family members in Mexico. We had a
couple at my church in Houston whose nephews were kidnapped by
the Zeta drug cartels. Last year they were told to pay the
ransom of several thousands of dollars and the nephews would be
released. They paid the money, the Zetas murdered the nephews.
That's happening in America. It's not happening south of
the border. And to me, it's border security. We have to define
what it is. That's what the Senate, I think, tried to do. I
don't know if I agree that they did it. What we have to do in
the House, because that depends on what we do after so-called
border security. And I'm not sure I know the definition. I
think border security is when I say it's secure. But I don't
think get the only vote on that issue.
What do you think about the idea of helping out our border
protectors on the border, Federal, State, local, with taking
some of the equipment from Iraq and Afghanistan that is
necessary, that Americans have already paid for, and rather
than just dump it in the ocean or even give it to our allies,
bring it home and use it on the border? The recommendations I
have heard is we need Humvees, we need night-vision equipment,
and we need drones on the border itself. Would that be helpful
in your opinion or not?
Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely. And, in fact, we are already
working toward it. Before I left on March 31st, that was one of
the areas that we were focusing on. We actually have a program
within CBP dedicated to identifying all the tools, all the
resources that we can use that are coming out of theater. We
are working with the Department of Defense, have identified
things like airships, helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, ELR
fleer capabilities that we are in fact putting into use.
Mr. Poe. And the records that I have before me show that
apprehensions actually for fiscal year 2013 are continuing to
increase. Is that correct? 2012, 170,000; 2013, 192,000. Are
you familiar with those statistics?
Mr. Aguilar. Through March 31st, I am, sir. I believe when
I left on March 31st we were up by about 14 percent, if I'm not
mistaken.
Mr. Poe. And that may go back to the reason that my friend
Mr. Gohmert pointed out, when anybody in Congress starts
talking about immigration reform, foreign nationals try to get
here as fast as they can to get some of that free amnesty, as
our border sheriffs call it, on the border.
I did want to make this comment. I think Congress has the
obligation and the duty, and I commend the Chair, and the
Chairman of the Subcommittee, for working on this issue. We got
to fix it. We got to get it right this time. And we have to
start with border security. I think we should work next on the
temporary guest worker program, have it market driven. We
decide as Congress what the number should be. Because that
seems to be the focus of many of the other issues. But
immediately we've got to deal with those drug cartels and keep
them out of the country by what means we can figure out.
And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman.
And the Chair now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Garcia, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Likewise, I want to
commend the work of the Subcommittee Chair and your work on
this. I know how important this is, and it is probably one of
the most important pieces of legislation that we're going to
try to get through. And I know how much you've worked on it.
Ms. Wood, I want to ask you, how much do you think we're
spending right now on boarder enforcement? What's the total
cost of this?
Ms. Wood. I can't give you the total cost.
Mr. Garcia. Would you have an idea, Mr. Aguilar? So if I
used a figure like $18.5 billion, is that about right? Is it
too much? Is it too little?
Mr. Aguilar. I think that figure reflects what the budgets
for the organizations having border enforcement responsibility.
But we cannot forget that those same organizations have a
tremendous amount of responsibility for trade----
Mr. Garcia. Correct.
Mr. Aguilar [continuing]. And other things, narcotics
interdiction and things of that nature.
Mr. Garcia. Correct. What percentage, if I asked you, what
percentage of the folks that overstay make up the body of
undocumented folks?
Ms. Wood. Well, the estimate is between 30 and 40 percent.
But we're not----
Mr. Garcia. So if we followed Mr. Gohmert's theory, right,
that we enforce the border, we could put--and following the
judge's concept that we line up after we put CBP personnel,
then we put tanks, planes, moats, 30 percent of those people
would simply have a document that allowed them to go right
through. Correct?
Ms. Wood. That's exactly right. And then you'd expect ICE
to focus on those overstays and look at them. ICE has fewer
agents than the New York City Police Department. So ICE has
been faced with this really impossible task, given its
resources.
Mr. Garcia. Correct. So, Mr. Crane, you seem to favor a
sort of a deportation approach to this. So I want to tell you
about my community. In South Florida, where I live, I have a
huge number of thousands of Venezuelans, somewhere between
80,000 and 120,000. They came fleeing Hugo Chavez and the
Bolivarian Revolution, because Hugo has long since departed,
but fortunately we still have his people in our neighborhoods.
And they're stuck in this complicated process. Right?
