WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER SETS RECORD VISITS FOR YEAR 7,017,658 VISITS! 2,098,003 VISITORS MADE 6 VISITS A DAY EVERY DAY. 63,330 UNIQUE VISITORS MADE 133,730 VISITS IN DECEMBER. WPCNR AVERAGED 17,284 VISITORS A WEEK, VISITING 31,270 TIMES.

But you probably also noticed over the last year, there’s some complaining. People are complaining that they don’t like to have to wait if we look at more identification, or if we look at more car trunks, or if we take the time to enter in and key in names into our database. And I think in some ways this is kind of the fundamental dilemma of homeland security. On the one hand, people lightly expect that we will do what we need to do to make sure that, as GAO said, we avoid the potential that dangerous people and inadmissable goods enter the country. On the other side, there is a cost to doing that. There’s a financial cost, and certainly as we transition to new technologies under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, there may be a bit of a cost of inconvenience.

 So people have to decide: Do they want to have the security, do they want to continue to plug the gap that GAO has identified, and recognize that there’ll be some cost to doing that? Or do we want to, you know, make sure that business isn’t hampered and people can move back and forth readily, and recognize that if we don’t put some barriers in place, we’re going to wind up with dangerous people coming into the country?

Our decision and, I think, the mandate of Congress, has been very clear: In a reasonable and efficient but nevertheless tough fashion, we have to raise the level of security at our ports of entry, we have to continue to plug the gap that GAO has identified, we have to try to do it as efficiently as possible, but we have to be clear that it is going to mean a change in the way of doing business at the border. It’s going to mean no more waving people through, based on a nod and a wink. It’s going to require people to show identification, sometimes making them open up their trunk, putting in the information in a database, and generally assuring the public at large that we have a better handle on who is coming into the United States.

So how are we doing? Well, when the President made the announcement in May of 2006, we had about 11,500 agents. By the end of this past fiscal year in October, we had almost 15,000 agents. In other words, we’ve added basically about 3,500 agents in the period of time since the President made that commitment. We are on track to exceeding 18,000 agents by the end of calendar year 2008, which will be the doubling the President committed to getting done. We’re also going to be requesting funds — again, we asked Congress to give us these funds — to get to the level of 20,000 agents by the end of fiscal year 2009, which of course will be after the President has left office.

 The question that sometimes comes up is: Are we compromising the standards for training the Border Patrol agents to move these accelerated numbers? And the answer is: No, we’re not. We’ve carefully studied and worked with the Border Patrol and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia to make sure that we can accommodate the increased flow without sacrificing the very important training that is necessary to equip the Border Patrol to do the job safely and effectively at the border. That includes physical training to handle the very challenging environment at the border, classroom instruction, language skills for those who need it, training in the use of force and the appropriate rules of engagement, defensive driving, and instruction in the law that governs the proper respect for civil rights.

I’m confident that we have not sacrificed any of the quality of training. But I’m not relying only upon what I’ve heard from the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection or the Chief of the Border Patrol or the head of our Training Center. Here’s what the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers had to say about the issue of training. They were initially skeptical about whether we could get the job of increased recruitment and deployment done without sacrificing training. But after going down to inspect the program in New Mexico, the statement that this National Association issued was as follows: “They are doing it, and they are doing it exceptionally well. There has been no degradation of training standards; to the contrary, they have improved substantially.” That is the view and the assessment of an independent group of former Border Patrol officers.

I also have to comment and thank — comment upon and thank the National Guard, which continues to support the Border Patrol under Operation Jump Start. It was the purpose of the National Guard to fill the gap as we increased recruiting. And of course, as we’ve gotten 3,500 additional agents into the Border Patrol, we have drawn down the National Guard from the original start-up number of 6,000 to the current number of 3,000. But the National Guard continues to assist with entry identification teams, fence construction, and serves as an important force multiplier to let our Border Patrol get the job done as effectively as possible.

