July 20, 2006
4:36 PM

Another border hearing

Read below a portion of Congressman Reyes' testimoney to today's joint Homeland Security-Government Reform Committees hearing on fencing vast portions of the US-Mexico border, a radical proposal that the Congressman opposes. As usual, the Congressman grapped everybody's attention with his rock-solid, common sense border vision and his sweeping command of policy and facts.

As you know, this hearing is one in a series scheduled by the House Republican leadership for July and August on border security and immigration. I maintain that these hearings are more about politics than policy, and that the American people would be far better served if Congress was instead working to reach a compromise on comprehensive border security and immigration legislation. However, as a 26 ½ year veteran of the United States Border Patrol and a member representing a congressional district on the U.S.-Mexico border, I believe I have a responsibility to share my experience with my colleagues, with the hope that almost five years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress and the Bush Administration will finally do what needs to be done to secure our borders and keep America safe.

In fact, I have testified before Congress on the issue of border security infrastructure several times. Over eleven years ago, while I was still Chief of the El Paso Sector of the Border Patrol, I testified before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, about the border security strategy we implemented successfully in El Paso known as Operation Hold the Line. At that time, in response to a question from my friend from California, Mr. Hunter, I testified that border fencing can be an essential tool for curbing illegal entries in communities like El Paso or San Diego and other densely populated, urban areas of the border region. Since being elected to Congress almost a decade ago, I have consistently supported Mr. Hunter’s efforts to facilitate the construction of a border fence in the San Diego area.

Unfortunately, however, there are no one-size-fits-all solutions for border security, and that is why I oppose the 730-mile border fence provision included in H.R. 4437, as well as proposals for a nearly 2000-mile fence to run the entire length of the U.S.-Mexico border.

In communities with large numbers of people in close proximity to the border where there would otherwise be thousands of illegal entries per day, it makes sense to construct and maintain a physical barrier at the border. On the other hand, it is simply not worthwhile to build fencing through remote desert and other areas of tough terrain, where the number of attempted entries is comparatively much lower.

Instead of building 700 miles of fence at an estimated cost of $2.2 billion – an estimate that many believe to be very low – we could invest that money in the personnel, equipment, and technology that will provide a meaningful solution to our border security concerns. For example, that amount of money would be enough to recruit, train, equip, and pay the salaries of enough new agents to double the current size of the Border Patrol.

Not only would construction costs on a 700-mile fence be exorbitant, but to guard and maintain hundreds of miles of fencing often in remote areas would be a nightmare for the Border Patrol in terms of cost, personnel, and logistics. Just to put the amount of fencing we are talking about into perspective, that would be like watching over and maintaining a fence built from Chicago to Atlanta.

Furthermore, depending on the geography of an area, a wall can actually be a hindrance to the Border Patrol as they attempt to monitor who or what may be coming at them from the other side of the border.

Instead, in these more remote areas our limited border security resources would be much better spent on additional personnel, equipment, and technology such as sensors to create what is often referred to as a "virtual fence." A virtual fence could also be implemented more quickly and therefore could help us gain operational control of our borders sooner.

The virtual fence is the approach preferred by the Border Patrol. The Chief of the Border Patrol, David Aguilar, recently testified before the House Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, in opposition to a border-wide fence and in support of the right mix of personnel, physical barriers, and technology to create a virtual fence at the border. The Acting Chief of the Laredo Sector, Reynaldo Garza, gave similar testimony earlier this month at a field hearing I attended in Laredo, Texas. Congress needs to listen to the advice of the Border Patrol in these matters, since they are the ones with the boots on the ground in the border region and are the real-world experts in border security.

It is also important to remember that addressing our border security infrastructure is only one part of what we need to do to fix our country’s border security and illegal immigration problems. That is why I have long supported providing the resources required to enforce immigration laws in our nation’s interior, including tough sanctions against employers who hire undocumented workers. If it were harder for an undocumented worker to get a job, fewer of them would try to enter this country illegally, which would allow the Border Patrol to focus on those who may be trying to come here to do us harm.

Also, all the walls in the world would do nothing to address the somewhere between 30 and 60 percent or so of those currently in this country illegally who, like the 9/11 attackers, actually came to the U.S. legally on some kind of visa or through other legitimate means, and overstayed. A wall is not a panacea; there is much more that needs to be done to help keep America safe.

That is why I have consistently lobbied my colleagues for greater resources for border security, including additional Border Patrol agents, equipment, and technology; more immigration inspectors and judges; and thousands of new detention beds so we can end the absurd practice of catch-and-release of other-than-Mexicans, or OTMs, once and for all.

Yet in every instance, the President and the leadership in Congress have failed to deliver these necessary resources. Congress is already 800 Border Patrol agents and 5,000 detention beds short of what was promised in the 9/11 Act. Clearly, almost five years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress and the Bush Administration have a lot of work yet to do on all of these vital issues.

Click here to view related articles.