They've invested money in our community. As the real estate
market was completely collapsing across the country, in Doral,
or Doralezuela, as it's called, the prices increased. They have
either overstayed their visas, someone in the family has gotten
their petition approved, others have not. And they've spent
this--a huge time bouncing through this process through
temporary visas.
But regardless of how many businesses have they started,
the millions they've invested in our community, the vital role
they play in the economic development of my community, would
you still support sending them back to Venezuela, regardless of
their individual circumstances, the economic benefit they have
given it, or the oppressiveness that they face having their
businesses and homes being taken over by the government?
Mr. Crane. Well, first of all, sir, I mean, I think the
assumption was incorrect. We haven't taken any stance on a
deportation-only type of enforcement technique. We're asking to
be a part of what lawmakers create in legislation so that we
can--whatever you develop, that we can bring the proper and
appropriate enforcement components to that plan. That's what
we're asking for.
Mr. Garcia. But you mentioned that you'd like us to take
away discretion. In fact, part of the problem, I think, and
maybe Mr. Aguilar or Ms. Wood would comment, is that we've
taken away a lot of discretion. In other words, a lot of these
cases before, we could have immigration judges see the case and
sort of put them through. Right? Find a category, find a place,
put them through. Do you disagree with me or do you think that
that's something we should put back in the system, is a little
bit more discretion to immigration judges? Ms. Wood?
Ms. Wood. I think immigration judges should have a fair
amount of discretion. And I think the agencies should also have
discretion. But as I mentioned before, both to grant things in
an immigrant's favor and also for law enforcement equities.
Mr. Garcia. Okay. Mr. Aguilar?
Mr. Aguilar. Same thing, sir. On the immigration judges,
they, in fact, are the best position to have the discretion to
act. On the agency part, I believe that discretion, responsible
discretion should be acted upon by the agencies also, yes.
Mr. Garcia. When you look at what the Senate put forward,
how do you feel about that in terms of discretion? Is there
anything there that gives you some hope? Is there not enough?
Ms. Wood. I think in certain places it actually limits the
agency's discretion where they might need a law enforcement or
national security, public safety exception. I have not analyzed
the other, you know, the numerous other waivers that are in the
bill in the immigrant's favor. I will tell you, since leaving
the government I've seen many instances where people needed a
waiver or discretion.
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman, I'll conclude with this. We
introduced the Venezuelan Liberty Act that recognizes the
unique contributions of Venezuelans to our community and to our
country and the unique political circumstance that they face. I
hope that some of the Members of the Committee will have a
chance to look at it as we go through markup and would
appreciate their support.
Thank you very much for your testimony.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman. And I want to
recognize the other gentleman from Florida, Mr. DeSantis, for 5
minutes.
Mr. DeSantis. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to pick up with this discretion issue because it
seems to me that there's actually a huge amount of discretion
that's been delegated, not necessarily to judges or enforcement
agents on the ground, but to the bureaucracy, in particular
political appointees. I mean, for example, I count 129
instances in which the Secretary shall do something, 102
instances in which the Secretary may do something, and 35
instances in which the provisions, the applicability of those
provisions, go on what the Secretary, ``determines.'' So it
seems to me that this is actually delegating a huge amount of
authority to DHS.
So, Mr. Crane, I just wanted to get your impression. Do you
agree with how I've analyzed that in terms of giving discretion
to some of the higher-up officials in DHS?
Mr. Crane. Absolutely agree with that. I mean, currently,
right now, we cannot enforce visa overstay and illegal entry
into the United States, the two most fundamental aspects of any
immigration system in the entire world. So there's nothing in
this policy that limits it. And it seems to open it up even
further, as you say, for the Secretary of DHS to continue that
type of discretion.
Mr. DeSantis. Because this is just my reading, and correct
me if I'm wrong, Mr. Crane, but it seems that the Secretary's
been delegated the authority for people who have already been
deported to allow them to essentially get legal status under
this bill. Correct?
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir.
Mr. DeSantis. And the Secretary's determination is really
the linchpin for when the border is secured. In other words,
it's not objective criteria, although they do say, oh, certain
percentage. But, to me, that's going to be hard to calculate.
But ultimately she has to certify that. Correct?
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir.
Mr. DeSantis. And if the DHS fails to do that, they do
create a border security commission, but that is purely
advisory in nature, that does not have any binding authority.
Am I reading that right?
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir. That's my interpretation.
Mr. DeSantis. And then with E-Verify, there was some
discussion about it. It seemed to me one of the things they
were doing was allow the Secretary defining which employers
qualify in the first place, so that there are folks who may
have more seasonal employees or may have other folks who are
not necessarily traditional, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year
employees, and that they would completely be out of the E-
Verify system. Is that true?
