[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE EFFECT OF THE BORDER WALL ON PRIVATE AND TRIBAL
LANDOWNERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
BORDER SECURITY, FACILITATION,
AND OPERATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 27, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-62
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41-452 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Mike Rogers, Alabama
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island Peter T. King, New York
Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey John Katko, New York
Kathleen M. Rice, New York Mark Walker, North Carolina
J. Luis Correa, California Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Xochitl Torres Small, New Mexico Debbie Lesko, Arizona
Max Rose, New York Mark Green, Tennessee
Lauren Underwood, Illinois John Joyce, Pennsylvania
Elissa Slotkin, Michigan Dan Crenshaw, Texas
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri Michael Guest, Mississippi
Al Green, Texas Dan Bishop, North Carolina
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Dina Titus, Nevada
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
Val Butler Demings, Florida
Hope Goins, Staff Director
Chris Vieson, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER SECURITY, FACILITATION, AND OPERATIONS
Kathleen M. Rice, New York, Chairwoman
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey Clay Higgins, Louisiana, Ranking
J. Luis Correa, California Member
Xochitl Torres Small, New Mexico Debbie Lesko, Arizona
Al Green, Texas John Joyce, Pennsylvania
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Michael Guest, Mississippi
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (ex Mike Rogers, Alabama (ex officio)
officio)
Alexandra Carnes, Subcommittee Staff Director
Emily Trapani, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Kathleen M. Rice, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New York, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Border
Security, Facilitation, and Operations:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 2
The Honorable Clay Higgins, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Border
Security, Facilitation, and Operations:
Oral Statement................................................. 3
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Witnesses
Mr. Reynaldo Anzaldua, Private Citizen:
Oral Statement................................................. 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 10
Ms. Nayda Alvarez, Private Citizen:
Oral Statement................................................. 12
Prepared Statement............................................. 14
Hon. Ned Norris, Jr., Chairman, The Tohono O'odham Nation:
Oral Statement................................................. 15
Prepared Statement............................................. 17
Mr. Jim Chilton, Private Citizen:
Oral Statement................................................. 23
Prepared Statement............................................. 24
For the Record
The Honorable Kathleen M. Rice, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New York, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Border
Security, Facilitation, and Operations:
Letter From Miscellaneous Fath-Based Organizations............. 46
Statement of Vicki B. Gaubeca, Director, and Jennifer Johnson,
Border Policy Advisor, Southern Border Communities Coalition. 48
EXAMINING THE EFFECT OF THE BORDER WALL ON PRIVATE AND TRIBAL
LANDOWNERS
----------
Thursday, February 27, 2020
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Border Security,
Facilitation, and Operations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:06 a.m., in
Room 310, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Kathleen M. Rice
[Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rice, Payne, Correa, Torres Small,
Thompson (ex officio), Higgins, Lesko, Joyce, and Guest.
Miss Rice. The Subcommittee on Border Security, Facility,
and Operations will come to order.
The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on
examining the effect of the border wall on private and Tribal
landowners. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to
declare the subcommittee in recess at any point.
I want to thank you all for joining us this morning, and
thank you to our witnesses especially. Your unique perspectives
on the Southern Border are critical to our understanding of
this issue, and we appreciate you sharing your important
insight with us.
Over the past year, this subcommittee has sought to bring
attention to the administration's misguided and dangerous
border wall policy. We know the construction of a border wall
will not stop the influx of drugs into our country, will be an
unnecessary cost to taxpayers, and as we will discuss today,
will have an irreversible impact on the rights of U.S. citizens
and Native Americans.
For those of us who do not live in Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona, or California, it can be easy to forget that. The
policy decisions we make in Washington have a tremendous impact
on the everyday lives of those who live along the Southern
Border. Two-thirds of the land along the Southern Border is
owned by private citizens or the border States. In order to
construct barriers across this land, the administration has
used eminent domain, a process by which the Government can
forcibly seize privately-owned land for public use in exchange
for compensation. Often this compensation is minimal, and
landowners are left to fight the Government in court for years.
Under this administration, eminent domain will be used at a
historically high level to strip landowners of their property
and, in many cases, cause damage to their livelihoods.
In addition to this land seizure, the administration has
doubled down on its use of the Department of Homeland
Security's waiver authority, waiving important environmental
and preservation laws for border wall construction. No
Secretary, no matter the purpose or intent, should have the
ability to waive every law in their entirety with the stroke of
a pen.
In the past 3 years, the Trump administration has used this
waiver authority 16 times to ignore laws designed to protect
the environmental and cultural integrity of these communities.
For comparison, the Bush administration, George W. Bush
administration, used this waiver authority only 5 times over
the course of his entire Presidency. But this should not come
as a surprise. President Trump has shown that he will stop at
nothing to deliver on his campaign promise to build a wall. The
Trump administration does not listen to the experts, they don't
pay attention to border residents or local officials, and they
ignore the consequences that come along with abusing the waiver
authority.
The administration has waived critical public health and
safety laws, including the Endangered Species Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the
Clean Water Act, for wall construction. These laws ensure that
border communities have the same rights and protections as any
other community in the United States.
The Tohono O'odham Nation, whose lands across the Southern
Border, have faced particularly harmful consequences as a
result of these laws being waived. The administration's
decision to repeatedly use this waiver authority puts the lives
of the members of the nation at risk, destroys habitats for
numerous at-risk species, and undermines trust in our
Government.
Earlier this Congress, this committee recognized the damage
that the administration could do with its use of waivers and
responded by passing H.R. 1232, the Rescinding DHS' Waiver
Authority for Border Wall Act, which would strike the law that
granted the Secretary of Homeland Security with this unchecked
waiver authority.
This bill, should it become law, would not prohibit DHS
from constructing or repairing border barriers. It would simply
require the Department to follow any and all applicable local,
State, and Federal laws before beginning construction. The
reckless waiving of crucial Federal laws puts the people who
live along our Southern Border at unnecessary risk and does not
enhance our border security.
The witnesses who have joined us today will speak to this
issue from personal experience, and I am proud today's hearing
will help provide a platform for them to make their voices
heard.
I now recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, for an opening
statement.
[The statement of Chairwoman Rice follows:]
Statement of Chairwoman Kathleen M. Rice
February 27, 2020
To our witnesses, your unique perspectives on the Southern Border
are critical to our understanding of this issue, and we appreciate you
sharing your important insight with us. Over the past year, this
subcommittee has sought to bring attention to the administration's
misguided and dangerous border wall policy.
We know the construction of a border wall will not stop the influx
of drugs into our country, will be an unnecessary cost to taxpayers,
and--as we will discuss today--will have an irreversible impact on the
rights of U.S. citizens and Native Americans.
For those of us who do not live in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or
California, it can be easy to forget that the policy decisions we make
in Washington have a tremendous impact on the everyday lives of those
who live along the Southern Border.
Two-thirds of the land along the Southern Border is owned by
private citizens or the border States. In order to construct barriers
across this land, the administration has used eminent domain, a process
by which the Government can forcibly seize privately-owned land for
public use in exchange for compensation. Often, this compensation is
minimal, and landowners are left to fight the Government in court for
years. And under this administration, eminent domain will be used at a
historically high level to strip landowners of their property, and in
many cases, cause damage to their livelihoods.
In addition to this land seizure, the administration has doubled
down on its use of the Department of Homeland Security's waiver
authority--waiving important environmental and preservation laws--for
border wall construction. No Secretary, no matter the purpose or
intent, should have the ability to waive every law ``in their
entirety'' with the stroke of a pen.
In the past 3 years, the Trump administration has used this waiver
authority 16 times to ignore laws designed to protect the environmental
and cultural integrity of communities. For comparison, the Bush
administration used this waiver authority only 5 times over the course
of his entire presidency.
But this should not come as a surprise. President Trump has shown
that he will stop at nothing to deliver on his campaign promise to
build a wall. The Trump administration does not listen to the experts,
they don't pay attention to border residents or local officials, and
they ignore the consequences that come along with abusing the waiver
authority.
The administration has waived critical public health and safety
laws including the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental
Policy Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act for
wall construction. These laws ensure that border communities have the
same rights and protections as any other community in the United
States.
The Tohono O'odham Nation, whose lands cross the Southern Border,
have faced particularly harmful consequences as a result of these laws
being waived. The administration's decision to repeatedly use this
waiver authority puts the lives of the Members of the Nation at risk,
destroys habitats for numerous at-risk species, and undermines trust in
our Government.
Earlier this Congress, this committee recognized the damage that
the administration could do with its use of waivers and responded by
passing my bill, H.R. 1232, the ``Rescinding DHS' Waiver Authority for
Border Wall Act,'' which would strike the law that granted the
Secretary of Homeland Security with this unchecked waiver authority.
This bill, should it become law, would not prohibit DHS from
constructing or repairing border barriers--it would simply require the
Department to follow any and all applicable local, State, and Federal
laws before beginning construction. The reckless waiving of crucial
Federal laws puts the people who live along our Southern Border at
unnecessary risk and does not enhance our border security.
The witnesses who have joined us today will speak to this issue
from personal experience, and I am proud today's hearing will help
provide a platform for them to make their voices heard.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I thank our witnesses who traveled from the border to be
here today to provide an on-the-ground perspective. It is very
important, this narrative across the country, and we should
hear from Americans that know what it is to live on the border.
First, I would like to point out the long history of
bipartisan Congressional interest in securing the border using
enhanced physical barriers such as fencing, as it has evolved
through the years, innovative technologies as they have
emerged, access roads and lighting, and more boots on the
ground. That is what we refer to in totality as a wall system
or a barrier system today.
The passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 authorized the construction of
border barriers for the first time in statute and gave the
Federal Government the authority to waive certain environmental
laws. Madam Speaker Pelosi and many of my colleagues across the
aisle, the Democratic Party, some on this committee, voted for
that bill. This waiver authority was a deliberate act by
Congress to avoid endless years of litigation that would make
construction impossible.
For example, in the '90s when this authority was being
considered, construction of a wall in a section of California
that was referred to as Smuggler's Gulch, a known drug-
trafficking route, was delayed by environmental studies
regarding the access of birds crossing the border. Meanwhile,
the cartels were driving vehicles loaded with drugs across the
border into American communities.
Since fencing construction began in the '90s, enhanced
physical barriers have forced cartels to adapt their smuggling
routes to areas along the border without infrastructure,
through ports of entry, and through tunnels. The wall system
makes it more difficult to conduct illegal crossings, to
organize those crossings, and, of course, it gives border
enforcement agents additional response time.
In 2005, Congress expanded the waiver authority to include
all laws the Secretary determines necessary to ensure
expeditious construction of barriers and roads. This was in
2005. Madam Speaker Pelosi and many of my colleagues across the
aisle, including on this committee, voted for that bill as
well.
The Secure Fence Act of 2006 directed the Department of
Homeland Security to achieve and maintain operational control
of the international land borders of the United States by
preventing all unlawful entries using physical barriers,
technology, access roads, and personnel. That bill received
positive votes, yes votes, from Senator Schumer and then-
Senators Obama, Biden, and Clinton.
Border Patrol analysis and plans across Republican and
Democrat administrations have indicated that enhanced physical
barriers are an effective solution, 21st Century technology-
enhanced physical barriers. For years now, Washington has
heeded the request of our boots on the ground, and yet in the
last 3 years, we have taken a different path in Washington, DC.
I was encouraged recently to see the Department use its
waiver authority this month to reduce the length of time
between awarding construction of prequalified contracts using
vetted companies already building other sections of the
enhanced physical barrier system. Some of these projects have
already come in under budget, and the Army Corps of Engineers
has told committee staff that these projects include small
businesses.
Prior to 1992, parts of the San Diego Border Patrol Sector
were not patrollable and essentially ceded to the cartels
because of access. After a wall was built in San Diego in 1992,
illegal traffic dropped 92 percent. In 1993, El Paso saw a 72
percent drop in illegal traffic in 1 year alone. Since Tucson's
wall went up in 2000, there was a 90 percent drop in illegal
traffic. Finally, in Yuma, since 2005, a 95 percent drop in
illegal traffic was realized once enhanced physical barriers
were installed.
These facts speak for themselves. If you install enhanced
physical barriers, 21st Century smart physical barriers, crime
and criminal crossings will fall. Walls work. Walls don't mean
don't come in. Walls mean come in through the gate.
The continued exploitation of our Southwest Border is an
assault on our National security and our Nation's sovereignty,
and enriches criminal organizations who profit from trafficking
drugs and people, including children, and incredibly deadly
opioids. In fiscal year 2019, CBP seized nearly 750,000 pounds
of drugs at the border. That includes approximately 2,135
pounds of fentanyl, which represents a lethal dose for more
people than the entire population of the United States.
Mr. Chilton before us today from Arizona has shown us video
footage of drug smugglers carrying backpacks packed with drugs
across his property along the border because there are no
enhanced physical barriers to delay that crossing. It is an
easy target for the cartels.
At this hearing, we will discuss the effects of these
barriers on private citizens who live and work along the
border. The Federal Government has an obligation to secure the
homeland and protect the United States and its citizens from
those who seek to do us harm. The Federal Government also has a
responsibility to ensure just compensation is provided if there
is a circumstance where private land is needed to carry out
that duty of securing our sovereign border, as the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution requires.
Current law requires consultation with the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior, States, local governments, Native
American Tribes, and property owners along the border to
minimize the impact of enhanced physical barriers. These
safeguards are in place for a reason. They should be observed.
I thank the Madam Chairwoman for holding this hearing. I
look forward to hearing more.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
[The statement of Ranking Member Higgins follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Clay Higgins
Feb. 27, 2020
Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you to our witnesses who traveled
from the border to be here today to provide an on-the-ground
perspective.
First, I would like to point out the long history of bipartisan
Congressional interest in securing the border using enhanced physical
barriers such as bollard-style fencing, innovative technologies, access
roads and lighting, and more boots on the ground. What we refer to
today as a wall system.
The passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 authorized the construction of border
barriers for the first time in statute and gave the Federal Government
the authority to waive certain environmental laws.
Speaker Pelosi and some Democrats on this committee voted for that
bill.
This waiver authority was a deliberate act by the Congress to avoid
endless years of litigation that would make construction impossible.
Back in the 1990's when this authority was being considered,
construction was stalled for years in California on a stretch of land
referred to as ``Smuggler's Gulch''--a known drug-trafficking route--
because environmental groups wanted to test that a bird could fly over
the fence. A bird that is native to both Mexico and the United States.
Meanwhile, cartels were driving vehicles loaded with drugs across the
border into American communities.
Since fencing construction began in the 1990's, enhanced physical
barriers have forced cartels to adapt their smuggling routes to areas
along the border without infrastructure, through the ports of entry,
and through million-dollar tunnels.
The wall system makes it more difficult to conduct their illicit
business.
In 2005, Congress expanded the waiver authority to include all laws
the Secretary determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction
of barriers and roads.
Speaker Pelosi and some Democrats on this committee voted for that
bill too.
The Secure Fence Act of 2006 directed the Department of Homeland
Security to achieve and maintain operational control of the
international land borders of the United States by preventing all
unlawful entries using physical barriers, technology, access roads, and
personnel.
That bill received yes votes from Senator Schumer and then-Senators
Obama, Biden, and Clinton.
Though because the wall system is now a priority for the President,
many Democrats are changing their tune.
Border Patrol analyses and plans, across Republican and Democrat
administrations keep pointing to enhanced physical barriers as an
effective solution.
I was encouraged to see the Department use its waiver authority
this month to reduce the length of time between award and construction
of pre-qualified contracts using vetted companies already building
other sections of the wall system. Some of these projects have already
come in under budget, and the Army Corps has told committee staff that
these projects include small businesses.
Prior to 1992, parts of the San Diego Border Patrol Sector were not
patrollable and essentially ceded to the cartels.
After a wall was built in San Diego in 1992, illegal traffic
dropped 92 percent. In 1993, El Paso saw 72 percent drop in illegal
traffic in 1 year alone. Since Tucson's wall went up in 2000, there was
a 90 percent drop. And finally, in Yuma since 2005, a 95 percent drop
in illegal traffic was realized.
These facts speak for themselves. Build a wall and crime will fall.
The continued exploitation of our Southwest Border is an assault on
our National security and our Nation's sovereignty that enriches
criminal organizations who profit from addicting our friends,
neighbors, colleagues, and even children to drugs and opioids.
In fiscal year 2019, CBP seized nearly 750,000 pounds of drugs at
the border. That includes approximately 2,135 pounds of fentanyl, which
represents a lethal dose for more people than the entire population of
the United States.
Mr. Chilton, before us today from Arizona, has shown us video
footage of drug smugglers carrying backpacks packed with drugs across
his property along the border, because there are no enhanced physical
barriers to prevent that.
At this hearing we will discuss the effects of these barriers on
private citizens who live and work along the border. The Federal
Government has an obligation to secure the homeland and protect the
United States and its citizens from those who seek to do us harm.
The Federal Government also has the responsibility to ensure just
compensation is provided if there is a circumstance where private land
is needed to carry out that duty, as the fifth amendment to the
Constitution requires. Current law requires consultation with the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, States, local governments,
Native American tribes, and property owners along the border to
minimize the impact of enhanced physical barriers. These safeguards are
in place for a reason.
I look forward to hearing more about how we can secure the border,
while at the same time, respecting the rights of Americans who live
along it.
Thank you and I yield back.
Miss Rice. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Rice. Thank
you for holding today's hearing.
It is no secret that I am concerned with President Trump's
border security policies. One of the most wasteful of these
policies is fixation on a boondoggle border wall. The President
promised time and again that Mexico would pay for the wall.
Instead, he has left American taxpayers to foot the bill. Worse
still, hundreds of border residents will have their private
land seized by the administration in order to build Trump's
wall.
I would like to remind Members that the Federal Government
owns only roughly 35 percent at the U.S.-Mexican border. To
construct hundreds of miles of new wall along the Southwest
Border, the Federal Government will have to take privately-
owned land one way or another. Often, this private property
provides for someone's livelihood or has been owned by families
for generations. Takings on such a large and historic level as
we are starting to see in south Texas are no small issues.