Technology at the Border

The third element of our strategy is technology. We’re in the 21^st century and we ought to be using 21^st-century tools, which means more than just fencing and barriers. We have added new technology at the border as we speak: unmanned aerial systems and ground-based radar in mobile units enables us — and I’ve seen this with my own eyes — to have either aerial, video or ground-based radar connected into a Border Patrol agent who can map onto his grid exactly where migrants are coming in so that he can direct a Border Patrol team to intercept and apprehend those migrants, and to do it in a place that is most convenient and most effective for the Border Patrol.  

We’re going to continue to move forward with technology, and in particular we’re going to do so as part of an integrated project that we’re currently assessing and testing at what we call our P28 location in Arizona, right near Sasabe. When that system is fully accepted, the system will have integrated radar and cameras that will give a common operating picture over a 28-mile stretch to a Border Patrol agent who will be able then to use that information to direct the Border Patrol to conduct an efficient and safe interception.

Now we are being rigorous about the testing, which is currently underway. And I have said to the Chief of the Border Patrol, and I have said publicly, that we’re not going to actually accept and buy a system until we know what works, not just in the laboratory but in the frankly very tough environment of the border itself. But we’re making progress and we’re committed to using the results of this technology to continue to move forward with our efforts at the border.

The Numbers 

That of course brings up the most important question: Are the efforts we’re undertaking having an impact? So let’s look at some metrics. In fiscal year 2007, we saw a 22 percent reduction in apprehensions of illegal aliens at the Southern border as compared to the previous year. Even after adjusting for seasonal differences, we’re at the lowest point in the last five years. While this in and of itself is not conclusive proof of driving down the numbers of illegal migrants between the ports of entry, other factors support the view that we’re beginning to see a significant turn in the direction of migration.

We haven’t completed the job yet, but we’ve made a significant first step in reversing the tide of illegal migration between the ports of entry. For example, anecdotal information tells us that there are fewer people in traditional border staging areas. A recent Pew research report not only agreed with us that there have been declines in apprehensions, but noted that financial remittances from the United States to foreign countries have significantly declined, and that has been attributed at least in significant part to the fact that there are fewer people coming across the border to do work. In fact, The New York Times recently ran a piece suggesting that this decrease in remittances from Mexico was due to the impact of our enforcement efforts.

This is not a declaration of victory or suggestion that the job is done. It is, however, I think, a fair recognition that we have begun to make some progress and we’ve turned the tide. What it ought to do is it ought to encourage us to step up the tempo and step up the pace. And I’m committed to making sure we do just that.

I’d like to cover four major areas today. First is what we’re doing literally at the physical border itself, particularly the Southwest border.

Second, I’d like to talk about what we’re doing with respect to interior enforcement of the immigration laws, which of course tackles the economic magnet that pulls most illegal migrants into the United States.

Third, I’d like to talk about what we’re doing to deploy tools that employers can use to verify the legitimacy of their own workforce so that they can support the law instead of violating the law.

And finally I’m going to talk a little bit about some measures we’re putting into place to alleviate what will be an economic hardship as we crack down at illegal migrants by — in particular, I want to talk about measures we are going to put into effect to streamline the process of getting temporary workers with respect to agriculture.

The Border 

So let me begin at the border. And I’m going to talk about the infrastructure — meaning the fencing and the other tactical infrastructure; I’m going to talk about what we’re doing to enhance and augment our personnel at the border; and finally, how we’re using technology.

You’ll remember one of the signature commitments we made when the President announced Operation Jump Start in 2006 was to build 70 miles of new pedestrian fence during the fiscal year 2007. We exceeded that goal. We built more than 76 miles. And there are now therefore in total roughly 160 miles of pedestrian fence on the Southwest border of the United States. Add to that about 115 miles of vehicle fence, which represents where we currently are with respect to tactical infrastructure — basically, a total of 270 miles of pedestrian or vehicle fencing.