Mr. Crane. I'm sorry, sir. I'm not as familiar with the E-
Verify section.
Mr. DeSantis. Ms. Wood, do you----
Ms. Wood. I think until--at the very end, they make it
loosened at the very end. But, yes.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay. And another issue I have is someone had
said, you know, legalize the right number of people, or
whatever, and we've been talking about background checks and
making sure that we do have the right folks. Because I think
most people, you know, if you've come here unlawfully and then
you've committed additional crimes, you know, that's a hard
case to make that somehow you should be given legal status,
especially when we have a lot of meritorious people throughout
the rest of the world who would like to come.
But as I read it, it seems like, you know, you can still
qualify for status even though you've been guilty of document
fraud, false statements to authority, and even if you've
absconded from previous removal proceedings. Is that accurate,
you would still be able to get RPI status? Anyone of you can
take that.
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay. And then there are certain--the way
they deal with State convictions, it directs DHS to essentially
ignore some of these convictions that may have happened under
State law. Is that accurate?
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay. And then, you know, this gang issue.
Obviously, if someone's a part of a criminal gang, you know, we
don't want to be giving them legal status. But the way they
write it, you actually have to have been convicted of the
Federal gang statute provision, 18 USC 521. The problem is, is
that that's rarely the statute that would be used, because if
you're part of a gang, you're engaging in criminal activity,
you're just going to be prosecuted under the prevailing general
criminal laws. A lot of times those aren't even Federal laws.
If there's no interstate commercial nexus, it would just be the
basic State laws that are there. So to me that is inadequate.
And then DUIs. It says three or more DUIs would make you
ineligible. So, in other words, you could have two convictions
for driving under influence and still get status under this
law. Is that accurate?
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir.
Mr. DeSantis. You also hear people talk about back taxes.
You know, hey, people got to get right to the law, pay back
taxes. I think a lot of people say, okay, well, yeah, that
makes sense, if you've been working unlawfully, you've been
earning an income, haven't necessarily been paying taxes. I
know some may, if they have a fake Social Security number. But
I think most people view that as whatever income you've made
that you would then pay taxes on that. But the law actually--
that's not what it is. It's just if you happen to have an
outstanding IRS assessment, then you have to pay your taxes.
But if you've never been assessed anything by the IRS, then
there's not going to be a requirement for back taxes. Is that
accurate?
Ms. Wood. That's the way I understand it, yes.
Mr. DeSantis. And I don't know how that's going to work. I
mean, is that back taxes just going to apply to those who have
demonstrated evidence of conservatism, the way the IRS treats
this stuff? It seems like an open question to me.
So I just, as I look at this, we hear a lot of rhetoric
from politicians. Really, once you start looking at things,
you've got to square the rhetoric with the reality. And
whatever the reality is, whatever bill you're supporting, I
just think that you should be honest about that so that the
American people can have a better understanding of what it is.
You know, as far as I'm concerned, lawful immigration is very
beneficial for the country, both in terms of economic growth
and in terms of cultural vitality. And I'll yield in 10
seconds.
A lot of folks who come here legally have to work very hard
to do it. They really appreciate what this country has to
offer. Seeing people who are here who were born into wealth and
they criticize the country and all this stuff. So I really
appreciate getting that new vitality in the United States. But
we got to do it right, we got to do it in a way that's fair for
all. Thanks.
Mr. Gowdy [presiding]. Thank the gentleman from Florida.
The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from New York,
Mr. Jeffries.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask unanimous consent
that an article from the Tucson Citizen entitled ``ICE Agent's
Union Speaks Out on Director's 'Discretionary Memo''' be
entered into the record.
Mr. Gowdy. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
__________
Mr. Jeffries. Mr. Crane, I believe on June 23 of 2011 your
organization issued a press release as it relates to this
discretionary memo, as it's been coined. Is that correct?
Mr. Crane. Honestly, sir, I don't remember. We've put quite
an few press releases out there.
Mr. Jeffries. That's been clear. Do you recall a statement
that you made, ``Any American concerned about immigration needs
to brace themselves for what's coming''?
Mr. Crane. I do remember that, sir.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And you then stated, I believe, in that
very same missive, ``This is just one of many new ICE policies
in queue aimed at stopping the enforcement of U.S. immigration
laws in the United States.'' Do you recall that statement?
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jeffries. And do you recall saying, ``Unable to pass
its immigration agenda through legislation, the Administration
is now implementing it through agency policies.'' Do you recall
that statement?