I would also remind Members that this administration has
taken advantage of its authority to waive all legal
requirements to build border barriers. Each of the Trump
administration's Secretaries or Acting Secretaries of Homeland
Security have allowed the Department and CBP to deliberately
bypass dozens of laws in order to complete this partisan
campaign promise faster.
Before the Trump administration, this authority had only
been used a total of 5 times during the Bush administration.
Since 2017, the Trump administration has exercised this
authority 16 times. Most recently, Acting Secretary Wolf took
the highly unprecedented approach of waiving procurement laws,
further demonstrating the Executive overreach by the Trump
administration to deliver on the President's dream of a border
wall paid for by American taxpayers along the Southwest Border.
However, the American public will not be fooled by this
President's authoritarian action and word games intended to
hide the bad behavior of his administration. We will never
really know, if anything, a border wall will do to secure our
borders, but we do know and have seen that it will irreparably
harm real people and the land they live on.
I am eager to hear from today's witnesses who have first-
hand experience with the consequences border communities face
due to the hasty construction of a border wall.
In addition, I believe the committee should learn more
about the impacts that communities are anticipating as the
President diverts additional funding from the military to the
border and begins the biggest seizure of private land in the
history of this Nation for a wall. Again, as a Nation of laws,
we should follow the law.
I thank the witnesses for appearing here today to inform
the committee of the real-life impacts of a border wall. I hope
what we can discuss here will help the full committee address
the challenges facing border communities in a meaningful
manner.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
[The statement of Chairman Thompson follows:]
Statement of Chairman Bennie G. Thompson
Feburary 27, 2020
It is no secret that I am concerned with President Trump's border
security policies. One of the most wasteful of these policies is his
fixation on a boondoggle border wall. The President promised that
Mexico would pay for the wall. Instead, he has left American taxpayers
to foot the bill.
Worse still, hundreds of border residents will have their private
land seized by the administration in order to build Trump's wall. I
would like to remind Members that the Federal Government only owns
roughly 35 percent of land at the U.S.-Mexico border. To construct
hundreds of miles of new wall along the Southwest Border, the Federal
Government will have to take privately-owned land, one way or another.
Often, this private property provides for someone's livelihood or
has been owned by families for generations. Takings on such a large and
historic level as we are starting to see in south Texas are no small
issue.
I would also remind Members that this administration has taken
advantage of its authority to waive all legal requirements to build
border barriers. Each of the Trump administration's Secretaries or
Acting Secretaries of Homeland Security have allowed the Department and
CBP to deliberately bypass dozens of laws in order to complete this
partisan campaign promise ``faster.'' Before the Trump administration,
this authority had only been used a total of 5 times during the Bush
administration. Since 2017, the Trump administration has exercised this
authority 16 times.
Most recently, Acting Secretary Wolf took the highly unprecedented
approach of waiving procurement laws--further demonstrating the
Executive overreach by the Trump administration to deliver on the
President's dream of a border wall along the Southwest Border.
However, the American public will not be fooled by this President's
authoritarian actions and word games intended to hide the bad behavior
of his administration. We will never really know what (if anything) a
border wall will do to secure our borders, but we do know and have seen
that it will irreparably harm real people and the land they live on.
I am eager to hear from today's witnesses who have first-hand
experience with the consequences border communities face due to the
hasty construction of a border wall. In addition, I believe the
committee should learn more about the impacts that communities are
anticipating as the President diverts additional funding from the
military to the border and begins the biggest seizure of private land
in the history of the Nation for his wall.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Other Members of the committee are reminded that under the
committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the
record.
Without objection, Members not sitting on the subcommittee
will be permitted to participate in today's hearing.
I now welcome our panel of witnesses. Our first witness,
Mr. Reynaldo Anzaldua, is a private landowner from Granjeno,
Texas. He and his family currently own 60 acres of land within
the Rio Grande Valley. Mr. Anzaldua is a Vietnam War veteran,
and also served for 30 years in the U.S. Customs Service.
Our second witness is Ms. Nayda Alvarez. She is a teacher,
a mother, a grandmother, and a private landowner from La
Rosita, Texas. Ms. Alvarez' family has lived in Starr County
for at least 5 generations.
Next, we have Dr. Ned Norris, Jr., who is the current
chairman of the Tohono O'odham Nation. In May 2019, Dr. Norris
was elected to serve a 4-year term as chairman. Dr. Norris has
served the people of the Tohono O'odham Nation for over 4
decades in various capacities, and from 2015 to 2017 served on
the Homeland Security Advisory Council.
Our final witness this morning is Mr. Jim Chilton, a fifth-
generation Arizona rancher. In 1979, Mr. Chilton and his
brother formed Chilton Ranch & Cattle Company, a cow-calf
ranching business. In 1987, Mr. Chilton, his wife, and his 2
sons purchased a 50,000-acre ranch south of Arivaca, Arizona.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted in the record. I now ask each witness to summarize his
statement for 5 minutes, beginning with Mr. Anzaldua.
STATEMENT OF REYNALDO ANZALDUA, PRIVATE CITIZEN
Mr. Anzaldua. It is an honor to testify before this
distinguished subcommittee about the harms President Trump's
border wall would have on my family's land, my community, and
my country.
My name is Reynaldo Anzaldua. My family owns land in
Mission, Texas, along the U.S.-Mexican border. I am 75 years
old, a Vietnam War veteran, and a 30-year veteran of the former
United States Customs Service of the United States Department
of the Treasury, where I worked to inspect goods entering the
United States at designated ports of entry along the border. I
am also a native of the Rio Grande Valley of southern Texas,
and I am here to share with you today what a new border wall
would do to my home.
My family owns over 60 acres of land in the path of Trump's
border wall. This land near the Rio Grande River has been in my
family for generations. On these acres my family ranches and
leases the land to several dozen tenants who enjoy the
riverfront by fishing and jet skiing. We like to spend time
with family there, holding barbecues and relaxing near the Rio
Grande. This is a peaceful place, and our neighbors are local
institutions like La Lomita Chapel, a historic Catholic church
from the 1800's; a small restaurant with a riverside patio; and
Chimney Park, an RV community popular with retirees to the
area.
Right now, my family is fighting to defend our land in the
path of the border wall. Because we did not allow the
Government access to our property to survey, the Government
sued us. These lawsuits and the dozens of others like them
across the Southwest Border in Texas are, unfortunately,
nothing new to my family and are part of a long and tragic
history of Mexican Americans in the border region losing the
lands.
My family, many families like mine, lost their lands
through intimidation, fraud, and even violence. For over 60
years, I have witnessed to loss of lands through eminent
domain.
For me, the border wall is just another example of the lack
of respect for land rights and will only waste taxpayers' money
for a vanity project that will lead to more deaths. It is
expected to have 100-foot surveillance towers, 24/7 lighting,
and a 150-foot enforcement zone complete with fleets of
military-grade vehicles.
Because the Trump administration hopes to build along the
path of an already existing levee system, the border wall also
will not be directly along the Rio Grande at all. The wall can
lie over a mile inland, leaving an area about the size of
Washington, DC, between the river and the wall in U.S.
territory in what will become a no man's land. It will be
effectively inaccessible.
The Border Patrol says some landowners will have gates. But
who will know the codes to the gates, and who do we call if
there are problems? What happens to the power--if the power
goes out? What good is owning land if I have to ask the
Government permission to access it? This is un-American.
The wall is also causing collateral damage because private
groups with no oversight are emboldened by the Government. A
private group called We Build the Wall affiliated with Steve
Bannon, Kris Kobach, and others, and other Trump supporters,
have built a private wall next to my family's property. This
group has no ties to or knowledge of my community. The private
wall was built on the riverbank. By clearing vegetation, they
have speeded up erosion. We will lose land in the next flood,
and erosion would even change the international boundary, which
is the river.
Because of this, there are two lawsuits filed against it,
but so far have failed to stop it. These cases, the court
respected the rights of the landowner, and that is the border
wall's landowner, a right that is being denied to my family.
Finally, the Rio Grande Valley would not exist without the
river that gives its name. Our water supply comes from the
river. Building a wall cuts off the Valley from its lifeline.
The border wall goes against everything that makes my home what
it is, and most Rio Grande Valley residents oppose it. Today,
the Rio Grande Valley is now home to over a million people, and
our economy is fueled by trade, immigration, and travel to and
from Mexico.
Ultimately, I would like to point out to this subcommittee
that the negative effects of the border wall are not
hypothetical. People today are living with the effects of
President Bush's failed border fence, and Trump's border wall
will be worse.
I would like to thank the--thank you for the--thank the
committee for inviting me to testify today, and I hope the
subcommittee does all within its power to be a check on this
administration and its total abuse of border landowners'
rights. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anzaldua follows:]
Prepared Statement of Reynaldo Anzaldua
February 27, 2020
It is an honor to testify before this distinguished subcommittee
about the severe harms President Trump's border wall would have on my
family's land, my community, and my country.
My name is Reynaldo Anzaldua and my family owns land in Mission,
Texas, a city along the U.S.-Mexican border in the Rio Grande Valley. I
am 75 years old, a Vietnam War Veteran, and a 30-year veteran of the
former United States Customs Service of the U.S. Department of the
Treasury, where I worked to inspect goods entering the United States at
designated Ports of Entry along the border. I am also a native of the
Rio Grande Valley of southern Texas, and I am here to share with you
today what a new border wall would do to my home.
My family owns over 60 acres of land in the path of Trump's border
wall. This land near the Rio Grande River has been in my family for
generations. On these acres, my family ranches and leases the land to
several dozen tenants, who enjoy the riverfront by fishing and jet
skiing, among other activities. We like to spend time with family
there, holding barbeques and relaxing near the Rio Grande. This is a
peaceful place, and our neighbors are local institutions like La Lomita
Chapel, a historic Catholic church from the 1800's, a small restaurant
with a riverside patio, and Chimney Park, an RV community popular with
retirees to the area.
There are so many ways the border wall will harm me and my family,
but today I would like to focus on three. These include several issues
with which you may not be familiar: (1) The long pattern of land
divestment of low- and middle-income Mexican-Americans along the border
like my family, (2) the tens of thousands of acres that will be left
between the border wall and the Rio Grande in a ``no man's land''
cutoff from the world, and (3) the symbolic meaning of the border wall
to the Rio Grande Valley, which would not exist without a vibrant and
thriving border culture where goods and people move daily in both
directions.
long pattern of land divestment of mexican-american landowners
Right now, my family and I are engaged in a fight to defend our
land in the path of the border wall. Because we did not allow the
Government to enter our land to conduct surveying for purposes of
measuring the land to build the border wall, President Trump's
Department of Justice sued me and my family. The Government only
entered the land after a court-ordered access.
We received an offer to sell letter from the Government for the
land, and my family is attempting to negotiate with them over how the
Government will pay us for the taking of our land. If we cannot agree,
this could lead to the Government suing the family again.
These lawsuits and and the dozens of others like them across the
Southwest Border in Texas are unfortunately nothing new for my family,
and fit within a long and tragic history of land divestment of Mexican-
Americans in the border region. Through intimidation, fraud, and even
violence, many Mexican-American families like mine lost their land
sometimes dating all the way from Spanish land grants from the 1700's
to today.
For over 60 years, I have borne witness to loss of land through
eminent domain. It has been slow and steady, but always ends in the
Government winning and my family being left with little to show for it.
Over 10 years ago, the Federal Government during the Bush
administration tried to take my family's land in Granjeno, TX to build
what was then called the ``border fence'' after the Secure Fence Act of
2006 was passed. Although they called it a fence in 2006 and call it a
border wall today, its impact is the same.
Even before that, the Government took land from a family member to
build a new Port of Entry in Mission, TX, in the early 1990's. Before
that still my family lost land for the development of a flood-control
zone.
For me, President Trump's latest border wall project is just one
more example of the lack of respect for land rights in the region I
call home. This border wall will only waste the taxpayers' money for a
vanity project that will lead to more deaths.
67 square miles of ``no man's land'' between the river and the wall
Additionally, the path of the border wall is not directly along the
Rio Grande at all. Because the Trump administration has decided to
build its latest border walls along the path of an already-existing
levee system in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties, the wall can lie over a
mile inland in some areas. This leaves tens of thousands of acres of
U.S. territory in what will become a ``no man's land'' cutoff from the
United States and the rest of the world. This land will be effectively
inaccessible to property owners with land left on the wrong side of the
wall.
In South Texas alone, if Trump's plans come to pass, about 67
square miles will lie between the river and the wall. That's about the
size of Washington, DC.
This land is important and is made up of homes, wildlife preserves,
ranchland, and sites that host many endangered species, such as the
rare ocelot.
The border wall would orphan these massive parts of the Rio Grande
Valley and lock them into an even more militarized zone. The Border
Patrol says some owners will have gates to farm or visit their property
behind the wall, but there are a lot of details that make this
complicated. Who will know the codes to the gate, and who do we call if
there are problems? What happens if the power goes out? What good is
owning land if I have to be at the mercy of the Government and ask
their permission to access it? This is un-American.
private border wall impact
The border wall is also causing collateral damage through the
actions of private groups emboldened by this Government assault on our
community.
A private group called ``We Build the Wall'' has built a private
wall with no oversight. This group has no ties to or knowledge of my
community, and is affiliated with Steve Bannon, Kris Kobach, and other
Trump supporters.
Late last year, I began seeing construction of this private wall
right next to my family's property, right on the banks of the river.
There are international treaties the United States has with Mexico that
protect the river from damage by either country. By clearing vegetation
from the riverbank, they have speeded up the erosion process and in the
next flood, we will lose part of our land. Erosion caused by this new
wall could even change the international boundary, which is defined as
the river.
Because of this, there were 2 lawsuits filed against the private
border wall, but both so far have failed to stop it. In these cases,
the courts respected the rights of the landowner--a right that is being
denied to my family.
Whether a wall is built far from the river or right on its banks,
there is no way that this project can avoid environmental devastation
and destruction of the community.
impact on the rio grande valley
Finally, I would like to emphasize that the Rio Grande Valley would
not exist without the river that gives it its name, and that border
walls go against everything that makes my home what it is. Three in 4
Rio Grande Valley residents oppose the border wall.
Today, the Rio Grande Valley is now home to over a million people
on the U.S. side of the border, and our economy is fueled by trade,
immigration, and travel to and from Mexico. Without it, it would simply
not be the same place.
Our water supply comes from the river. Building a wall both
symbolically and physically cuts off the Valley from its lifeline.
As a retired official of the former U.S. Customs Service, I
understand the importance of legitimate trade to both the Rio Grande
Valley region and the rest of the United States. Without a vibrant
culture of goods and people moving back and forth between Mexico and
the United States, the society we take for granted could not exist.
This vibrant culture is threatened today by the border wall, which
is expected to have 100-foot surveillance towers, 24/7 lighting, and a
150-foot enforcement zone complete with fleets of military-grade
vehicles.
conclusion
Ultimately, I would like to point out to this subcommittee that the
negative effects of the border wall are not hypothetical. There are a
million real people in the Rio Grande Valley living with the effects of
President Bush's failed border fence project today, and Trump's border
wall will be no different.
While some landowners may be facing the threat of eminent domain
for the first time, this man-made crisis is nothing new for me.
My family's property will become one of the many stuck in ``no
man's land'' between the river and the wall, an area as large as our
Nation's capital city. All of this is in service of a project that most
people in the Rio Grande Valley completely reject, and that is an
insult to our American values.
Thank you to the subcommittee for inviting me to testify today, and
I hope the subcommittee does all within its power to be a check on this
administration and its total abuse of border landowners' rights.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Anzaldua.
I now recognize Ms. Alvarez to summarize her statement for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF NAYDA ALVAREZ, PRIVATE CITIZEN
Ms. Alvarez. It is an honor to testify before this
distinguished subcommittee about the severe harms Trump's
border wall would have on my family's land, my community, and
my country.
My name is Nayda Alvarez, and I live in a small community
called La Rosita in Starr County along the U.S.-Mexico border.
I own and live on the land that has been passed down within my
family for 5 generations. Thanks to the President's campaign
promise to build a wall across the entire Texas border, my home
is now in its path. I have been living with the threat for more
than a year now. The Federal Government has sued me to get
access to my land through eminent domain. I was able to testify
before Congress a year ago about the border wall.
Unfortunately, since then, we have already begun to see the
devastation as Trump's border wall has begun to go up in south
Texas.
My family peacefully lives and works in Starr County, and
my family has a long history of working in law enforcement. I
have lived on this land for more than 40 years with my family,
alongside where my grandfather lived. I worry about my father's
health once our land, our home is taken. This land was also my
mother's home where she raised a family, where she lived her
last days, and where she took her last breath. This land is
where my daughters were raised and where I see my grandchildren
play. This is not only my home but it is a place of gathering
for my family. It is part of my family history and the
inheritance passed down to me from my ancestors, a tradition I
intend to continue.
However, this ancestral home will be destroyed by the
construction of the border wall. The Government has already
sued me so they can survey and decide how much of my land they
will take through eminent domain, and we call this the land of
the free. This access would give the Government the right to
come onto my land and tear things apart, making borings,
cutting vegetation, and do whatever else they want on my home
and property without me being able to do anything about it. The
Government has offered me just a hundred dollars for this
access, which is what they think is fair price for giving up so
much, and this is the land of prosperity.
As a lifetime border resident, I have never felt unsafe in
my own community, having grown up with a father and brother who
served in law enforcement for decades. Despite living in a
community, one of the safest in America, helicopters frequently
fly overhead. Local police, sheriffs, State troopers, and
Border Patrol are a constant presence in my peaceful home. This
makes our home, our country look like a war zone.
In more than 40 years of living on the border, I cannot say
that I have ever seen migrants crossing into the United States
across my family's property. There is already a natural barrier
created by a tall bluff from the river. No explanation was ever
given to me as to why the Government plans to spend billions to
construct an artificial one, except for an expensive, needless
campaign promise.
There has been no transparency, and we have been
intimidated by the Government to sign over rights to our land.