This coming year, we plan to build an additional 225 miles of pedestrian fence, which will give us 370 miles of pedestrian fence by the end of 2008. And we also intend to build several hundred miles of vehicle fence so that we can complement pedestrian fence with barriers that will prevent vehicles from coming in.

Our goals with respect to fence total by the end of calendar 2008 are 670 miles of total pedestrian and vehicle fencing. Now I have to be clear, there’s a very important condition that has to be met if we are to live up to the goal at the end of calendar year 2008, and that is, Congress needs to fund the money that the President has requested to get this important work at the border done. If Congress funds that, we will get it done. If Congress doesn’t fund it, obviously that’s going to be a problem.

Now why do we need a fence? Fencing is not a panacea, it is not a magic bullet to deal with every issue at the border, but it is one of a number of a important tools that we can use to make the job of the Border Patrol easier and more efficient. What fencing does is, it reflects the fact that between the border and the interior, there is what we call a “vanishing point,” a point at which an illegal migrant can find a bus station or a train station or a highway, from which he or she can move readily into the interior of the country.

From the standpoint of the Border Patrol, what we need to do is lengthen the amount of time we have to intercept illegal migrants between the time they cross the border and the time they reach the vanishing point. When you go to a place like San Diego, for example, you see that there are urban areas in very close proximity to the border. What that means and what that meant prior to the San Diego fence was that it was quite easy for people to literally run across the border and within a matter of moments, they were either in an urban area or on a highway or some place where they could vanish into the interior. What the fencing does is it slows up that process to give the Border Patrol an opportunity to get there.

Now the fence obviously doesn’t do the same work in the middle of the wilderness, where this is no vanishing point within a matter of minutes or even a matter of hours, and that’s why the need for fencing depends a great deal on the landscape and the topography of the particular part of the border.

 But what I will tell you is, if we get the 670 miles of pedestrian and vehicle fencing done — that is to say, if Congress gives us the money to do the job properly — then by the end of 2008, we will have barriers from the Pacific Ocean to the New Mexico/Texas border, except in those areas where the landscape itself creates a natural barrier. And I think that’s going to be a major step forward for the Border Patrol.

Another question I sometimes get asked is: Why does it take so long to build a fence? And there was a chart we displayed a little bit earlier that showed that in the last fiscal year, we began going very slowly with building fencing, and then it all of a sudden escalated and ramped up right at the end of the fiscal year. There’s a reason for that. You don’t build fence a mile at a time.

If you want to build, for example, 35 miles of fencing at the Barry M. Goldwater Range, what you first do is you make sure you have the land, you survey it, you grade it, you dig the areas to drop the posts of the bollards in, you pour concrete, you drop the posts and bollards in, and only at the end of that process do you begin to put the wire sheeting between the bollards that creates your pedestrian fence. And that’s why you go for a significant period of time while you’re doing the preparatory work, and only at the end do you see an escalation towards the goal that we reached in the last fiscal year.

And that is, in fact, what you’re going to see as we go forward. You will see the process moving in chunks of border at a time as we begin to build from the bottom up, and escalate at the end by dropping the sheets of wire, or wire mesh, that needs to be put into place to complete the pedestrian fencing. 

Now I recognize that some people don’t like fencing. Of course some people really do like fencing, and I often believe I find myself caught in the middle between those who want to see the entire border fenced with double-fencing, and those who don’t want to see any fence on the border. Again, my compelling rationale for building fencing is, the operational need of the Border Patrol, driven by what the Border Patrol assesses as their tactical needs and what fits in with their overall strategy and lay down of capabilities at the border.

Environmental Concerns

But obviously the border is an environment in which not only people live but also animals and wildlife have their habitat. And so people do raise the issue of the environmental impact of the fencing. Therefore, in addition to obviously the paramount concern we have with the Border Patrol’s tactical and strategic needs, we do seek input from local residents and landowners, we do conduct environmental assessments so that we can mitigate or minimize any impact on the environment, and we of course conduct engineering assessments to build the type of fence that, from an engineering standpoint, works in the particular landscape. 