Mr. Crane. Not so much, sir. But it sounds accurate.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And that's your position. Correct?
Mr. Crane. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. Now, in your testimony today, you mentioned
and compared your organization and the fact that there are only
about 5,000 customs agents, less than the number of officers in
many local police departments. Correct? You stated that?
Ms. Wood. That was my testimony.
Mr. Jeffries. That was you? Okay.
Now, well, would you agree that ICE is a paramilitary
organization in its construction? That's for Mr. Crane.
Mr. Crane. Oh. It's a law enforcement organization, sir.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And as a law enforcement organization--
most law enforcement organizations, I don't know of one that's
not--but most law enforcement organizations are paramilitary
organizations, correct, in their structure?
Mr. Crane. I don't know, sir. I was in the military. I
don't consider it to be very close to the military.
Mr. Jeffries. A paramilitary organization.
Mr. Crane. Yeah. I'm sorry, sir, I don't know if I can
answer that.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. But there's a chain of command within
ICE. Is that correct?
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And as part of that chain of command,
there's a Director, John Morton. Correct?
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jeffries. And that Director is responsible for policy
in the agency as part of the chain of command that exists. Is
that correct?
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jeffries. But you disagreed with the policies that have
been articulated by Director Morton. Correct?
Mr. Crane. Especially when they appear to be illegal, sir.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And you've also disagreed with the
policies of Secretary Napolitano, who is the Secretary of
Homeland Security. Is that correct?
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And she's also, as part of the chain of
command, above John Morton. Is that right?
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Now, you've also disagreed with the
policies of the Obama administration. Correct?
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay.
Mr. Crane. I think they're kind of one in the same
oftentimes.
Mr. Jeffries. Right. Okay. And the President of the United
States is ultimately at the top of that chain of command,
correct, as the United States President?
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Now, he's been elected not once, but
twice. Correct?
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jeffries. And does he have the discretion, is he
lawfully permitted to execute, as the President of the
executive branch, policies in the immigration and customs
space?
Mr. Crane. Lawfully, yes, sir. But like I've said, we're
concerned that some of them are unlawful. And I think a judge
may, you know, second that.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Right. We'll see what the Federal court
determines.
Now, in terms of annual removals, in the 1980's, am I
correct that annual removals never exceeded 35,000 at any point
during that decade?
Mr. Crane. I'm sorry, sir, I don't know those numbers. But
I would trust that you have the correct numbers.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And in fiscal year 2002 under the Bush
administration, if my timing is correct, 2002, the
Administration removed approximately 165,000 people. Is that
correct?
Mr. Crane. I don't know that number, sir.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Now, the Bush administration, I also
believe, never removed more than about 360,000 people in a
given year. Correct?
Mr. Crane. I thought it was 370-something thousand. But
that might----
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Now, under the Obama administration
they have averaged approximately 400,000 removals and
deportations. Is that correct?
Mr. Crane. That's the numbers that they provide.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Now, you have reason to believe that
those numbers are inflated?
Mr. Crane. I do, sir.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And you believe those numbers are
inflated because they include individuals who are not
immediately ejected from the border upon their detention. Is
that right?
Mr. Crane. Well, that's some of it, sir. I mean, we also
have a feeling in some offices and some locations that they are
double counting statistics. Sometimes statistics are being
counted by the Border Patrol, sometimes they're also then being
counted by ICE. We believe, but I want to specify that I don't
have, like, documented proof of that.
Mr. Jeffries. So you have no real hard number.
Mr. Crane. No, sir.
Mr. Jeffries. This is a theory you have.
Mr. Crane. It's more than a theory, I believe. But I do
have documented proof.
Mr. Jeffries. You don't have a specific number at all.
Mr. Crane. A specific number of?
Mr. Jeffries. You claim the numbers were inflated, but you
have no specific evidence to back up that claim. Correct?
Mr. Crane. No, I don't. I know the--I think it was the
first year that President Obama came on board, I know they
carried 20-some-odd-thousand removals over from the previous
year. That seemed pretty clear to us that, you know, that that
number--that was cooking the books a little bit for us. But
past that, no, I don't know that we have any specific numbers.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank the gentleman from New York.
And I want to thank again on behalf of Chairman Goodlatte
and all of our colleagues our three witnesses for your
expertise, your endurance, and your comity and professionalism
with respect to one another and with respect to the Committee.
With that, this concludes today's hearing. Without
objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to submit
additional questions for the witnesses or additional materials
for the record.
With our appreciation again, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:22 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]