We have been talked down to by Government officials who think
we are not aware of our rights, who have no respect for
excruciating life events that we were experiencing.
When my mother was on her death bed, Government officials
continued to call and were still asking for our family that we
sign over our--sign over to the Government our rights to the
land. I had to remind these individuals my mother was dying of
cancer in order to stop the calls.
Furthermore, the Government is hastily rushing through the
process as the 2020 elections approach. It is waiving all laws
without any real concern for landowners, the land, or wildlife.
I cannot compete with the Government's ability to waive laws
and rush through this process without consideration. It is not
fulling assessing the land's ability to withstand a monstrous
construction project. The border wall that already fell down in
California in late January is evidence of that. My home is just
200 feet from the river. The wall will not fit there. When I
asked the Government officials how the wall would fit, they
said they would squeeze it in.
Will I still have a home at the end of this? I will lose my
way of life, my privacy, my access to a beautiful river. My
plans for the future are now filled with uncertainty. I have
been a teacher for 22 years and anticipated retiring soon.
However, I can no longer make plans because I do not know what
will happen in the future.
The Rio Grande Valley is very prone to dangerous flooding,
but the Government has shown no concern for our safety. My home
could easily be washed away. All the hard work and lifetime of
building my dreams are thwarted in this border wall, as those
of so many others in my community.
Thank you for granting me this opportunity to testify, and
I am ready to address any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Alvarez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nayda Alvarez
February 27, 2020
It is an honor to testify before this distinguished subcommittee
about the severe harms Trump's border wall would have on my family's
land, my community, and my country.
My name is Nayda Alvarez and I live in the Rio Grande Valley of
South Texas in a small community called La Rosita in Starr County,
along the U.S.-Mexico border. I own and live on land that has been
passed down within my family for 5 generations.
Thanks to the President's campaign promise to build a wall across
the entire border in Texas, my home is now in the path of the border
wall, and the Federal Government has sued me to get access to my land
through eminent domain. I have been living with the threat of the
border wall for more than a year. I had the opportunity to testify
before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Hearing on the National Emergencies
Act on February 28, 2019. Unfortunately, since then we have already
begun to see the devastation as Trump's border wall has begun to go up
in South Texas.
My family has peacefully lived and worked in Starr County and my
family has a long history of working in law enforcement. I have lived
on this land for more than 40 years with my family, alongside where my
grandfather lived. I worry about my father's health once our land, our
home, is taken. This land was also my mother's home, where she raised a
family, where she lived her last days, and where she took her last
breath this past March.
This land is where my daughters were raised and where I see my
grandchildren play. This land is not only my home, but it is a place of
gathering for my family, it is part of my family history, and the
inheritance passed down to me from my ancestors--a tradition I intend
to continue. However, this ancestral home will be destroyed by the
construction of the border wall.
With the construction of the border wall, my plans for the future
are filled with uncertainty now. I have been a teacher for 22 years,
and anticipated retiring in a few years. However, I can no longer plan
for tomorrow because I do not know what will happen tomorrow, much less
in the future.
The Government has already sued me, wanting access to my land for
an entire year--so they can survey and decide how much of my land they
will take through eminent domain. This access would give the Government
the right to come onto my land and tear things apart--make borings, cut
vegetation, and do whatever else they want on my home and property
without me being able to do anything about it. The Government has
offered me just $100 for this access--which is what they think is a
fair price for giving up so much.
There is no reason for my home to be sacrificed to simply fulfill
an expensive and needless campaign promise. As a lifetime resident of
the Rio Grande Valley, I know there is no emergency in my home. There
is no ``invasion.'' I have never felt unsafe in my own community,
having grown up with a father who served in law enforcement for over 40
years and a brother who has been in law enforcement in Starr County for
more than 20 years. On the contrary, Starr County is one of the safest
places to live in America--and yet it is already one of the most over-
policed areas of our country. Despite living in a quiet community with
very little crime, helicopters frequently fly overhead, local police,
sheriffs, and State troopers, along with Federal agencies like the
Border Patrol are a constant unwelcome presence in my peaceful home.
This over-policing is what unnecessarily makes our home and our county
look like a warzone.
In more than 40 years of living on the border, I cannot say that I
have ever seen migrants crossing into the United States across my
family's property. To do so, they would have to cross the river, and
then they would have to climb up a bluff that runs alongside the river
at the end of my property. The river and the bluff create a natural
barrier on my family's property, a natural barrier that already exists
between Mexico and my land in the United States. No explanation was
ever given to me as to why the U.S. Government plans to spend billions
to construct an artificial one.
There has been no transparency in this process and we have been
intimidated by Government officials to sign over rights to our land. We
have been talked down to by Government representatives who think we are
not aware of our rights. With no respect for the excruciating life
events we were experiencing, when my mother was on her deathbed,
Government officials continued to call and were still asking our family
that we sign over to the Government our rights to the land. I had to
remind these individuals that my mother was dying of cancer in order to
stop the calls.
Furthermore, the Government is hastily rushing through construction
processes in anticipation of the 2020 elections. It is waiving all
laws, without any real concern for the landowners, the land, and
wildlife. I cannot compete with the Government's ability to waive laws
and rush through this process without consideration. I have seen maps
that are incomplete at best, showing that the Government is not fully
documenting the land and taking into account the geography or
topography of it, and its ability to withstand such a monstrous
construction project. The border wall that already fell down in
California in late January is evidence of that.
The Government plans to build a wall and a maintenance road just
feet from my house. They describe a 150-foot wide ``enforcement zone''
between my house and the river--but my home is just 200 feet from the
Rio Grande River and the land closest to the river is unstable and
subject to erosion. When I asked Government officials how they will fit
the wall between my home and the river, they simply said they would
``squeeze it in.''
At the end of all this--will my home be south of the wall? Will it
be torn down? Will I still have a home? My land? If I am able to keep
my home, how can I live on my land with the border wall looming over
it? I will lose my privacy and our way of life.
The Rio Grande Valley is very prone to flooding, having already
experienced dangerous floods, but the Government has shown no concern
for our safety and the increased risks posed by the border wall. If
there is another flood, my home could easily be washed away. All the
hard work and a lifetime of building my dreams are thwarted by this
border wall, as are those of so many other residents of the Rio Grande
Valley.
Thank you again for granting me this opportunity to testify. I am
ready to address any questions you may have.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Ms. Alvarez.
I now recognize Chairman Norris to summarize his statement
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF NED NORRIS, JR., CHAIRMAN, THE TOHONO O'ODHAM
NATION
Mr. Norris. Good morning, Chairwoman Rice, Ranking Member
Higgins, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee. I am
Ned Norris, Jr., and I am the chairman of the Tohono O'odham
Nation of Arizona. It is an honor to testify before you today
on behalf of my Nation. I also want to recognize Representative
Lesko, whom the district of it is in the northern most part of
our reservation is located.
The Tohono O'odham Nation is a Federally-recognized Tribe
with more than 34,000 enrolled Tribal citizens. Our ancestors
have lived in what is now Arizona and northern Mexico since
time immemorial. Without consideration for our sovereign rights
or what was best for our people, the international border was
drawn through our ancestral territory in 1854, separating our
people and our lands. As a result, today, our reservation
shares a 62-mile border with Mexico, the longest of any Tribe's
reservation on the Southern Border. Seventeen O'odham
communities with approximately 2,000 Tribal citizens are still
located in our historical homelands in Mexico.
O'odham on both sides of the border share the same
language, culture, religion, and history. Our citizens cross to
participate in pilgrimages and ceremonies at important
religious and cultural sites on both sides of the border, to
visit family and friends, and to pay respects to loved ones
buried in cemeteries on either side.
Today, only a portion of our ancestral territory is
encompassed within the boundaries of our current reservation.
Our original homelands ranged well beyond boundaries and
include--well beyond these boundaries and include what is now
Organ Pipe National--Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument,
Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, and the San Bernardino
National Wildlife Refuge.
The Nation has significant and well-documented connections
to these lands and the religious and cultural and natural
resources located within them, including at Quitobaquito
Springs and Monument Hill.
The Nation shares the Federal Government's concerns about
border security, and we believe the border-related law
enforcement measures we have taken in--have taken in
coordination with CBP are necessary to protect the Nation,
specifically, and the United States generally.
Over the past decade, the Nation has spent an annual
average of $3 million in Tribal funds to help meet the United
States' border security responsibilities. We participate in
Tribally-led high-intensity drug trafficking task forces and in
a Shadow Wolves Native ICE unit, and we have authorized vehicle
barriers and ICE office, CBP forward operating bases, CBP
checkpoints, and integrated fixed towers on our Tribal lands.
But the Nation strongly opposes the construction of a
border wall in our historical territory. Such a wall comes at
great cost to the American taxpayer. It also is in ineffective
and remote geographic areas like ours, and it is needlessly
destructive when there are more efficient technologies that can
control the border without damaging the religious, cultural,
and environmental resources on which our members rely.
We only are deeply--we are also deeply concerned about the
authority that allows Homeland Security to waive all statutory
protections in the name of expediting border wall construction.
Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration
Responsibility Act allows DHS to trample over rights of the
Tohono O'odham Nation and other border communities in a way
that would never have been tolerated in other parts of the
United States.
And while IIRIRA requires DHS to consult with Tribal,
State, and local government and property owners, consultation
either has not occurred or has been woefully inadequate,
resulting in no real mitigation measures. Recent border wall
construction activities already have damaged areas of cultural
significance to the Nation, including the bulldozing of an area
near Quitobaquito Springs, which destroyed burial grounds, and
the blasting of Monument Hill, a ceremonial site that is a
final resting place for Tribal ancestors.
CBP commenced these activities despite our Tribal historic
preservation staff raising concerns. To add insult to injury,
yesterday, CBP invited the press to witness more blasting at
Monument Hill immediately before I testified in the House
Natural Resources Committee about this very subject. The
disrespect for our cultural resources is painful for us and a
symptom of the dangerous way in which IIRIRA has been
implemented.
We thank the committee for its efforts to address this
serious problem through its vote on legislation which would
rescind DHS's dictatorial waiver authority and that would help
protect our religious and cultural heritage, our way of life,
and our environment.
I am happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Norris follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ned Norris, Jr.
February 27, 2020
introduction & historical background
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Rice, Ranking Member Higgins, and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee. I am Ned Norris, Jr. and I
am the chairman of the Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona. It is an honor
to have the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of my
Nation. I also want to pay our respects to Representative Lesko, in
whose district the northern-most portion of our Reservation is located.
For the reasons that will be obvious from my testimony today, the
Nation is deeply appreciative of the attention that this subcommittee,
and its parent full committee, is paying to the serious issues that
surround the frighteningly broad authority that the Secretary of
Homeland Security has been given to ignore all manner of statutory
rights in connection with border wall construction. The waiver
authority granted the Secretary in the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) allows the Secretary to take
liberties with the law in a way more reminiscent of a totalitarian
state than a democracy in which all citizens are equally protected by
the laws of the land. We support the committee's efforts, and hope that
the full House will take up the noble cause of H.R. 1232, The
Rescinding DHS' Waiver Authority for Border Wall Act, and return this
authority to Congress, where it belongs.
The Tohono O'odham Nation is a Federally-recognized Tribe with more
than 34,000 enrolled Tribal citizens. Our ancestors have lived in what
is now Arizona and northern Mexico since time immemorial. Without
consideration for our people's sovereign and historical rights, in 1854
the international boundary was drawn through our ancestral territory,
separating our people and our lands. As a result, today the main body
of our Reservation shares a 62-mile border with Mexico--the second-
longest international border of any tribe in the United States, and the
longest on the Southern Border. On the other side of the border in
Mexico, 17 O'odham communities with approximately 2,000 members are
still located in our historical homelands. O'odham on both sides of the
border share the same language, culture, religion, and history. Our
Tribal members regularly engage in border crossings for pilgrimages and
ceremonies at important religious and cultural sites on both sides of
the border. We also cross the border to visit family and friends.
Today only a portion of our ancestral territory is encompassed
within the boundaries of our current U.S. Reservation. Our original
homelands ranged well beyond these boundaries, and included what is now
the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (adjacent to the western
boundary of the Nation's Reservation), the Cabeza Prieta National
Wildlife Refuge, and the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge to the
east. The Nation has significant and well-documented connections to
these lands and the religious, cultural, and natural resources located
there.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
the nation supports and is actively engaged in border security efforts
The Nation has long been at the front lines of securing the border.
Over the past decade the Nation has spent an annual average of $3
million of our own Tribal funds on border security and enforcement to
help meet the United States' border security responsibilities. The
Nation's police force typically spends more than a third of its time on
border issues, including the investigation of immigrant deaths, illegal
drug seizures, and human smuggling.
The Nation also has long-standing, positive working relationships
with Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) and other Federal law enforcement agencies. The
Nation has entered into several cooperative agreements with CBP and
ICE, and pursuant to numerous Tohono O'odham Legislative Council
resolutions has authorized a number of border security measures on its
sovereign lands to help CBP. Some examples include:
High Intensity Drug Trafficking (HIDTA) Task Force.--The
Nation leads a multi-agency anti-drug smuggling task force
staffed by Tohono O'odham Police Department detectives, ICE
special agents, Border Patrol agents, and the FBI. This is the
only Tribally-led High Intensity Drug Trafficking (HIDTA) Task
Force in the United States. In 2018, the Nation's Task Force
Commander W. Rodney Irby received an award recognizing him as
the HIDTA National Outstanding Task Force Commander.
ICE office and CBP forward operating bases.--Since 1974, the
Nation has authorized a long-term lease for an on-reservation
ICE office. The Nation also approved leases for 2 CBP forward
operating bases that operate on the Nation's lands 24 hours, 7
days a week.
Vehicle barriers on our lands.--CBP constructed extensive
vehicle barriers that run the entire length of the Tribal
border and a patrol road that parallels it.
CBP checkpoints on our lands.--The Nation has authorized CBP
checkpoints on the Nation's major east-west highway to Tucson
and the northern highway to Casa Grande.
Integrated Fixed Towers.--The Nation approved a lease of its
lands to allow CBP to build an Integrated Fixed Tower (IFT)
system that will include surveillance and sensor towers with
associated access roads on the Nation's southern and eastern
boundaries to detect and help interdict illegal entries.
Shadow Wolves, an ICE tactical patrol unit.--The Nation also
has officers that are part of the Shadow Wolves, an ICE
tactical patrol unit based on our Reservation which the Nation
played a role in creating. The Shadow Wolves are the only
Native American tracking unit in the country, and its officers
are known for their ability to track and apprehend immigrants
and drug smugglers, using traditional tracking methods. The
Shadow Wolves have apprehended countless smugglers and seized
thousands of pounds of illegal drugs.
border ``wall'' construction in remote areas like ours is deeply
harmful to the nation--as well as ineffective and a waste of taxpayer
dollars
The Nation shares the Federal Government's concerns about border
security, and we believe that the measures we have taken to assist CBP
and conduct our own law enforcement efforts are necessary to protect
the Nation specifically and the United States generally. But we
strongly oppose the construction of a border wall on our southern
boundary. Such a wall comes at great cost to the American taxpayer in
this era of a skyrocketing Federal deficit. It is ineffective in remote
geographic areas like ours where it can easily be circumvented by
climbing over, tunneling under, or sawing through it. And it is
needlessly destructive when there are more efficient ways to control
the border without damaging the religious, cultural, and environmental
resources on which our members rely and which make our ancestral land
sacred to our people.
Damage Already Done by Construction Outside Our Reservation.--In
several amicus briefs filed in litigation in 2019 challenging
construction of the border wall,\1\ the Nation detailed the negative
impacts it knew would be caused by border wall construction in Tucson
Sector Projects 1, 2, and 3 and Yuma Sector 3. Today, some of that
construction is fully under way and the anticipated damage is now
occurring. Tucson Sector Projects 1 and 2 involve construction of a 43-
mile long, 30-foot high concrete-filled steel bollard fence (pedestrian
barrier or wall) to replace existing vehicle barriers and pedestrian
fencing near the Lukeville Port of Entry. The Yuma Sector Project
contemplates over 30 additional miles of wall construction, connecting
with these projects, extending through Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife
Refuge and Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, and ending less than 2
miles from the western boundary of the Nation's Reservation. Similar
construction is on-going in Tucson Sector Project 3 to the east of the
Tribe's reservation, including the San Bernardino National Wildlife
Refuge. These projects already have caused significant and irreparable
harm to cultural and natural resources of great importance to the
Nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities
Coalition v. Donald J. Trump, No. 4:19-cv-00892-HSG, Amicus Curiae
Brief of Tohono O'odham Nation in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for
Supplemental Preliminary Injunction (June 18, 2019, N.D. Ca.) (Dkt. No.
172); Amicus Curiae Brief of Tohono O'odham Nation in Support of
Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (October 18, 2019)
(Dkt. No. 215).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Government itself acknowledged the significance of the
Nation's interest in the areas that are being impacted by the on-going
and contemplated construction in the Tucson and Yuma Sector projects.
For example, the National Park Service in its General Management Plan
for the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (a UNESCO biosphere
reserve)\2\ acknowledged the importance of Quitobaquito Spring, which
is located 200 yards from the border:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Biosphere reserves are areas with unique ecosystems recognized
by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) as special places for testing interdisciplinary approaches to
managing social and ecological systems. Each reserve promotes solutions
reconciling the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-
sciences/biosphere-reserves/.
``There are 11 springs in the monument, eight of which are located at
Quitobaquito, by far the largest source of water. The pond and dam at
Quitobaquito were constructed in 1860, and the resulting body of water
is one of the largest oases in the Sonoran Desert. The site is also
sacred to the O'odham, who have used the water from this spring for all
of their residence in the area . . .
``There still exist sites within the monument which are sacred to the
O'odham, including Quitobaquito Springs . . . Even to the present day,
the O'odham continue to visit the monument to collect sacred water from
the Springs, to gather medicinal plants, and to harvest the fruit of
the organ pipe and saguaro cactus.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. National Park Service, Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument, Final General Management Plan, Development Concept Plans,
Environmental Impact Statement (Feb. 1997), at 30, 33, available at
https://www.nps.gov/orpi/learn/management/upload/fingmp.pdf.