Not surprisingly, there are differences of opinion at the border, and we’ve seen environmentalists recently challenge our efforts to build in one particular area of Arizona in the San Pedro area, claiming that we were interfering with the environment of the local habitat. This is a classic example of how we have a conflict between the needs of national and homeland security on the one hand and environmental concerns on the other.

Congress has spoken on the subject by giving me as the Secretary the authority to waive environmental laws as necessary to promote our control of the border. And I do not use that authority lightly. I do not use it without careful consideration of the equities. But on the other hand, I do use it to prevent undue delay in terms of excessive litigation or long, drawn-out procedural fights that could result in delaying our ability to build fencing and lighting and roads literally for years, if not decades.

In the case of the particular area we recently waived the environmental laws on, that waiver was undertaken only after four separate environmental reviews had been conducted over a period of a decade, covering not only this particular area but a broader area of the border. Two separate federal land management agencies authorized us to proceed with the construction. The particular construction steps we are undertaking do include mitigation measures to address wildlife concerns, and we have committed to working with the Fish and Wildlife Service to make sure we can address those concerns. We are, for example, erecting temporary river barriers so that we can remove them during a flood season. And we’re working to make sure that the construction does not permit the spread of invasive weeds, or result in storm water pollution.  

So even when we waive the laws with respect to environmental protection, we put into place voluntarily measures that reasonably respond to legitimate environmental concerns that have been raised as a consequence of a lot of study.

But I also have to make it clear to the pubic that in the end, this is a matter of reasonable balancing: balancing risk and considering not only the environmental consequences but the human consequences of what we do at the border. 

Apprehensions

Fencing does have a very significant impact in terms of human consequences. In the particular area of San Pedro, for example, last year 19,000 illegal entrants were apprehended in the course of fiscal year 2007; 11 percent of those people had criminal backgrounds. Obviously we didn’t necessarily apprehend everybody, but to the extent that fencing allows us to minimize and reduce the number of illegal people who are smuggled in, and particularly to reduce the number of criminals who come in or drugs that are smuggled in, that to me is a very positive step for the human environment; for the human environment of the entire country, because if we reduce the flow of marijuana and methamphetamine and cocaine, and if we reduce the flow of criminals coming across that part of the border, we are reducing some of the environmental damage that occurs in our cities when those drugs hit the streets or those criminals commit crimes.

There’s also a humanitarian dimension to building a fence here. There were multiple migrant deaths last year due to the elements — I think there were 14. To the extent that fencing discourages or prevents people from crossing into this particular area, and then losing their life due to the elements, there’s a positive humanitarian benefit to building that fence.

So as I balance on the one hand the concern of the environmentalists, I have to consider on the other hand the very important humanitarian and public safety elements that are promoted by building fencing in this area. Indeed, even if we look at the habitat by itself and the impact on the local environment, just in a particular area that we’re building fence, I would suggest to you that a proper balance recognizes that fencing can actually protect the local habitat and not merely interfere with it.

One thing we have seen repeatedly is that in areas where drug smugglers and human smugglers operate freely, there is trash and human waste that has an impact on wildlife and vegetation. There’s an impact on water quality. There are wildfires that are created because of campfires that get out of control. And therefore, to the extent that we minimize smuggling, we’re actually protecting part of the local habitat.

I understand some people have a negative reaction when I suggest that there’s actually a local habitat benefit to building fencing. But the reality is, if you actually go to the border and you see the consequences of smuggling, if you see the refuge that the smugglers leave behind — the cans, the rusted automobiles that we sometimes find — you have to recognize that in some ways a fence can be a positive impact on the habitat.

 The bottom line is this: We will continue to use the authority that Congress gave this department in a way that’s sensitive to local concerns, that is mindful of the need to protect the environment, but that does not allow the process of securing the border to get bogged down in endless litigation or procedural wrangling that will result in years going by before we complete the mission that Congress has mandated and that the American people rightfully expect us to get done. 

(To Be Continued)