The Park Service also has recognized that there are O'odham burial
sites within Quitobaquito.\4\ In a more recent study, the National Park
Service identified 5 new archeological sites (of pre-contact Native
American artifacts) and additional archeological resources within a 60-
foot-wide Federal easement that runs along the border in Organ Pipe,
noting that many existing archeological sites will be impacted or
destroyed by the border wall construction, and that many areas along
the Organ Pipe border have not yet been surveyed to identify
archeological and culturally-sensitive sites.\5\ Indeed, recent
construction activities already have resulted in damage to areas of
significance to the Nation within Organ Pipe, including the blading of
an area near Quitobaquito Springs and blasting in an area called
Monument Hill, which we believe has disturbed human remains.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id. at 158, citing Anderson, Keith M., Bell, Fillman and
Stewart, Yvonne G., Quitobaquito: A Sand Papago Cemetery, Kiva, 47, no
4 (Summer, 1982) at 221-22; see also Bell, Fillman, Anderson, Keith M.
and Stewart, Yvonne G., The Quitobaquito Cemetery and Its History, U.S.
National Park Service, Western Archeological Center (Dec. 1980),
available at http://npshistory.com/series/anthropology/wacc/
quitobaquito/report.pdf.
\5\ Veech, Andrew S., Archeological Survey of 18.2 Kilometers (11.3
Miles) of the U.S.-Mexico International Border, Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument, Pima County, Arizona, U.S. National Park Service,
Intermountain Region Archeology Program (July 2019), available at
https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/
cbd7ef6a-3b5b-4608-9913-4d488464823b/note/7a429f63-9e46-41fa-afeb-
c8e238fcd8bb.pdf (discovery of 5 new archeological sites and 55
isolated finds; recommending additional evaluation of sites, noting
that 17 identified archeological sites will be destroyed by the border
wall construction, and that many areas along the border within the
Monument remain unsurveyed).
\6\ See Firozi, Paulina, The Washington Post, Sacred Native
American burial sites are being blown up for Trump's border wall,
lawmaker says (Feb. 9, 2020) https://www.washingtonpost.com/
immigration/2020/02/09/border-wall-native-american-burial-sites/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar expert reports show archeological sites of significance to
the Nation in the immediate vicinity of Tucson Project 3 in the San
Bernardino Valley, as well as the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife
Refuge, although these areas are less well-surveyed so the extent of
cultural and natural resources potentially affected by construction of
a border wall is even less well-known.\7\ But there is little question
that the on-going construction of 43 miles of 30-foot high steel
bollard wall will have serious negative impacts on trees, cacti, and
other plants of documented significance to the Nation, on archeological
and burial sites of O'odham ancestors, on wildlife migration, and on
access to vitally important sources of water, and that it will cause
flooding in those areas where construction occurs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Fish, Paul R.; Fish, Suzanne K.; Madsen, John H., Prehistory
and early history of the Malpai Borderlands: Archaeological synthesis
and recommendations, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
(2006) at 29-30, available at https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/
rmrs_gtr176.pdf; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cabeza Prieta National
Wildlife Refuge: Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Wilderness
Stewardship Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (Aug. 2006) at 172,
586, available at https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/CPNWREIS.pdf; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Assessment of the Malpai
Borderlands Habitat Conservation Plan (July 26, 2008) at 17, available
at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/HCPs/Malpai/
MBHCP%20EA%20w%20FONSI.pdf.
\8\ See Sierra Club, Amicus Curiae Brief of Tohono O'odham Nation
at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nation Is Deeply Concerned that DHS Will Next Extend
Construction Onto The Nation's Reservation.--If the wall is extended
onto our Reservation, it will divide our lands and our people, creating
a barrier between families and communities who share the same language
and culture. It will interfere with our members' traditional crossings
for domestic, religious ceremonial and cultural purposes. A wall will
impede the natural flow of water and prevent it from reaching our
Reservation, including the man-made watering holes used by our
livestock and by wild animals. A wall built across natural washes also
will have a damming effect (as it already has done near Lukeville), and
exacerbate the flooding that already occurs on our roads and in our
communities during monsoon season. Construction of the wall near the
outskirts of our reservation already is disturbing and destroying
culturally significant sites and cultural resources, Tribal
archeological resources, and sacred sites and human remains, and
already impacting our wildlife, including some endangered species like
the jaguar that are sacred to American Indian tribes, preventing them
from moving freely within their habitat and interfering with their
natural migration patterns. Construction of the wall near our
reservation also already is interfering with the flow and use of scarce
and vital water resources, including seasonal washes, on which plants,
wildlife, and livestock depend. The plants are food sources for animals
and are used by Tribal members for food, medicine, and cultural
purposes.
the iirira waiver authority is inconsistent with american values
The Nation is deeply troubled by the Federal statute that gives the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) nearly dictatorial power to issue
to itself a ``waiver'' to circumvent any law with which it does not
wish to comply. DHS has used this self-waiver authority to avoid more
than 42 laws that otherwise would protect the rights of individuals and
local governments, private property rights, water rights, religious
practices and culturally sensitive sites, the environment, endangered
species, and a host of other rights and resources that Americans--and
the Tohono O'odham Nation--hold dear.
As you know, the culprit is Section 102(c) of IIRIRA, as modified
by the Real ID Act of 2005. IIRIRA authorizes the Secretary of DHS to
install additional physical barriers and roads near the border to deter
illegal crossings into the United States, but allows the Secretary to
do this without taking into consideration whether the measures are
cost-effective, how well they actually work, or how much damage they
may do to the communities and environment impacted by the measures.
IIRIRA Section 102(a). Section 102(c) provides:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall have the authority to waive all legal requirements such
Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to
ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this
section. Any such decision by the Secretary shall be effective upon
being published in the Federal Register.''
8 U.S.C. 1701 note. The language is so broad that the DHS
Secretary has claimed he has the authority to waive any law--including
State and other laws--if he deems it necessary for expeditious
construction of border barriers. In 2008, DHS issued a waiver that
covers a large portion of the Southern Border in California, New
Mexico, Texas, and Arizona, including the Tohono O'odham Nation's
border with Mexico. See 73 Fed. Reg. 19078 (April 8, 2008)
(correction). The notice waives the application of virtually all
potentially applicable Federal environmental, cultural, and religious
protection laws, and all Federal, State, or other laws, regulations,
and legal requirements deriving from or related to the subject of those
Federal laws. Id. at 19080. Since then, DHS has issued a series of
additional waivers to allow construction of the border wall, see, e.g.,
84 Fed. Reg. 21798 (May 15, 2019), and just last week issued yet
another waiver that allows the administration to ignore Federal
procurement and contracting laws (in addition to all environmental
laws) where it is currently constructing the border wall in California,
Arizona, and Texas. See 85 Fed. Reg. 9794 (Feb. 20, 2020).
The extraordinary latitude of DHS's authority to waive any and all
laws is exacerbated by IIRIRA's severe limitation on citizens' rights
to challenge those waivers. Any claim must be filed within 60 days
after the date of the action or decision made by the DHS Secretary (see
Section 102(c)(B)), an extraordinarily short time period in which to
become aware of the waiver, to determine what DHS construction actions
are planned under the waiver, and to prepare a claim in connection with
the waiver. Further, the only cause of action that the statute purports
to allow is in Federal district court for a claim ``alleging a
violation of the Constitution,'' Section 102(c)(A)--a draconian
limitation that prevents Americans from being able to challenge the
impact of DHS's actions on their rights under any statutory laws.
Further impeding citizens' right to challenge is IIRIRA's requirement
that appeals from a decision of a district court may only be had by
filing a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court--and as is
well-known, each year the Supreme Court grants very, very few petitions
for certiorari (e.g., only 1.2 percent of petitions filed in 2017 were
granted according to the Harvard Law Review).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/11/supreme-court-2016-term-
statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a practical matter, what this means is that a wall may very well
be built without any consideration of the laws that protect the
interests of American citizens generally, and the Tohono O'odham Nation
in particular, in our natural or cultural resources, archeological or
sacred sites, economic resources, or the people and communities that
live on the border. And while IIRIRA provides that DHS shall consult
with Interior, Indian tribes, State and local governments, and property
owners to minimize impacts on the environment, culture, commerce, and
quality of life for those living near the border (see Section
102(b)(1)(C)), the Federal Government appears to believe it need not
comply with these directives, and accordingly such consultation either
has not occurred or has been inadequate. Nevertheless, DHS's failure to
engage in formal consultation with Tribes violates not just IIRIRA, but
Executive Order No. 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments'' (Nov. 6, 2000), and the DHS Tribal Consultation
Policy (Sections II.B. and III.A), as well as the Federal Government's
general trust obligation to respect Tribal sovereignty and engage with
Tribes on a government-to-government basis.
More than that, the manner in which IIRIRA is being implemented has
stripped our Tribal government, other governments, and private citizens
in border communities of significant Federal protections (as well as
protections under State and other laws), and has militarized the border
near our communities. No other segment of the United States population
has been forced to surrender these legal rights and protections or live
under these circumstances. The Tohono O'odham Nation strongly urges
that it and its fellow border communities should be entitled to the
same rights and protections as other United States citizens.
For all these reasons, the Nation opposes the application of
Section 102(c) waivers on its lands, and objects to the waiver
authority in general as unacceptably broad and draconian.\10\ Indian
Country stands with us--the National Congress of American Indians has
adopted several resolutions that similarly oppose the waiver of
Federal, State, and other laws under Section 102(c) of IIRIRA as
``unnecessary, destructive, and in violation of the Federal obligation
to consult with Indian Tribes on a government-to-government basis and
to respect Tribal sovereignty and self-determination.'' NCAI Resolution
ECWS 08-001; REN-08-002; ECWS 17-002; NCAI Resolution ECWS 18-001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., Tohono O'odham Legislative Council Resolution No.
17-053 (Feb. 7, 2017), No. 18-032 (Jan. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nation's concerns have been heightened as DHS moves forward
full steam ahead in constructing a border wall, despite the absence of
Federal appropriations, circumventing the will of Congress by
reprogramming billions of dollars appropriated for the Department of
Defense without any evidence that such a wall will improve border
security. IIRIRA is effectively facilitating the use of billions of
taxpayer dollars appropriated for other purposes to be spent on a
border wall that has not been adequately studied and that already is
having significant, deleterious effects on the Nation's Reservation and
our members, our cultural and natural resources, our archeological and
sacred sites, and our economic interests.
Litigation challenging DHS's waiver authority has to date been
unsuccessful.\11\ Litigation challenging the reprogramming of funds is
proceeding, but destruction of sacred sites and important habitat is
continuing as that litigation winds its way through the process. For
these reasons, we urge Congress to reconsider whether the IIRIRA waiver
provision should remain in place, or whether additional safeguards are
necessary to protect border Tribes like the Nation and other border
communities whose rights and interests are being trampled by its
application. We reiterate our support for legislation like H.R. 1232,
which would retain IIRIRA's directive to construct border barriers but
strike the waiver provision, as one appropriate response to the over
breadth of the current waiver provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. McAleenan, et
al., Nos. 18-cv-0655-KBJ, Dkt. No. 37 (Sep. 4, 2019), 19-cv-2085-KBJ,
Dkt. No. 21 (Sep. 13, 2019), cert. filed sub nom. Center for Biological
Diversity et al. v. Wolf, No. 19-975; In re Border Infrastructure
Envtl. Litig., 284 F. Supp. 3d 1092, 1103 (S.D. Cal.), cert. denied sub
nom. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 139 S. Ct. 594
(2018), aff'd, 915 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2019); Defenders of Wildlife v.
Chertoff, 527 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D.D.C. 2007), cert. denied, 554 U.S. 918
(2008); Cty. of El Paso v. Chertoff, No. EP-08-CA-196-FM, 2008 WL
4372693, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2008) (case challenging the 2008
waiver that applies to the Nation's reservation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We ask that at a minimum, Congress consider requiring DHS to engage
in a more thorough and substantive consultation and review process that
is respectful of our government-to-government relationship, which
recognizes the Tohono O'odham Nation's unique history and relationship
to these lands, and which requires DHS to consider the information
provided by the Nation before making any decision about what type of
border security measures are most appropriate for our ancestral
homelands. Although DHS has committed to ``formal, government-to-
government consultation with the Tohono O'odham Nation prior to taking
actions that may impact the Tribe and its members in Arizona''\12\ as
required by the law and its Tribal consultation policy, DHS currently
is giving little more than lip service to consultation. In recent
communications with the Nation relating to construction in the Nation's
ancestral territory just outside of the Reservation, DHS has made clear
that it will not actually consider any alternative type of border
security measures or technology other than construction of a border
wall, nor will it slow down its efforts to construct the wall to
consider whether there are alternatives or mitigation measures.\13\ DHS
should be required to consider and study the information provided by
the Nation before imposing a ``one size fits all'' approach that is not
cost-effective, not substantively effective, and causes real harm to
our people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Letter from Acting CBP Commissioner Kevin K. McAleenan to
Chairman Edward D. Manuel, Tohono O'odham Nation (Aug. 18, 2017)
(attached).
\13\ See, e.g., Letter from Chairman Ned Norris, Jr., Tohono
O'odham Nation to Roy Villareal, Chief Patrol Agent, U.S. Border Patrol
Tucson Sector Chief (Nov. 13, 2019); Letter from Roy Villareal, Chief
Patrol Agent, U.S. Border Patrol Tucson Sector Chief to Chairman Ned
Norris, Jr., Tohono O'odham Nation (Jan. 10, 2020) (attached).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
We urge Congress to withdraw or at least better limit DHS's
authority to unilaterally give itself waivers to circumvent every
statute on the books. Its current waiver authority is dangerously
broad, and has allowed DHS nearly unchallengeable, dictatorial-
authority to run roughshod over the rights of the Tohono O'odham Nation
and every other border community in the United States. This kind of
non-challengeable power is more appropriate to a totalitarian state,
and does not belong among the statutes that are supposed to protect our
freedoms--including from an over-reaching, intrusive Federal
Government, making decisions in which we have no say and have no right
to challenge.
The Nation is deeply appreciative of the subcommittee's interest in
our concerns about the IIRIRA wavier, and about the impact its
application is having on our ability to protect our religious and
cultural heritage, our way of life, and our environment. We welcome a
continued dialog with you on these issues.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Chairman Norris.
I now recognize Mr. Chilton to summarize his statement for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JIM CHILTON, PRIVATE CITIZEN
Mr. Chilton. Thank you, Chairman Rice, and recognize
Chairman Thompson, and the noble, honorable Congress people
from the Republican side.
My name is Jim Chilton. I am a fifth-generation rancher
from Arivaca, Arizona. Arivaca is a small town approximately 55
miles southwest of Tucson, Arizona. The ranch includes private
property, State school trust lands, and Federal grazing
permits. My pioneering ancestors drove cattle from Texas to
Arizona territory in about 130 years ago.
Can I have the photo?
This photo is a map of our family ranch. Please notice that
the southern end of the ranch is the international boundary,
about--that is about 5 miles of the ranch.
Next photo. This photo shows the international boundary,
what the international boundary looks like on my ranch. It
consists of a four-strand barbed wire fence. That is the photo
on the bottom right.
The next photo is, on the bottom left, is the wall where it
ends 2\1/2\ miles west of Nogales, Arizona.
The one on the right is me. Half of me is in Mexico and
half of me is in Arizona. Even an 80-year-old rancher can crawl
through, under, or over the border.
The 25-mile open gap between the west end of the current
wall near Nogales and the east end of the Buenos Aires National
Wildlife Refuge wall is a major route for cartel drug and
people smuggling.
The following photograph, that is the one on the upper
left. The photograph shows the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service bollard-style wall at the Buenos Aires National Refuge.
The service consistently advocates for wildlife connectivity
with Mexico, except when they wanted one.
The last--the long-outdated Border Patrol strategy is to
focus on attempts of interdiction 10, 20, and over 100 miles
inside the United States, rather than at the international
boundary. The video that you see has been taken very recently
on my ranch. We have some motion-activated cameras. Keep in
mind, over 200 trails come through our ranch, and it is very
hard to detect people.
These people obviously have backpacks. Look at the big
bales of what might be marijuana. They are coming through our
ranch. The Tucson Station Border Patrol, with approximately 650
agents and 27 agents per mile, is located 80 miles from the
ranch border. Would a football team ever win a game if on
defense the team lined up 10 yards behind the line of
scrimmage?
I thank you, and I will conclude with a passionate plea for
the need for a border wall, fence, barrier, what all, whatever
you call it. We must stop opioids coming into the Nation. We
must have a border wall. It requires forward operation bases.
Eighty miles from Tucson? No, we need forward operation bases
on my ranch. So I advocate seriously that we need to secure the
international boundary at the border.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chilton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Chilton
February 27, 2020
My name is Jim Chilton. I am a 5th generation rancher from Arivaca,
Arizona. Arivaca is a small rural town approximately 55 miles southwest
of Tucson, Arizona. Our ranch is adjacent to the town and extends south
to the international border with Mexico. The ranch includes private
property, State School Trust lands and 3 Federal grazing permits in the
Coronado National Forest. Our entire family, my wife of 56 years, our 2
sons and their children, my brother and his wonderful family, are
blessed to be able to preserve our western ranching customs, culture,
and heritage dating back to our pioneering ancestors who drove cattle
from Texas to Arizona Territory in the late 1800's. Our family has been
in the cattle business in Arizona for about 130 years. We have a long-
term view of the necessity to be excellent stewards of the grasslands
we carefully manage. We are honored to have received various valued
awards for resource conservation and wildlife stewardship.
chilton ranch and the international border
Our family ranch is located adjacent to the United States-Mexico
boundary in a corridor identified as among the most active for drug
smuggling and human trafficking in the Nation. My comments generally
relate specifically to the portion of the border south of our ranch
extending from Nogales, AZ to Sasabe, AZ.
The following is a map of our beef-producing family ranch. Please
notice that the southern end of the eastern part of the ranch is the
international boundary for about 5 miles. Mexico is just across the
fence. Our ranch boundary goes north and west bordering 3 other
ranches. Crossers on the western side go through our neighbors' grazing
lands and then through our pastures.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The following photo shows what the international boundary looks
like on the southern end of our ranch. It is not signed or marked and
mainly consists of a four-strand barbed wire cattle fence. Obviously,
there is no wall and you would never know it was the international
border by viewing it.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
This is the U.S.-Mexico border. For approximately 25 miles, this is
typical until it reaches the east end of the bollard-style modern wall
built to protect the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge. It is well-
known that the Mexican cartels use this 25-mile open door of rarely-
patrolled land with no border-paralleling road for their drug and
people smuggling business.
The following photo shows the end of the wall about 2.5 miles west
of Nogales Arizona and the point where the wall becomes an old pasture
fence.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Jim Chilton: half in the United States and half in Mexico! Even an
80-year-young rancher can crawl under the current international border.
As you can see, building an appropriate international border fence and
road would be no challenge for American civil engineers. We laugh when
we hear former officials say it's such difficult terrain that, ``no one
in his right mind'' would try it.
border patrol strategy
The long-out-dated Border Patrol strategy is to focus on attempts
at interdiction of rural area crossers 10, 20, and over 100 miles
inside the United States rather than at the international boundary. As
a consequence, the Federal Government has de facto ceded hundreds of
square miles of Arizona to the cartels. My neighbors and I strongly
believe the Border Patrol must SECURE THE BORDER AT THE INTERNATIONAL
BOUNDARY. The fact that drug packers, MS-13 gang members, and deported
criminals desiring to re-enter the Nation walk through our neighbors'
ranches and our ranch is dangerous for us and for our neighbors. We
believe every nation has the sovereign right to secure and control its
border and our Nation is not succeeding in exercising that right.
We want to emphasize that we support and deeply appreciate the
Border Patrol. The agents are polite, well-trained, and there is a
sincere effort by the Sector Commander, his top officials, and Tucson
Station Patrol Agent in Charge to listen to and try to address
ranchers' border issues. We also appreciate many of the current Border
Patrol efforts, including checkpoints, drug-sniffing dogs, and other
strategies which certainly interdict highway traffic. We believe,
however, these tactics are woefully insufficient to actually stem the
tide of cartel operations flooding cross-country routes through border
ranchlands of Arizona like ours.
Why is the entire Tucson Station of the Border Patrol with
approximately 650 officers operating from a location 80 miles and about
3 hours from the international boundary at the southern end of our
ranch? The Tucson Station has about 24 miles of the international
boundary to secure, or 27 agents per mile. Currently, the Tucson Sector
personnel report to work in downtown Tucson, check out weapons and
vehicles and then drive approximately 3 hours to reach the border on
our ranch. The waste of time and the high cost of each officer
traveling to and from the border in his or her individual Border Patrol
vehicle are outrageous.
National security demands that drug traffickers, terrorists, and
previously-deported people be prevented from entering the United States
at the border. Asylum seekers and work seekers need to cross at the
legal Ports of Entry. Currently, on our ranch all of the above often
travel cross-country 10 to 20 miles before the Border Patrol even
attempts to apprehend them. Why? Because the Border Patrol is not based
at the border; old, slow, dirt roads have not been improved to the
ranchland borders, and communications fail in the borderlands. We can
work all day on the ranch and not encounter Border Patrol anywhere near
the border.
Why is there a huge Border Patrol station located in Casa Grande
when the city is located approximately 130 miles from the international
boundary? Certainly we are pleased that thousands of cartel drug
packers and cartel-led border crossers are arrested in Pinal County
every year. However, we question the current strategy that lets these
undocumented persons walk through our ranch or through the Tohono
O'odham Reservation to the west of us to disperse so far into Arizona.
This strategy allows, we believe, more than half of the crossers to
escape detection. This capture percent is even deemed too generous by
Border Patrol officers with whom we speak ``off the record.'' Would a
football team ever win a game if, on defense, the team lined up 10
yards behind the line of scrimmage?
need to secure the border at the border
Wouldn't it make sense to have a wall TO SECURE THE BORDER AT THE
BORDER where linear miles can be effectively patrolled rather than
leaving hundreds of square miles of southern Arizona crossed by a web
of cartel trails and routes? Of course, square miles are more difficult
and costly to patrol than linear miles!! Wouldn't it be enormously more
effective to have patrolled roads along a bollard-style wall (deemed
most appropriate by the Border Patrol) together with 21st Century
communications, cameras, and sensors plus 24/7 actual presence of the
Border Patrol? Isn't it called the ``Border Patrol'' and not the
``Interior Patrol? Wouldn't their presence at the border be a much
greater deterrent to cartel offensives than the current backfield game
plan?
There are tremendous advantages to closing the gap in the wall
between Nogales and Sasabe and then continuing construction to the east
end of the wall at Yuma. To achieve reasonable border control, and
ensure that rural Arizona is not the ``sacrificed route,'' effective
structures and strategies must also be implemented all the way across
Arizona's borderlands. Most importantly, the bollard-style fence must
be conscientiously patrolled and must include forward operation bases,
roads paralleling the boundary and surveillance technology. Congress
needs to appropriate necessary funds to allow for the completion of the
wall, roads, and forward operation bases.
A retiring high-level Border Patrol official sat in our living room
with all our neighbor ranchers and stated that ``electronic
surveillance alone only tells me what I missed.'' He added, `` . . . we
cannot respond in actionable time.'' Any policy of reliance upon
information on which no effective deterrent action can be taken is
virtually useless. That perspective allows--even encourages and abets--
the current abuse, abandonment, rape, mutilation, and murder of would-
be workers who are told by cartel operatives that this is the best
route. They pay, suffer, and are often used as decoys while the drug
loads are routed around a different canyon or trail.
advantages of securing the border at the border
The following are some of the advantages to completing an
effective, bollard-style fence with adequate patrolling and appropriate
technology and forward operating bases:
First, U.S. Government Accountability Office and Judicial Watch
have reported that people crossing the open border sections have been
arrested from terrorist-sponsoring countries. How many crossers from
terrorist nations actually got through and where are they now? How many
successful crossers from the Middle East are connected to ISIS?
Second, it is outrageous that Mexican cartel scouts with satellite
phones and other military-grade equipment are free to occupy
strategically-selected hilltops for dozens of miles inside Arizona
including on our ranch. As a consequence, the cartel scouts know where
the Border Patrol is at all times so they can carefully guide drug
packers--and people whom know they are not eligible for asylum--through
the wooded canyons and along hundreds of smuggler trails on our
ranches. Border Patrol officers apprehend fewer than half of the
foreign migrants and smugglers according to national Border Patrol
Council Vice President, Art del Cueto. Interdiction at the border would
stop the occupation of Arizona border ranchlands by these cartel
operatives.
Third, environmental costs of the current failure to effectively
stop the flood of crossers are well-documented. Much of the unfenced
minimally-patrolled Arizona border area includes National forests,
conservation areas, monuments, and wildernesses. These are exactly the
open routes most used by the cartel-led operations. The Border Patrol
reported at a meeting we attended that undocumented crossers have left
a reported average of 8.5 pounds of trash apiece on these lands. It is
estimated that over 25,000 tons of garbage have been dropped by
crossers in the Tucson Sector alone since 1992. Just since June 2007
until March 2019 another 463,000 pounds of trash was collected along
the Arizona border according to the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality's Border Trash report. Additionally, just as of 2010, the Organ
Pipe Cactus National Monument documented approximately 2,553 miles of
wildcat roads and trails just on their portion of the border with
Mexico.
Fourth, there are intolerable human tragedies and abuses faced by
work-seeking border crossers, especially women. Work-seekers currently
have no feasible option but to cross in the hands of the cartel. It is
reported that over 2,500 border crossers have died just in the Tucson
Border Patrol Sector since 1990. Horrific human tragedies could be
avoided by securing the border at the border and implementing a
feasible, simplified, e-verifiable worker documentation program to
provide a legal and safe alternative for needed workers.
Fifth, we have been burglarized twice by south-bound drug packers
who, after depositing their drug load at GPS sites or safe houses,
stole laptops, cameras, firearms, including historic pieces, and other
valuable items on their return to Mexico. This is a typical situation
for those of us near the border. Ranchers in the border area cannot
leave their houses unguarded even for a few hours since their homes and
ranch buildings are often broken into if someone is not on guard duty.
It can be hours before law enforcement can respond to rural calls.
Sixth, Arizona borderland residents, ranchers, and farmers have
suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage and
personal loss due to major forest fires set intentionally or
accidentally by illegal crossers. The human and property costs of these
fires, like the Monument Fire, the Murphy Complex Fire, Chiricahua
Fire, and the Horseshoe Fires must also be figured into the cost of NOT
securing the border at the border. We have estimated that U.S. Forest
Service costs in 1 year to fight fires caused by border crossers just
in Arizona borderlands were about $600 million.
Seventh, another cost of inaction never calculated by those who
decry the ``expense'' of effective wall and border protection, is the
financial and emotional burden placed on ranchers living in Arizona
border counties. In addition to suffering losses from home invasions
and burglaries, we shell out thousands of dollars each year in constant
fence and water line repair and we and our cowboys all work armed. The
additional, unquantifiable emotional cost to our families is summarized
by noting we are all very much aware of what happened to Sue Krentz's
husband Rob when he went out to check his ranch waters and was killed
(including his dog) by a drug packer who then escaped into Mexico.
Eighth, we have heard just this week that the Border Patrol has
picked up Chinese crossers coming through our area. The possibility of
increasing numbers of undocumented persons, specifically escaping areas
where they may have been exposed to coronavirus, is a new concern.
Finally, what percent of the opioids flooding this country comes
through rural trails? We know from our hidden cameras that marijuana
packs were the dominant VISIBLE drug in prior years, but we have heard
that much higher-value, lighter-to-pack fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and
other drugs are showing up in rural apprehensions now that high-tech
surveillance is more effective at the Ports of Entry. What is the cost
to America of increases in cartel use of open routes like the ones in
our area for hard drug importation?
To effectively secure the border, the Border Patrol needs to build
the wall and be able to construct or improve roads, build helicopter
pads and place forward operating bases at or very near to the border.
Construction needs to be freed of the impediments created by Federal
environmental laws which chiefly benefit the cartels, not the wildlife,
in Arizona borderlands. Every day that the U.S. border remains
unsecured is another opportunity to allow all of the negative
consequences that are so real to borderland ranchers and to this Nation
at the present.
the wall, humans, and wildlife
In spite of the environmental, financial, and security impacts on
our ranch, we have taken action to help prevent deaths of any of the
crossers. I have installed safe-water drinking fountains on 29 sites
where I have my 22 wells and water lines. We don't want anyone to die
of thirst.
Wildlife genetic diversity on both sides of the border can be
achieved along with border security by legally transporting animals as
scientifically deemed essential. Large mammals can be transported with
safe capture to promote genetic diversity while birds can fly over and
small animals and reptiles can easily slip through the bollard-style
wall. In addition, American engineers can create wildlife-friendly,
effectively-managed passages at some parts of the wall to facilitate
wildlife connectivity with Mexico. Keep in mind the irony that the
Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge sought and obtained a bollard-
style border fence and border-paralleling road because they did not
want the danger, the wildcat roads, the trash, and the fires nor ``Wild
Life Connectivity'' on their border!! We neighbor them and we get all
of the above re-routed onto our ranches! First, tear down the bollard-
style wall with its patrol road on our Refuge neighbor--then talk to us
about ``connectivity.''
The following photograph shows the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
bollard-style wall and adjacent patrol road at the Buenos Aires
National Wildlife Refuge along its border with Mexico--it adjoins the
old 4-strand wire fence on our neighbor's ranch. The refuge did not
prioritize a concern for wildlife connectivity.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
How can it be acceptable that residents of rural southern Arizona
are not accorded the same protections provided to residents of the rest
of the country? Our homes and ranches and our daily environment is
treated as a no-man's land exposed, by strategic Federal choice, to
armed foreign trespassers. The current strategy of minimal Border
Patrol presence along large segments of the rural Arizona border leaves
us unprotected and assures the continued flow of drugs, the abuse of
migrants, and the trashing of border lands. None of this, including
wildcat roads, trash, wild fires, human trampling, conflicts between
drug packers and gang rip crews, could possibly be deemed favorable for
wildlife. Persons opposing interdiction of drugs and undocumented
crossers loudly cite the costs of securing the border and omit all
mention of the human, environmental, and security costs of NOT securing
it.
All citizens have the right to petition their Government regarding
their grievances. Attached are petitions by all of the Arivaca area
ranchers and by the Pima Natural Resource Conservation District
advocating the need to replace the Tucson Station 14-mile 4-strand
barbed wire cattle fence with the construction of a wall, forward
operation bases, and technology to secure the international border at
the border in our area.
ATTACHMENT.--Border Ranchers--Tucson Station
Box 423, 17691 W. Chilton Ranch Road, Arivaca, AZ 85601
520-398-9194
Whereas, a one of the most active drug smuggling and human
trafficking corridors in the United States is the international
boundary between Nogales and Sasabe, Arizona;
Whereas, 25 miles along the border area south of Arivaca is only
marked by an old four-strand barbed wire cattle fence;
Whereas, the Sinaloa Cartel has control of this 25-mile
international boundary and of the thousands of square miles of
minimally-patrolled ranchland adjacent to it inside the United States,
due to lack of adequate border infrastructure, the Border Patrol has
been largely restricted to a ``Defense-in-Depth'' strategy which is
inefficient due to rough terrain and inadequate access and allows the
presence of well-equipped cartel scouts on top of our mountains to
successfully direct drug and human trafficking:
Whereas, although the Tucson Station Patrol Agent-in-Charge and
Border Patrol agents try their best to do their job, the lack of access
and infrastructure, cartel scout presence, and rough terrain and
inefficient ``Defense-in-Depth'' strategy creates a de facto ``no man's
land'' in which border ranchers live and work;
Whereas, the national Border Patrol Council Vice President, Art del
Cueto, has asserted on national television that under the present
situation, no more than 50 percent of illegal crossers are apprehended;
Whereas, Border Patrol agents are headquartered in Tucson, 80 miles
and 3 hours from the border on our ranches and there are no roads
paralleling the border and no efficient north-south access for the
Border Patrol to respond to incursions; and
Whereas, current ``defense-in-depth'' strategy means the Tucson
Station Border Patrol agents are dispersed across the 4,000 square
miles of area of responsibility and are operating in the ``backfield''
instead of operating on the 25 linear miles of the actual border;
Therefore be it resolved, Border ranchers petition our government
to construct an adequate security barrier such as a Bollard-style fence
at the border, good all-weather, well-maintained roads leading to the
border and along it, adequate, modern flood gates at water crossings,
appropriate surveillance technology to monitor Border Patrol personnel
and border status, air mobile support, and reliable communications for
Border Patrol agents to call for back-up, and forward operations bases
near the border barrier to effectively secure the international
boundary between Nogales and Sasabe, Arizona.
Jim Chilton,
Chilton Ranch.
Tom Kay,
Jarillas Ranch.
John R. Smith,
Arivaca Ranch.
Ted Noon,
Oro Blanco Ranch.
Lowell Robinson,
Tres Bellotas Ranch.
______
ATTACHMENT.--Pima Natural Resource Conservation District
Pima Center for Conservation Education, Inc., NRCS Plant Materials
Center, 3241 N. Romero Road, Tucson, AZ 85705
resolution by the board of supervisors of the pima natural resource
conservation district (pnrcd)
The Pima Natural Resource Conservation District (PNRCD, Pima
County, Arizona) petitions Arizona Governor Douglas Ducey and President
Donald Trump to take action according to your responsibilities to
enable completion of a fence/wall and accompanying essential
infrastructure, as described below, along the section of the
international boundary which is the responsibility of the Tucson
Station of the United States Border Patrol.
Whereas, one of the major current drug smuggling and human
trafficking corridors in the Nation is the international boundary south
of Arivaca in the Tucson Station of the Border Patrol, and whereas,
this portion of the international boundary is only marked by an old 4-
strand barbed wire cattle fence;
Whereas, the Sinaloa Cartel has well-equipped cartel scouts on top
of mountains on or near PNRCD cooperators' farms and ranches to
successfully direct drug and human trafficking and evade interdiction;
Whereas, the national Border Patrol Council Vice President, Art del
Cueto, has asserted on national television that under the present
situation, no more than 50 percent of illegal crossers are apprehended;
Whereas, Border Patrol agents are headquartered in Tucson, 80 miles
and 3 hours from major cartel border incursion routes; and, whereas
there are no roads paralleling the border in this area and there is no
efficient north-south access for the Border Patrol to respond to
incursions;
Therefore be it resolved, that we, the Conservation District
Supervisors, out of heightened concern for the impact of the current
border situation on the natural resources of our county, petition the
State and Federal Government to build proper and essential roads along
the international boundary and to improve and complete needed north-
south border access roads to wrest control of these lands from the
Sinaloa and other cartels whose actions are creating wildcat roads,
mountains of discarded trash, and dangerous situations for legal
resource users.
Therefore be it further resolved, Pima Natural Resource
Conservation District petitions our Government to prioritize
construction of an adequate security fence/wall at the border, good
all-weather roads as described above, and forward operations bases near
the border barrier to effectively secure the portion of the
international boundary which is the responsibility of the Tucson
Station of the United States Border Patrol.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chilton.
I thank all the witnesses for their testimony.
I will remind each Member that he or she will have 5
minutes to question the panel. I will now recognize myself for
questions.
If I can start with you, Mr. Anzaldua. So a lot of
Americans have never been down to the border. They don't know
exactly what the geography is, what the distance is between the
river and, you know, what the situation is. So if you could
just explain more, like, where the wall is proposed to go.
Would it actually prevent people who are trying to come to the
United States from touching down on American soil? What effect
would it have on your ability to continue to be able to have--
to rely on the river and--as a water supply, et cetera?
Mr. Anzaldua. Well, for one thing----
Miss Rice. Turn your microphone on.
Mr. Anzaldua. For one thing, the river where we have our
land is over 200 yards wide. So if the Border Patrol cannot
catch somebody in that 200-yard-wide area, they have a problem.
Besides that, we have--on the river we have patrols, patrols
from the Border Patrol on the river, the Department of Public
Safety. Texas Department of Public Safety has a gunboat. I say
gunboat because they got machine guns in the front and machine
guns in the back. You have the Coast Guard patrolling and
sometimes the Mexican Navy. Then you have air patrols, which is
the National Guard. You have the Border Patrol. You have the
Coast Guard. You have the Texas Department of Public Safety.
You have the Homeland Security.
On the ground, we have the local sheriff, the local
constables, the local city police, the Border Patrol, the
Department of Public Safety. We have game wardens from the
State, game wardens--they are falling all over--game wardens
from the Federal Government. They are falling all over
themselves. If they can't catch anybody coming in a 200-yard
wide river, they got a problem, I would say.
One thing I might also add. I believe, this is my personal
feeling, because I worked for the Government and I have been a
supervisor. In my opinion, the Border Patrol has a problem with
field supervision. They need to supervise their agents on the
field better, because we see a lot of them on texting or we see
a lot of them asleep in their cars. You know, we see all this
stuff.
So there is actually no need for a border wall, because the
wall is not going to solve the problem that we really have, and
the problem that we really have is demand for drugs in the
United States and demand for illegal immigration.
What is happening in Mexico is the Mexican cartels are
fighting over the money that comes from the United States and
goes over there. It is no different than what we had here in
the 1930's with Al Capone. They were doing the same thing. They
were killing each other over the money, and this is exactly
what is happening in the Southern Border.
So the real problem is here in the United States, and this
is what needs to be addressed. The real problem needs to be
addressed, and the border wall doesn't solve that problem.
Miss Rice. Sir, thank you.
I also want to thank for your service to our country, both
as a veteran and as a former Customs officer. Given your
background and your experience on the border, you know better
than most that border security is a nuanced issue, which you
just laid out.
If I could ask Chairman Norris, in May 2019, DHS announced
it was waiving Federal laws such as the Archeological Resources
Protection Act and the National Historic Preservation Act to
construct part of the border wall through Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument and numerous other protected areas. Each time
DHS uses this waiver authority, they state that it coordinates
and consults with interested stakeholders to ensure that
potential impacts to the cultural and historic resources are
analyzed and minimized.
As an archeological environmental stakeholder to these
various areas, what has been the extent of DHS's coordination
and/or consultation with you or representatives from the Nation
on potential impacts that border barrier construction will
have?
Mr. Norris. Chairwoman Rice, thank you for the question. I
will say that I have 2 of my 22 legislative council members
with me today. I will say that there has been a development of
a history of working relationships between my Tribal leadership
and the local Border Patrol office.
More specifically with respect to the ancestral sacred
sites, lands of my people, there has been little to none
consultation from a government-to-government level with the
Tribal Nation's leadership. There may have been meetings. There
may have been conversations, but, in our opinion, when you look
at the requirement for consult--government-to-government
consultation, that pretty much does not exist and has never
occurred.
Miss Rice. OK. Ms. Alvarez, very quickly, your testimony
was very emotional. I mean, when you--it is so important for
the American people to hear someone like you who has lived
where you have lived for generations. Your family, your
children are there, your grandchildren are there. To have the
Government come in and trivialize that history is just really
unbelievable.
So if you could just expound a little bit more on what it
is like. I mean, I don't know if anyone on this panel can
possibly understand what it is like to have the Government come
in and say, we are taking what is yours and we are going to
give you $100 for it.
Ms. Alvarez. That really infuriates me. It makes me upset
because here is somebody who has never been to my property,
that more than likely has never been to the Rio Grande Valley,
come and say you need a wall in back of your house, over a so-
called invasion or drugs that were coming in 20 years ago that
are not coming in now, because the biggest drug busts that have
happened have happened in our ports of entry, not by the Rio
Grande River.
You know, the Government really needs to analyze the
situation. You know, this is somebody's campaign promise. I am
not willing to sacrifice my home over a campaign promise which,
by the way, is getting very close, and that is why all these
laws have been waived and so. But this upsets me, because I
have no power. How can I compete with somebody that has the
right to waive all these laws that have been waived? It just--
my hands are tied right now.
Miss Rice. Yes, it is--that is very powerful. Thank you all
for your testimony.
I now recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, for questions.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let me say it is just--it is just so significant that we
are meeting today in this hearing, and this is a serious topic,
man. There is no American here on either side that wants to,
you know, wants to interfere with the lives of American
citizens. In fact, that is why we are meeting and why we are
having deep debate and consultation with each other about
securing our border, because you've seen the videos. The
cartels are running serious poison into our country. They are
killing many Americans. They are certainly interfering with the
lives of Americans across the country from sea to shining sea.
Yet the Honorable Mr. Norris, let me say I support deep
consultation with Tribal lands. I have studied maps of your
Nation, sir, and I recognize that it, for many, many
generations, crossed the border, and so your Nation exists on
both sides of the border. This should be of particular concern
for the U.S. Government, and I support very deep consultations
with you.
My heart is touched by the story of our panelists regarding
the personal impact. I also see as a--I was a cop for 12 years.
I worked a lot of drug cases, man. I worked many, many deaths,
and it has gotten worse, much worse over the last decade.
Mr. Chilton, my understanding is your home is 9\1/2\ miles
inside the border. Is that correct, sir?
Mr. Chilton. Nine-and-a-half miles from one end of the
ranch to the other, over very miserable roads.
Mr. Higgins. At your home, have you ever seen gang members
at your home, come to your house?
Mr. Chilton. Yes. We are able to recognize gang members by
their tattoos. In fact, MS-13 gang members have showed up at
our house and, thankfully, another group of MS-13 gang members
are--have been apprehended near our house.
Mr. Higgins. Your wife, sir, does she--you know, we are
talking about the feelings of Americans. Is your wife
frightened when she is alone at home?
Mr. Chilton. My wife is seriously concerned. She knows how
to use a gun, and we have guns everywhere to protect ourselves.
She----
Mr. Higgins. In the remote location of your particular
ranch, what you are advocating for is a construction of,
essentially, 25 miles of enhanced physical barrier. Am I
correct in assessing your----
Mr. Chilton. You are absolutely correct. We need to fill
the gap, the 25-mile gap.
Mr. Higgins. In this gap, in this gap, would you describe,
based upon your own observations--as my understanding is you
are a fifth-generation resident there, so you watch things
change. There was a time when we wouldn't have called for
enhanced physical barrier there, but things have changed with
the cartels over the decades.
Would you describe the methods of operation that the
cartels are using that you have observed regarding asylum
seekers and drug runners coordinating their crossings? Will you
share that with America, please?
Mr. Chilton. We have never seen on our ranch asylum
seekers. The people coming across our ranch are either drug
packers or they are MS-13s or people who have been deported,
coming back through the ranch and being led by cartel scouts on
our mountains. These are foreigners sitting on our mountains
with high grade----
Mr. Higgins. Where--when these crossings, these drug
crossings, these cartel crossings coming through the gap, the
25-mile gap, where is Border Patrol commonly at that time? What
are they busy doing?
Mr. Chilton. Border Patrol is in Tucson. So they come out
about halfway, and so most of my ranch is in a no-man's-land
controlled by the Sinaloa Cartel scouts on the mountains.
Mr. Higgins. Yes, sir. I have one question about the
environment, if the Chairwoman will indulge. Have you seen
environmental impacts on your ranch by illegal crossings and
drug smugglers crossing through?
Mr. Chilton. Very definitely. I have calculated that there
has been over 25,000 tons of garbage dropped by crossers in the
Tucson sector and on our ranch, not--I don't know how many tons
have been dropped----
Mr. Higgins. What about fires?
Mr. Chilton. Fires are the big, big problem. I have
estimated that in 2011, the Government spent over $600 million
putting out fires, started either accidentally or on purpose by
cartel border crossers.
Mr. Higgins. I thank you for the response.
Madam Chair, I yield back my time.
Miss Rice. Thank you.
The Chair will now recognize other Members for questions
they may wish to ask the witnesses. In accordance with our
committee rules, I will recognize Members who were present at
the start of the hearing based on seniority on the
subcommittee, alternating between Majority and Minority. Those
Members coming in later will be recognized in the order of
their arrival.
OK. The Chair will now recognize the gentle--what?
OK. Sorry for the delay there.
The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentlewoman from
New Mexico, Ms. Torres Small.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you, Chairwoman Rice. Thank you all
for being here to discuss this important issue.
I represent a district that covers about 180 miles of U.S.-
Mexico border. Unfortunately, the DHS has fast-tracked
expensive border wall construction projects in rural and remote
areas in my district which would be much more efficiently and
effectively secured through investments to fix Border Patrol's
attrition challenges and to enhance our agents' detection and
surveillance technology. However, the Department continues to
prioritize fast-tracking border wall construction projects
through its waiver authority that allows it to waive dozens of
local, State, and Federal laws.
I am concerned that expediting border barrier projects by
circumventing dozens of laws that we carefully crafted and have
enacted for decades will have unintended consequences at our
border and especially on border communities, such as lasting
infrastructure damage due to flooding. For this reason, I
support and voted in favor of Chairwoman Rice's legislation to
repeal the Department's waiver authority.
Chairman Norris, in your testimony, you noted that the
Tohono O'odham Nation spends, on average, $3 million of its own
Tribal funds each year on border security and enforcement. I
think folks at the table and here at the dais share a goal for
border security. Rather than investing in miles of wall on the
Tohono O'odham Nation land, can you provide alternatives to
what the DHS could do to enhance border security along the
Southern Border?
Mr. Norris. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question. As
I mentioned earlier, we have established a long working
relationship with the Border Patrol. My Nation has, in addition
to the areas that I identified, have allowed the Border Patrol
to establish resources within our Tribal Nation to address this
issue. We continue to discuss other options that might be
available for that purpose. So without trying to get into every
single area that we have allowed the Border Patrol to enforce
its presence and security, we have also allowed our law
enforcement officers to have provided assistance to Border
Patrol whenever assistance is necessary.
So it is that time when resources that normally would be
utilized for the enforcement of law enforcement on our Nation's
members are now used to assist the United States' efforts to
secure the border along with the Border Patrol.
In addition to that, the--whenever there is a migrant that
has succumbed by exposure, the person or persons are taken to
the Tribal hospital, to the Indian Health Service Hospital on
our Tribal land and are seen by the doctors there and provided
medical care, medical attention.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you, Chairman Norris.
Mr. Anzaldua, in 2008, a barrier that DHS built pursuant to
waiver authority resulted in flooding damages of up to $8
million in Nogales, Arizona. Are any of you, and specifically
you, worried that by circumventing long-standing environmental
laws, your communities and private properties will be impacted
by unintended flooding?
Mr. Anzaldua. Right now, yes. With that new wall that was
built on the riverbank by the private group, if you have been
around the Rio Grande River, you know that there is a lot of
debris floating down the river during a major flood.
Eventually, the debris will cling to that wall, and it will be
on both sides of the wall, because there will be water on both
sides of the wall. It will be a problem for our property
because since it is in the bend of the river, it is going to--
and already they have cleared the banks. So erosion is a real
threat there. It is going to cut into our property. I would say
that that is probably going to cost us several acres of land,
in addition to the Government wall.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you, Mr. Anzaldua.
Last, I am a hunter, and I know that some of the best
conservationists are hunters, because we pay attention to
migration patterns, we pay attention to herd health. So going
back to you Chairman Norris, can you please explain how the
waiving of environmental laws may impact wildlife that live on
your Tribe's land?
Mr. Norris. There are a significant number of wildlife that
enjoy the ability to enter and exit what is now the
international border. The longhorn sheep, the deer, the
bobcats, you know, the animals, the wildlife that is from
there. A wall, a 30-foot wall makes it impossible for that to
be able to continue for the wildlife, would be able to continue
to transfer or to travel in between the international border
and the United States. So that would have a negative impact on
their ability to continue what has been historically their area
to migrate.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you, Chairman Norris. My time has
expired.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Ms. Torres Small.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona, Mrs.
Lesko.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you to all of you for coming here today from Texas
and Arizona. I am happy to have 2 Arizona witnesses here today.
As the Arizonians know, and probably the Texans know, in
Arizona, this is a huge issue. It has been for years. Securing
the border--you know, when I run for office or other people run
for office, we do polling, right? In Arizona, this is by far
the most important issue to Arizona is securing the border,
because it impacts us.
I am also a huge proponent of private property rights,
though, as well. So I--this interests me a lot because it is a
conflict, right? You are trying to secure the border, but you
also want to protect private property. Of course, Native
American Indian or Tribe land is important, especially if you
have members on both sides of the border and you want to go
back and forth.
So I have talked--I heard Mr. Chilton talk about the--what
is happening on his land, and he has lots of land, and he has
been there a long time and his family has been there a long
time. I think in your testimony, your written testimony, you
said you put out water for the immigrants as well so that they
don't die on your property. So I am sure you care. You care
about humans. But we also--you care about securing our border.
So I guess we have to have a balanced approach. Can you
tell me, Mr. Chilton, more about these scouts? Because when I
went down to the border, I saw this barbed wire fence like you
have on your ranch. I mean, I could climb over it. Anybody
could climb over it, under it, whatever. You could just cut
right through it. It is not much of a fence at all. What the
Border Protection Officer said to me was that they have these
scouts, like you said, in the mountains and they help the
cartels. They say, OK, you know, they are over here. The Border
Protection Officers are over here, so they tell them to go a
different route. Or they say, oh, they are busy over here.
Actually, they have people that they send over there so that
the Border Protection is busy over here so they could bring
over drugs over here.
What has the Border Protection Officer said to you? Can
they do anything about these scouts? Because they told me they
need some legislation. They can't do anything about these
cartel scouts. What have you heard?
Mr. Chilton. I have heard exactly the same thing. There is
no law that the Federal Government can use to apprehend and
persecute--prosecute a cartel scout sitting on the mountain,
even though he has a satellite phone, night vision binoculars,
and a rolled-down solar pack. The only way for the Government
to get rid of the cartel scouts who can see for 5 or 10 miles
is to bring in 2 helicopters; 1 to pin the scout down on top of
the mountain, and the other 1 to repel officers to try to
apprehend. It is a real serious problem. Foreigners sitting on
our mountains guiding the drugs through. It is awful.
Mrs. Lesko. This whole thing is awful. You had a friend,
Robert Krentz, who was killed by a drug smuggler. You know,
this--I just feel bad for you having to have all this
protection on your property.
I do have a question for Chairman Norris as well. Chairman
Norris, have you talked--has the Federal Government talked to
you at all about coming up with some kind of solution to
perhaps build the fence, wall, whatever you want to call it,
but also have a way for your members to expediently go back and
forth between Mexico and Arizona? Has that come up? Is there
any discussion on that?
Mr. Norris. Congresswoman, much of the activity for
building the wall has been to the east and to the west of the
62 miles of international border. We have continuously asked
what are the plans for the building of the wall on our Members,
I am hoping that we truly can--my Democratic colleagues and
Republican members--can try to come up with a balanced approach
here. I know this has been asked for for years. But this really
is a problem. When we are talking about--I know some people
say, well, this is just a campaign promise. Well, the reason it
is a campaign promise is because people care about it. I mean,
in Arizona, it is the No. 1 top polling thing. So the Governor
of Arizona talked about border security. You know, of course,
the President, the President got elected, and one of his big
issues was border security, because people care about border
security. They want the Nation protected. So it is not just
some mere campaign promise. Campaign promises are made because
of what people want. So we really have to balance this.
I think we need to work on legislation to get the root of
the problem, you know, because that would solve a lot of this
problem. So we have talked about this before. I hope some day
that we can work together to get to the root of the problem,
which is stop incentivizing people to come into, you know,
these loose laws that we have. I have 6 bills that I have
introduced to try to mitigate some of the people crossing our
border, and unfortunately, Democratic Chairman Nadler have not
heard one of them. It is unfortunate.
Thank you. I yield back.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mrs. Lesko.
The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from
Mississippi, Chairman Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
It never ceases to amaze me how I hear my colleagues talk
about how they are for something, but they are against it,
because you got to stand for something. If we can fly people to
the Moon and back, surely we can see people trying to cross the
border. We can move assets to that area. We can do a lot of
things other than build a $20-million-a-mile wall that all I
need is a fence, a ladder a foot taller than that wall and I am
over the wall. It is a symbol.
Our current President was very clear. Sure, he wanted a
wall, but he said Mexico was going to pay for it. Well, the
American taxpayers are paying for it. If the American taxpayers
are paying for a political statement, then we have the right to
review it. In paying for it, we are cutting out significant
opportunities in other areas. Technology is a way forward.
If it is a scout, Mr. Chilton, he has to be talking to
somebody. We can monitor that satellite phone, who he is
talking to, telling them where to go. We have assets, and we
can move those assets in those directions. There are a lot of
things we can do other than to disturb Tribal lands and areas
just because we are the U.S. Government. We have to respect our
laws as a Nation and respect the people who live in this
country.
So I am concerned that the application of technology is not
being used to the extent that it could be to protect us. If we
can see individuals hundreds and hundreds of miles away,
walking or traveling to the border, and we have assets, whether
they are motorized or air, to be there when they get there,
then that is what we need to do. There is no documented proof
that that wall will reduce immigration.
Again, my ancestors came to this country in the belly of a
ship, but I'm here now. But I respect other oppressed people
who want to come to the United States for a better way of life.
I think we are obligated fundamentally to make sure that we
don't in the eyes of trying to, ``protect our country,'' do
away with the fundamental principles by which we were
established as a Nation. I'm concerned about it. We have spent
billions of dollars.
Mr. Anzaldua--I hope I get it right--I am going to look and
see how a private wall can be built on land beyond your land
and whether or not all the requirements are being met. I am
just not certain those kind of things are bad. I appreciate
your tenure working for the Patrol. You have first-hand
knowledge.
Most of the people that I talk to who live along the
Southern Border have a relationship with Mexico and its people.
The majority of those relationships are positive. Now, we all--
I have issues with people I live in my little small town with,
but I don't build a wall; I engage them.
So I would like for Chief Norris to explain how as chief
what is being proposed in coming through your land is doing for
the people you represent.
Mr. Norris. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. What
it is doing is it is having--definitely going to have a
negative impact on the ability for my people to be able to
assume--to deliver the resources that my Tribe offers to its
Tribal citizens. It is also going to be difficult for my people
to be able to do, as you said, just as you explained,
communicate and visit and participate in familial activities on
both sides of the border where most of our families reside.
So it is going to really serve as a--this wall will really
serve as a detriment to our livelihood in many ways, not only
just the detriment to our ability to access services that we
deliver to members of our citizens, but also for the ability
for our people to participate in ceremonial activities, to be
able to visit their families that are in Mexico and vice versa,
to be able to participate in and visit families that are buried
on both sides of the border.
So this is going to be a detriment in their ability to be
able to do that, that part of their livelihood for as long as
this border wall exists. It is going to require most of our
families, if they are going to come into the United States, or
if we are going to Mexico to provide these services, to have to
be--use one of the ports of entries to be able to do that. Many
of our people do not have the ability, do not have the
resource, do not have the vehicles necessary to travel to take
themselves to these different areas to be able to come in or to
be able to get back into Mexico.
Right now, we have that ability to do that. This wall will
make it very difficult, if impossible, for us to be able to do
that.
Mr. Thompson. So my understanding is that there has been no
substantive conversation with Federal authorities about the
adverse impact of what the wall would do for the people you
represent?
Mr. Norris. Mr. Chairman, we have raised these concerns
numerous times, numerous times to Federal folks on the impacts
that this border wall will have on our people. We have asked
for consultation, true government-to-government consultation on
this issue. We have not been given that opportunity to sit as a
Tribal government with the U.S. Government to have this
conversation and to be able to offer some resolution to some of
these concerns that we have.
We have offered some alternatives with respect to our
sacred sites, with respect to our religious rites that are
being desecrated as we speak today. We have offered some
alternatives to be able to avoid those areas to protect our
ancestors, to protect the ancestral graves that we know exist
today in those areas. Those requests, those alternatives, those
issues that we offered as an alternative have been totally
ignored.
We have put these recommendations in a letter form to the
Department of Homeland Security back in November. I received a
response in January, early January to that letter. They totally
ignored, totally just set aside all the recommendations that we
offered to protect our ancestral lands, to protect our
ancestors, the graves that we know are within the footprint of
the building of this wall.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Chief.
You know, private property rights are one of those real
sacred rights that as Americans, historically, we have
cherished. The notion that if through the sweat of my brow, I
am able to acquire property, that within reason there is no way
I should fear my Government from taking my property. The facts
about it, I have heard my Republican colleagues make that
argument for private property rights more so than I have heard
Democrats. But all those laws have been on the books for quite
a while.
I guess, Mr. Chilton, you have had a significant investment
in property. The area you showed on the map about the trail and
the other thing, was that on your property?
Mr. Chilton. I have Federal leases from the Forest Service,
and the southern border of my ranch, 5 miles is owned by the
Federal Government.
Mr. Thompson. So--and that is the point I am trying to
make. You showed us some pictures of an area, which obviously
is of concern. But in terms of the focus of this hearing, would
the fact that unless that was brought out, the assumption was
that that was your land. I am just, I want to make sure that
the record reflects that the pictures included in this hearing
was of land that you leased/owned by the Federal Government,
which means they can do anything they want with it because they
are the Federal Government.
I want us to--if we are going to talk about private
property rights, let's keep it in the private property rights
arena. But we want to secure our Southern Border. I am just not
sure that securing with a fence gets us what we want by doing
away with all property rights.
From my own standpoint again, Madam Chair, your own
indulgence, your family has done well. But I think if somebody
came to take your property and said, take it or leave it, you
are going to fight them. I mean, I just--and you should. I am
saying that by the fact that our Government waives all the
rights and said, I am here to take your land, you can't do
anything about it, you know, I am sure your relatives would
turn over in their grave if that was the case. I hear this from
the other witnesses that they want an opportunity to defend
their property from--taken from the Federal Government. I think
that is a fundamental principal of democracy in America that we
should never take from anyone.
Mr. Chilton. You are fundamentally right, except the
Constitution allows for taking of property for public purposes.
I think a wall is a public purpose. In terms of property rights
on my land, my ranch, I have private land too. If the
Government secured the border at the border, I wouldn't have
these crossers packing drugs, these bad guys coming through my
private land.
Mr. Thompson. I don't have any question about that. But you
would have your day in court, you would make sure that whatever
the Government wanted to do, it had to follow the environmental
standards, they would have to do environmental impact analysis
to prove that what they are doing wouldn't substantially harm
the land that they are taking. There is just some fundamental
things that I know you would want assurance before that. I am
saying by doing, the taking this program of private property
rights from individuals, we have just walked away from all of
that. I am just convinced that as Americans we are better than
that.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from
Mississippi, Mr. Guest.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Chilton, I see that you are a fifth-generation rancher,
that your family has been in the cattle business for 130 years.
Mr. Chilton. In Arizona, yes.
Mr. Guest. In Arizona. That the land that you currently own
and in some cases lease sits on the international border with
the United States and Mexico. On page 3 of the written
documents you provided, at the top is a photograph. The photo
which you referenced earlier shows the international boundary
and what it looks like on the southern end of your ranch.
Could you please explain the structure that separates the
United States from Mexico there on the property that you work
each and every day?
Mr. Chilton. Yes. Bottom line, it is a four-strand barbed
wire cattle fence.
Mr. Guest. How difficult is it to cross the border along
that portion of our Southwest Border?
Mr. Chilton. Anyone can crawl under it, go through it, or
climb over it.
Mr. Guest. A matter of fact, you demonstrated that by a
photograph on page 4 that actually shows you being able to
crawl under it. So there really is no deterrent. Is that
correct?
Mr. Chilton. That is correct. The Border Patrol is 20 miles
inside the United States. They are not there. I took Senator
McSally from my ranch down to the border and back, and we never
saw a single Border Patrol agent.
Mr. Guest. So would you agree with my statement that at
least along your section of the Southwest Border, that our
current structure offers, No. 1, no protection, and No. 2, that
our current border structure where your property butts into
Mexico is not an obstacle at all to illegal entry?
Mr. Chilton. I didn't quite hear the last part of your
question.
Mr. Guest. Does our current border structure along your
property, does that offer you or your family any protection
against illegal immigrants coming into our country?
Mr. Chilton. Absolutely no.
Mr. Guest. Does our current border structure, again, along
your property, does it offer any obstacles to people who want
to come into our country?
Mr. Chilton. None whatsoever.
Mr. Guest. Then there were some videos that we saw earlier
in your testimony. There were actually numerous videos, and in
those videos we saw large groups of individuals. Those
individuals were coming across your property, were they not?
Mr. Chilton. They are. I have over a thousand images of
people coming across our property. They are mainly drug packers
or people trying to get into the United States who can't go
through the asylum process.
Mr. Guest. I believe you testified earlier that those were
drug smugglers. Many of those were gang members, including MS-
13. Many of those were people who had previously been deported
and were making illegal reentry back into the country. Is that
right?
Mr. Chilton. It is absolutely true.
Mr. Guest. Now, let me ask you, Mr. Chilton, what impact
has our inability to secure the border with this very
ineffective 4 strands of barbed wire, what impact has that had
on you financially or emotionally?
Mr. Chilton. Emotionally, it is particularly significant
for my wife and others. Financially, it means that instead of 1
cowboy going out to check our cattle or fence, we have to have
2 cowboys go, because it is just unsafe with foreigners coming
through our ranch and cutting our fences. They cut our fences
and our cattle get out into other pastures, and it takes me 2
days, maybe 3, just to find them and get them back in the
correct pasture.
We have had water systems drained. Financially, it is a
huge impact that other ranchers don't have to face.
Mr. Guest. The illegal crossing across your property, would
that be events that occur on a daily basis?
Mr. Chilton. Since the property is so large, I can't say it
is on a daily basis. However, an acquaintance of mine flew a
drone over into Mexico and found a huge layup site on the other
side of a mountain, and he dropped a note saying he would offer
a beer if they came down. Well, the next day, I was down there,
and here comes guys with masks and camouflage and they wanted
beer. I only had Cokes. I told this acquaintance and he rushed
out there the next day and gave them beer, and he got
interesting intelligence information. They said that they
worked for the cartel, that the cartel was running two groups
through one major canyon on my ranch a day.
Mr. Guest. Mr. Chilton, let me ask you one question, and my
time will have expired. Was there an incident on your property
where there was a Border Patrol agent who was shot by an
illegal immigrant?
Mr. Chilton. There was, about a year ago, a Border Patrol
agent shot. I am just glad it wasn't me.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Guest.
The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for having
this hearing today.
Mr. Chilton, thank you for coming before this committee and
sharing your story, your personal story and experience along
the border. I was part of a Congressional delegation on a trip
to Yuma, Arizona. I must say, I couldn't agree with you more on
what your assessment of the crisis is.
You started, in your testimony, by making a very
interesting analogy. You said, would a football team ever win
if the team lined up 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage? I
am going to continue with that analogy in this line of
questioning.
While I witnessed first-hand the lack of a secure border in
areas along the Colorado River which allows the cartels to
smuggle drugs into our country, cartel members who you
personally have witnessed crossing your land, it is so critical
that we must act decisively to address this crisis. Could you
please elaborate on what steps we must take, in your opinion,
to secure our border, to protect our citizens like you, and
your neighbors, to stop lining up 10 yards behind the line of
scrimmage?
Mr. Chilton. It is really very simple. I am just a cowboy.
But you have a fence, you have roads, forward operation bases,
and 24/7 visual observation of the border. Anybody climbs over
the fence, I don't care how high it is, you apprehend them as
they are coming down. It is a very simple solution. We need the
personnel at the border, a wall, and roads.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Chilton, you described for us, and I am
going to ask you to repeat the description of what type of
barrier exists on the ranch that you currently use on the
cattle that are protected. Would you please describe for me
what that security exists between Mexico and United States
today?
Mr. Chilton. It is just simply a four-strand barbed wire
cattle fence, and it isn't maintained by the Federal
Government. I have to maintain it.
Mr. Joyce. How easy is it to go over, to go under, or to go
through that 4 simple lines of barbed wire?
Mr. Chilton. I am 80 years old, and I can climb over it, I
can go under it, and I can go through it. Anybody can.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Chilton, as a citizen who lives on the
United States-Mexico border, do you personally support building
a wall?
Mr. Chilton. I absolutely support it because it is a very
simple solution, and the Federal Government is supposed to
protect me from foreign people coming through my ranch. We have
seen groups with armed people coming through with what appears
to be AK-47s.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Chilton, do you as a citizen believe that
Congress should appropriate funds to build this wall?
Mr. Chilton. I agree they should. Senator Schumer,
Congresswoman Pelosi all voted to do this under the secure
voters--Secure Border Act. It needs to be done, and it
shouldn't be a partisan issue. This should be, what does it
take to secure America and prevent people coming in unlawfully?
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Chilton, you personally have witnessed gang
members carrying what are assumed to be large amount of drugs
that come into our country that affect every community
throughout the United States. Do you feel that the drug crisis
that we face and that we see in our districts, not just in
Arizona, but in every district in America can be substantially
impacted with the construction of a border wall?
Mr. Chilton. Yes, I do. The opioid crisis is really an
emergency facing America, all across America. If they could
just limit the drugs coming through my ranch, that would help.
We need to secure the border at the border, and that includes
the drugs coming across.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Chilton, thank you for being here today.
Thank you for your expert testimony in what we need to
understand and how a border wall will protect America. Thank
you.
I yield back my time.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Joyce.
Ms. Alvarez, I have a quick question for you. Have you had
more negative encounters with bad actors crossing the border or
with Government officials?
Ms. Alvarez. I have had more encounters with Government
officials, with archaeological surveyors, regular surveyors. I
go to work and these people jump my fences and go in without
permission.
Going back to Government workers, I don't need a fence
behind my backyard. At night, what do I get? I get Border
Patrol jumping fences in full gear with AR-15s, night vision,
walking all over the property. So what do I need a fence for if
I have these people going all over my property protecting me?
As it is, there is a natural barrier in back of my home, which
is a river. I don't need no wall. If somebody wants a wall, I
am willing to give up my part of the wall and it can be built
somewhere else, but I don't want it. We do not need this wall.
Miss Rice. Thank you.
I now recognize for 5 minutes the gentleman from
Mississippi, Chairman Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want our witnesses to understand we all want to be safe,
but you can be safe by being smart. If we are the most
technologically-advanced country in the world, but we are going
to go back to the most primitive method of protection, which is
a fence, that is saying that we need to change our modus of
operation on a lot of things.
I am absolutely convinced that if we can see people coming
to the border, we have enough air assets, we have enough ground
assets, we can move to those areas. We can see people at night.
We can hear them talking. We have all the sophisticated
technology we need. A fence is not going to stop them. So--but
in the pursuit of this fence, I am concerned that we are taking
private property from individuals who, at a minimum, ought to
have the full faith and credit of Congress who established the
laws by which you take. Just because you are the Government is
no reason for me to say I can take your land because I want to
build a wall. You have to prove that this is the only way you
can protect my land and me.
For the arguments that I hear from my colleagues who are
gone at this hearing, I am absolutely blown away. We are a
Nation of laws. To try to take somebody's land under the guise
at first that you said Mexico was going to pay for it and now
our hardworking taxpayers are going to have to pay for it is
not where we need to be.
Again, now they are saying, after we take your land and
build a wall, we are going to put cameras and lights on top of
the fence. Well, you can put cameras and lights on a pole, and
you don't have to build a fence and you are going to see the
same thing. So the notion that we are, as a Government,
promoting a flawed security apparatus at the expense of
taxpayers is something that is absolutely not in our best
interest.
But, Madam Chair, let me thank you for having the
witnesses. Let me thank the witnesses for their testimony. All
of us want to keep our country safe.
You know, we are a Nation of immigrants. You know, this
notion that somehow foreigners are trying to invade our
country, I personally have a problem with the statement. Most
of the people who come here are just, based on the documents
that we are provided by Homeland Security, are just trying to
find a better way of life. Most of them who come and work here
send most of their money back home to family and others just
for survival. So--and most of the people we catch who come here
illegally come through our ports of entry. They don't walk
through the desert. They come through our ports of entry.
So if we look at the facts and run the numbers, the border
wall and the taking of private property is not the best way to
go.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the
Members for their questions.
I ask unanimous consent to enter 2 statements into the
record. The first is a statement signed by 21 national faith-
based organizations offering their support for this hearing, as
well as H.R. 1232, the Rescinding DHS' Waiver Authority for
Border Wall Act, and other similar legislation intended to
protect landowner and border communities' rights. The second is
a statement from the Southern Border Communities Coalition
describing the negative impact border wall construction is
having on communities along the U.S.-Mexico border, and how
almost 60 percent of registered voters in California, Arizona,
New Mexico, and Texas oppose any additional funding for border
wall.
[The information follows:]
Letter From Miscellaneous Fath-Based Organizations
February 27, 2020
The undersigned faith organizations appreciate the opportunity to
submit a statement for today's hearing.
Our faith communities have ministries and relationships deeply
rooted in border communities. We have witnessed how current border
enforcement policies have torn families and communities apart,
contributed to the deaths of thousands of migrants, harmed wildlife and
border ecosystems, and violated the rights and humanity of U.S.
citizens and immigrants alike. Border walls and other forms of
excessive militarization are inconsistent with the faith principles of
compassion, stewardship, and justice. The rampant use of waivers and
eminent domain to further border wall construction harms human
communities and wildlife, and interferes with the sovereignty of
indigenous communities in the border region.
Sacred sites at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument are already
being destroyed. Earlier this month, blasting began at Monument Hill,
an area once used for Tribal ceremonies and where the bodies of Apache
and other indigenous peoples are buried. Human remains have been found
at Monument Hill and near Quitobaquito Springs, another sacred area.
``Look at the reaction when Notre Dame burned down,'' said Chairman Ned
Norris Jr. of the Tohono O'odham nation. ``You feel an emotional
connection to that, even if you're not Catholic. That kind of emotional
connection is abundant in the case of the border issues for the Tohono
O'odham.''\1\ We stand with our sisters and brothers of the Tohono
O'odham nation in lamenting and condemning the indiscriminate
destruction of their sacred sites and burial grounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Native American tribe says Pentagon failed to consult on border
wall construction, NBC News, nbcnews.com/news/us-news/native-american-
tribe-says-pentagon-failed-consult-border-wall-construction-n1137771,
(February 17, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Border wall construction in the southwest desert will require
millions of gallons of precious groundwater for concrete footings.
Quitobaquito Springs is the only reliable source of surface water for
50 miles in any direction and home to endangered species that are found
nowhere else on Earth. Near the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge
in Arizona, a restored wetlands that depends on artisan springs of
ancient fossil water dating back 5,000 to 40,000 years, an aquifer is
being pumped at a rate of hundreds of thousands of gallons per day for
border wall construction. Four of the refuge wetlands are drying up.
Due to the ancient nature of this water, rainfall will not recharge the
aquifer.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Border Wall Construction Advancing at Peril of the Southwest,
Sierra Club, sierraclub.org/press-releases/2020/01/memo-new-border-
wall-construction-advancing-peril-southwest, (January 29, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to their long-lasting negative impact on communities and
wildlife in the border region, like in the examples above, faith
communities have deep concerns regarding the use of the waiver
authority and eminent domain.
We ask Congress to support three bills that would restore the rule
of law and mitigate the profound harms of border wall construction on
border communities, sacred lands, groundwater depletion, property
owners, the environment and wildlife:
H.R. 1232, the ``Rescinding DHS' Waiver Authority for Border
Wall Act''
H.R. 1233, the ``Borderlands Taking Defense Fund Act''
H.R. 1234, the ``Preventing the Taking of Americans' Land to
Build Trump's Wall Act''.
The ``Rescinding DHS' Waiver Authority for Border Wall Act,'' H.R.
1232, would preserve bedrock protections such as the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Clean Air Act,
Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Currently,
dozens of important laws that represent years of responsible lawmaking
are being waived by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security in order to speed construction of roads and barriers along the
U.S.-Mexico border. This waiver authority has been characterized by the
Congressional Research Service as ``the largest waiver of law in
American history.''\3\ H.R. 1232 would ensure that construction of
border walls, fences, and other structures would abide by laws that
protect religious freedom, human health, indigenous communities, and
the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Memorandum from Stephen R. Vina & Todd Tatelman, Legislative
Attorneys, Am. Law Division, Cong. Research Serv., on Section 102 of
H.R. 418, Waiver of Laws Necessary for Improvement of Barriers at
Borders, (Feb. 9, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``Borderlands Takings Defense Fund Act'', H.R. 1233, would
establish a fund to assist low-income property owners who are at risk
of losing homes, ranches, and farms due to border wall construction.
Funds could be used to educate property owners about the eminent domain
process, including their rights to legal support, and to assist those
facing condemnation.
The ``Preventing the Taking of Americans' Land to Build Trump's
Wall Act'', H.R. 1234, would prevent the Federal Government from taking
property before landowners are fairly compensated. Presently, the
Federal Government can seize land along the border, erect barriers
immediately, and then take years to properly compensate land owners.
The common-sense approach in H.R. 1234 would ensure that property
owners are paid before land is taken.
Government policies should uphold the dignity and worth of every
person, protect creation, and advance the common good. Allowing DHS to
waive dozens of bedrock protections and to trample on the rights of
landowners falls far short of these values. We urge you to support and
cosponsor H.R. 1232, H.R. 1233, and H.R. 1234.
Sincerely,
African American Ministers in Action
Church World Service
Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach
Conference of Major Superiors of Men
Congregation of Our Lady Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S.
Provinces
Creation Justice Ministries
Faithful America
Franciscan Action Network
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Leadership Conference of Women Religious
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Washington Office
National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good
Shepherd
National Council of Jewish Women
NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice
Sisters of Mercy of the Americas--Institute Justice Team
T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights
The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church and
Society
Unitarian Universalist Ministry for Earth
Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice
______
Statement of Vicki B. Gaubeca, Director, and Jennifer Johnson, Border
Policy Advisor, Southern Border Communities Coalition
Feb. 27, 2020
introduction
Formed in 2011, the Southern Border Communities Coalition (SBCC), a
project of Alliance San Diego, brings together networks from San Diego,
California, to Brownsville, Texas, to ensure that border enforcement
policies and practices are accountable and fair, respect human dignity
and human rights, and prevent the loss of life in the region.
As the administration continues to deploy a record level of
enforcement resources to the Southern Border region, including
unaccountable agents, active-duty military troops and National Guard,
surveillance and military technologies befitting theaters of war,
border communities suffer as these deployments and programs jeopardize
their human and civil rights, cause irreparable harm to the surrounding
environment and wildlife, and erode quality of life and public safety.
This escalated militarization comes with little to no accountability
and oversight, which leads to increased abuse and impunity at Customs
and Border Protection (CBP), ultimately undermining the safety of
border communities and the Nation.
The administration has also developed and implemented increasingly
reckless and harmful policies that have intensified the suffering
experienced by refugees at our Southern Border. Asylum seekers are
returned to often dangerous and untenable situations in Mexico to await
their immigration hearings or are subjected to an intensely rushed
process where they are denied meaningful access to protection. Other
cruel deterrence practices include blocking entry at southern ports of
entry by engaging in ``metering'' or ``wait-listing'' for people
seeking safety; ripping children away from the arms of parents so
parents can be prosecuted; holding refugees in unsanitary, overcrowded
holding cages that are more akin to dog kennels; and threatening to
deport millions of people without regard to the harm it will cause to
families and entire communities.
Of deep concern to border communities is the administration's
persistent and dangerous obsession with building a border wall by any
means possible and with complete disregard to the profound and
irreparable harms of the border wall on the borderlands, in part
demonstrated by the administration's repeated waiver of bedrock laws
established by Congress to protect public health, the environment,
wildlife, cultural/religious landmarks, and the U.S. taxpayer to
expedite wall construction.
While the subcommittee is carrying out this important hearing, the
administration is actively causing devastation to the borderlands and
Southern Border communities--blasting away sacred burial sites,
bulldozing precious natural resources, and tearing land away from
private landowners and ranchers to build an ineffective and lethal
border wall.
SBCC submits this statement to provide the subcommittee with an
analysis that includes the perspectives of borderland residents on how
the administration policies and practices have damaged the quality of
life and eroded the civil rights of the more than 15 million people who
call the Southern Border region home.
status of border wall construction, transfers, waivers, and costs
According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP),\1\ as of
Jan. 24, 2019, there were 655 miles of primary barriers on the
Southwest Border, which included about 301 miles of pedestrian fencing
and about 254 miles of vehicle barriers built before January 2017.
About 99 miles of these primary barriers are new barriers built in
place of dilapidated ones (i.e., replacement walls) and approximately 1
mile of new border wall built in locations where no barriers previously
existed. An additional 10 miles of new ``secondary'' border wall system
have also been built since January 2017, bringing the total to 110
miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Customs and Border Protection. ``CBP/USACE Border Wall Status''
(Jan. 24, 2020). Available at: https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/
CBP-Border-Wall-Status-Paper_as-of-01242020-FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 115th and 116th Congress have appropriated a total of nearly
$5.1 billion in fiscal years 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 to fund the
construction of approximately 272 miles of new and replacement barriers
along the Southern Border. In addition to these funds appropriated by
Congress, the administration has gone to unprecedented lengths to
unlawfully raid other agencies to access billions beyond what Congress
has appropriated for the construction of more border wall.
In Feb. 2019, following the longest Government shutdown in history
and Congress's rejection of President Trump's full funding request for
more border wall in the fiscal year 2019 appropriations bill, the
administration brazenly declared in a press conference a dubious
``National emergency'' (and has blatantly admitted this as a mechanism
to circumvent Congress) to divert $3.6 billion from the Department of
Defense's (DoD's) 10 U.S.C. 2808 Military Construction funds
(effectively halting 127 military construction projects)\2\ and $2.5
billion from 10 U.S.C. 284 Counter-Narcotics funding to construct
another 304 miles of new or replacement barriers. The administration
also tapped into another $600 million from the U.S. Treasury Forfeiture
Fund. Both U.S. Congressional chambers have voted and passed
resolutions of disapproval against the administration's declaration of
a National emergency, but--to date--have failed to obtain a veto-proof
majority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Sisk, Richard. ``Pentagon Releases List of Military
Construction Projects Paused to Fund Border Wall'', Military.com (Sept.
4, 2019) Available at: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/09/04/
pentagon-releases-list-military-construction-projects-paused-fund-
border-wall.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In mid-January 2020, the administration indicated its intent to
circumvent Congress again and transfer $7.2 billion from DoD funding,
including $3.7 billion from military construction and $3.5 billion from
counter-narcotics funding, to build more border wall. On Feb. 13, 2020,
the administration notified Congress that it intends to transfer $3.8
billion of DoD funds to erect another 177 miles of border barriers.
These funds were originally appropriated by Congress in the fiscal year
2020 budget to purchase new military aircraft, vehicles, and weapons.
The administration has also requested another $2 billion \3\ \4\ to
build another 82 miles of border wall in the fiscal year 2021 budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Kanno-Youngs, Zolan. ``What's in President Trump's Fiscal 2021
Budget? Steep cuts to domestic programs and more resources for the
military and policing the border with Mexico.'' New York Times (Feb.
10, 2020) Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/10/business/
economy/trump-budget-explained-facts.html.
\4\ DHS Fiscal Year 2021 Budget in Brief, Available here: https://
www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/
fy_2021_dhs_bib_web_version.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Influenced by Presidential election year politics, the
administration is eager and determined to fulfill an uninformed and
costly campaign promise to build a border wall. Of course, we must
recall that candidate Trump promised that Mexico would pay for the cost
of its construction, not the U.S. taxpayer. Instead, he is devastating
the border region by constructing a harmful, vanity wall bankrolled by
the American taxpayer and circumventing Congress by seizing funds
outside the appropriations process.
Thus far, the price tag for this administration's border wall is
more than $11 billion--or nearly $20 million a mile--and growing. It is
the most expensive wall of its kind anywhere in the world.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Burnett, John. ``$11 Billion And Counting: Trump's Border Wall
Would Be The World's Most Costly,'' NPR (Jan. 19, 2020) Available at:
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/19/797319968/-11-billion-and-counting-
trumps-border-wall-would-be-the-world-s-most-costly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately the costs of building this wall will be exorbitant. In
2018, the Government Accountability Office issued a report \6\ that
suggested that there is no way to verify wall construction costs
because estimates do not not fully account for varied, and sometimes
extreme, terrain along the borderlands, and how this could play a role
in costs. A minority report \7\ by the Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs suggested the costs of building
Trump's border wall could rise up to almost $70 billion, or more than
$200 for every man, woman, and child living in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ GAO. ``SOUTHWEST BORDER SECURITY. CBP Is Evaluating Designs and
Locations for Border Barriers but Is Proceeding Without Key
Information'' July 2018 Highlights of GAO-18-614, a report to
Congressional requesters. Available at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/
693488.pdf.
\7\ HSGAC Minority Report. ``Southern Border Wall: Soaring Cost
Estimates and Lack of Planning Raise Fundamental Questions About
Administration's Key Domestic Priority.'' (April 18, 2017 ). Available
at: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Southern%20Border%-
20Wall%20%20HSGAC%20Minority%20Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walls also cost billions of taxpayer dollars to maintain. No
physical structure is immune to natural wear and tear caused by
exposure to the elements over the years. The same minority report
referred to above also estimated that maintenance costs, based on
current costs of maintaining the wall, could reach $150 million a
year--that's billions of more dollars needed that our children will
have to pay for. This figure does not include the costs for repairing
walls that have been breached or damaged by other causes.
To facilitate the construction of the wall at the expense of border
community members, the environment, and wildlife, the administration
continues to interpret the Real ID Act as giving the Department of
Homeland Security complete and unhindered discretion in waiving any
U.S. laws that might interfere with the construction of border wall. As
a result, almost 50 laws that were passed by Congress to protect the
public from Government overreach and protect our water, air,
environment and rights have been waived, including the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the American Indian Religious
Freedom Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the National
Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air
Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
To further speed up the construction of the border wall in Arizona,
California, New Mexico, and Texas, the administration recently waived
Federal procurement statutes and regulations,\8\ including requirements
for open competition and justifying selections.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Spagat, Elliot. ``Homeland Security waives contracting laws for
border wall,'' Associated Press (Feb. 18, 2020). Available at: https://
apnews.com/1689fa48a2e177d1f397b95ff0cb97db.
\9\ Statutes and regulations include: 10 U.S.C. 2304; 10 U.S.C.
2304c; 10 U.S.C. 2306a; 10 U.S.C. 2305(a)-(c), (e)-(f); Section 813
of Public Law 114-328, as amended by Section 822 of Public Law 115-91;
15 U.S.C. 657q; 48 C.F.R. 17.205; 48 C.F.R. 17.207; 10 U.S.C.
2305a(b)-(e); 48 C.F.R. 22.404-5; and 48 C.F.R. 28.102-1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
border wall harms
The consequences and harms of building border walls have been
profound to border communities, the environment and wildlife. Since
1994, when the first wall was built near San Diego under Border
Patrol's Operation Gatekeeper, the remains of more than 7,800 migrants
have been found in remote areas of the Southern Border, including on
the Tohono O'odham Nation and in rural areas near Falfurrias, Texas.
However, not all remains are found, and experts estimate that this
number reflects only a third of the estimated migrants who lost their
lives attempting to cross the border.
Border walls jeopardize Tribal sovereignty. The Tohono O'odham
Nation, whose ancestral lands straddle the U.S.-Mexico border, already
have a physical barrier with a gate bisecting their nation. Most Tribal
members oppose replacing this physical structure \10\ with a wall,
because it would interfere with their ability to cross into Mexico to
connect with other Tribal members for sacred ceremonies and visits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Nanez, Dianna M. ``The Wall: A border tribe, and the wall that
will divide it'', USA Today. Available at: https://www.usatoday.com/
border-wall/story/tohono-oodham-nation-arizona-tribe/582487001/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted by Ned Norris, Jr. , Chairman of the Tohono O'odham
Nation, ``A wall is extremely expensive for the American taxpayer, is
ineffective in remote geographic areas like ours, and is highly
destructive to the religious, cultural, and environmental resources on
which our members rely and which make our ancestral lands sacred to our
people. On-going construction of the wall already has and will continue
to disturb and destroy culturally significant sites and cultural
resources, Tribal archeological resources, and sacred sites and
desecrate human remains.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona Testimony of The
Honorable Ned Norris, Jr., to the U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of
the United States, Hearing on Destroying Sacred Sites and Erasing
Tribal Culture: The Trump Administration's Construction of the Border
Wall (Feb. 26, 2020) Available at: https://naturalresources.house.gov/
imo/media/doc/SCIP%2002.26%20%20Chairman%20Nor- ris.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current and proposed land seizures for border wall construction
have deeply harmed property owners on the U.S. side of the border. In
Texas, the vast majority of land adjacent to the border is privately-
owned, so the administration has resorted to condemnation lawsuits
against private landowners in many of the poorest communities in the
United States to take land for the border wall by force. Hundreds of
private property owners have been forced to give up their homes,
businesses, farms, and ranches--some of whom have held these lands in
their families for generations--through eminent domain seizures.
In some cases, DHS has used `quick take' condemnations to take
possession of private property and start wall construction even before
just compensation has been determined and the property owner paid. In
case after case, DHS has completely discounted the hardships that the
border wall will bring to these landowners, to include: (1) The
devaluation of contiguous property and land left after the taking, (2)
problems accessing land and homes behind a 30-foot wall built on top of
a levee, and (3) the effects on livelihood as the result of a wall
interfering with farming, ranching, and maintaining renters.
Any kind of physical barrier at the U.S.-Mexico border also
interferes with the migration patterns and access to food and water of
wildlife--many of which are endangered and protected species, like the
Mexican grey wolf, ocelot, bighorn sheep, and jaguar. More than 2,500
scientists from 43 countries signed on to a study that illustrates the
harm to wildlife \12\ and the environment that would be generated by
this administration's border wall. Even birds will be affected, like
the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl \13\ which cannot fly higher than 4.5
feet and would be unable to clear Trump's proposed 18- to 30-foot wall.
Every day now, we witness more miles of border walls built every day,
laying waste to our environment and placing our endangered and
protected species on a runaway train toward extinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Javorsky, Nicole. ``Scientists Decry the Border Wall's Harm to
Wildlife,'' City Lab (July 24, 2018). Available at: https://
www.citylab.com/environment/2018/07/scientists-decry-the-border-walls-
harm-to-wildlife/565913/.
\13\ Knowles, Cybele. ``5 Animals Threatened by the Border Wall,''
Medium (Feb. 22, 2017). Available at: https://medium.com/center-for-
biological-diversity/5-animals-threatened-by-the-border-wall-
3160a6bbfd85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Border walls and infrastructure have exacerbated flooding in
Arizona and Texas, causing millions of dollars in damage to the
environment and local businesses and endangering the lives \14\ of
border residents and wildlife. In 2008, a year after a National Park
Service report warned the DHS that the border wall would cause
flooding, 2 people drowned in Nogales from flooding intensified by the
wall along the Arizona/Sonora border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Sadasivam, Naveena. ``The U.S.-Mexico border wall's dangerous,
costly side-effect: enormous floods,'' Quartz, (Aug. 17, 2018).
Available at: https://qz.com/1353798/the-us-mexico-border-walls-
dangerous-costly-side-effect-enormous-floods/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion and recommendations
Not only is the construction of a border wall costly and harmful,
it is also not supported by a majority of voters, including communities
directly impacted by the wall. A recent survey by the University of
California Immigration Policy Center showed almost 60 percent of
registered voters in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas oppose
any additional funding for border wall.
The Southern Border region--home to about 15 million people--is a
place of hope, encounter, and opportunity. It is one of the most
vibrant and diverse places in the country with deep cross-border ties
from San Diego, CA to Brownsville, Texas.
But instead of embracing our dynamic communities, for decades our
border policies have cast aside human rights, criminalized migrants,
and engaged in deadly and unaccountable border enforcement, undermining
public safety for all.
It's time to rethink how we do border and push for a new vision
\15\ that introduces a 21st Century border governance model that
expands public safety to all, creates a welcoming system for newcomers
and residents, and protects human rights and life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Southern Border Communities Coalition. ``A New Border Vision''
(May 2019) Available at: http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/
5c8a803c4764e89849b5753e/attachments/origi- nal/1557787799/SBCC-NBV-
H.pdf?1557787799.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We urge this subcommittee to consider introducing a legislative
initiative that would:
Rescind the vast and arbitrary powers seemingly granted to
the Department of Homeland Security to waive all legal
requirements to construct the border wall and related
infrastructure at the Southern Border.
Prohibit the administration's ability to transfer funds or
access resources for border wall construction in violation of
the appropriations process or Congressional intent.
Halt existing wall construction and terminate contracts
funded by illegally transferred and seized funds.
Hold this administration accountable for its failure to
comply with consultation requirements in border wall
construction efforts, including government-to-government
consultation with Tribal governments, and strengthen
consultation mechanisms.
Prohibit DHS from taking physical possession of any acquired
land unless and until all persons entitled to compensation for
such acquisition have been compensated in full, and the court
proceedings described in 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3114(a) have concluded
and the case terminated.
Identify and fund programs to address harms and provide
reparations for landowners, communities, and public and private
lands harmed by border wall construction.
Miss Rice. Members of the subcommittee may have additional
questions for the witnesses, and we ask that you respond
expeditiously in writing to those questions.
Without objection, the subcommittee record shall be kept
open for 10 days.
Again, I thank all the witnesses for coming here today.
Hearing no further business, the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]