Rio Grande Guardian
June 2, 2014
by Luis Montoya
LAREDO, June 2 - U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar on Monday called for the establishment of a multi-agency processing center on the border to deal with a recent influx of immigrant apprehensions.
In a letter sent to the chairs and ranking members of various House committees, as well as Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, the Cuellar pointed out that since the beginning of this year over 145,000 undocumented immigrants have been apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley sector. This is more than a 65 percent increase over the same period of Fiscal Year 2013. If current rates continue, the Rio Grande Valley is expected to have over 240,000 apprehensions for Fiscal Year 2014, Cuellar wrote, in his letter. Cuellar said the Valley is currently at more than 190 percent of its temporary detention capacity. “We need to do a better job taking care of the children who are crossing the southern border unaccompanied and we must act immediately to avert a potential humanitarian crisis along the border,” Cuellar, D-Laredo, wrote. Cuellar sent a letter on the same day President Obama President Obama held a news conference at the White House to say there is an "urgent humanitarian situation" at the border. Obama referenced a surge of unaccompanied immigrant children crossing into the United States from Mexico. According to Kids in Need of Defense, a group that advocates for immigrant children and provides legal services during deportation proceedings, as many as 150,000 unaccompanied children could cross into the United States next. In fiscal year 2012 that number was 13,625, the group says. It rose to 24,668 in 2013. The government predicts as many as 60,000 children could enter the U.S. unaccompanied in 2014. Border Patrol cannot keep the children form more than 72 hours and so the numbers are overwhelming the agencies charged with catering for the children. Obama said he was placing Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Craig Fugate in charge of a group that will coordinate services among many federal agencies in order to better assist the minors apprehended at the border. The Office of Management and Budget says it will cost $2.28 billion next year to deal with minors caught at the southern border. This is more than the $868 million requested by the Obama Administration in March. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, along with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has urged cooperation between the United States, Mexico and several Central American countries on the issue of migrant children. Cuellar’s letter was sent to U.S. Rep. Harold Rogers, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and U.S. Rep. Nita Lowey, ranking member of the same committee. It was also sent to U.S. Rep. John Carter, chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, and U.S. Rep. David Price, ranking member of the same committee. Cuellar’s letter was sent also to U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science, and U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah, ranking member of the same committee. It was also sent to U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member of the same committee. Here is Cuellar’s letter in full: June 2, 2014 In recent weeks, the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas has experienced an unprecedented influx of undocumented immigrant apprehensions and detentions, many of which are unaccompanied minors from countries other than Mexico. These crossings have created a resource crisis in the Rio Grande Valley that demands immediate attention from the federal government and the Appropriations Committee. Since the beginning of this year, over 145,000 undocumented immigrants have been apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley sector, a more than 65 percent increase over the same period of Fiscal Year 2013. If current rates continue, the Rio Grande Valley is expected to have over 240,000 apprehensions for Fiscal Year 2014. On average, over 70 percent of apprehensions are Other Than Mexicans (OTM) and a large percentage of them are Unaccompanied Children (UAC). Currently, the Rio Grande Valley is apprehending approximately 300 UACs on a daily basis. I represent much of this area in the 28th District of Texas, which stretches from San Antonio in the north to Laredo and the much of the upper Rio Grande Valley. I have had extensive personal conversations with the men and women of Border Patrol in the past few weeks about this ongoing issue and they have laid out the issues straining the resources and personnel of Border Patrol. Every undocumented immigrant that is apprehended while attempting to cross the border must be processed by Border Patrol. With this unprecedented surge in crossings, the Rio Grande Valley is currently at more than 190 percent of its temporary detention capacity. Those that are detained are then transferred to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Many others are released with a notice to appear before an immigration judge at a future date. This resource crisis requires a multi-agency response involving the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Justice. Because of the massive influx of immigrants being apprehended at the border, it is necessary to create a central location in which all elements of the adjudication process can be completed. We need to do a better job taking care of the children who are crossing the southern border unaccompanied and we must act immediately to avert a potential humanitarian crisis along the border. I am committed to working with Chairwoman Kay Granger, Ranking Member David Price, and the State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Subcommittee to work with our partners in Mexico and other Central American countries. Thank you for your consideration. If you require further information, do not hesitate to contact me, my legislative director Megan Swearingen, or my legislative assistant Wendell White at 225-1640. Sincerely, Henry Cuellar, PhD U.S. Congressman Texas District 28
Showing posts with label Cuellar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cuellar. Show all posts
Monday, June 2, 2014
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Border fence extension remains in Congressional limbo
KSAT San Antonio
May 8, 2014
by Jesse Degollado
Funded by the Secure Fence Act of 2006, plans to extend the border fence, part of immigration reform, remain in Congressional limbo.
Nicol has photographed makeshift ladders left behind by undocumented immigrants. He said most are seized by U.S. Border Patrol.
He also said the fence has done little to slow, much less stop, the current surge of Central Americans into the Rio Grande Valley.
According to Customs and Border Protection, only 650 miles of fencing exists along the 2,000-mile southern border.
May 8, 2014
by Jesse Degollado
Funded by the Secure Fence Act of 2006, plans to extend the border fence, part of immigration reform, remain in Congressional limbo.
Critics of the fence in south Texas question spending more taxpayer dollars on a barrier that they said has had little effect.
“A border fence is a 14th century solution to a 21st century problem," said Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Dist. 28).
Cuellar, who serves on the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee, said he supports “smart border security,” using technology.
“The wall here was $12 million a mile,” said Scott Nicol, one of its early opponents and founder of NoBorderWall.com. “It can be completely defeated by a couple of dollars worth of scrap wood."
He also said the fence has done little to slow, much less stop, the current surge of Central Americans into the Rio Grande Valley.
“The walls are up and apprehensions are rising again, so I don’t see the wall doing a lot,” Nicol said.
William Alber, a retired General Motors worker from Michigan and a full-time winter Texan, said he agrees.
Alber said he watched the fence going up from his front yard at a mobile home park near McAllen.
“The wall didn’t do any good. They just come over the top of the wall,” Alber said.
He said they also often run across his driveway, but he’s never been threatened.
“It’s elderly ladies. It’s girls. I’ve seen little kids, 7, 8 years old running with them,” Alber said. “There’s no doubt in my mind they’re desperate.”
Alber said if Border Patrol is not there watching, many others simply go around the fence where it abruptly ends.
Daniel Tirado, a spokesman for U.S. Border Patrol, said the 54 miles of fencing in the Rio Grande Valley was strategically placed to give its 5,000-plus agents the tactical advantage.
Tirado said the border fence helps shift illegal activity to less populated areas, “decreasing the smuggler’s ability to exploit easily accessible routes through communities, increasing the possibility of apprehension.”
However, those living between the fence and the Rio Grande have said they’re in a no-man’s land used by smugglers.
Tirado said that is why agents often patrol those areas, assisted by other means of detection such as cameras and sensors.
He said Border Patrol relies on a combination of technology, infrastructure and personnel to secure the south Texas border.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Border Caucus members signal shift in immigration approach
Brownsville Herald
September 7, 2013
by Ty Johnson
There were nearly enough members of Congress in Port Isabel Saturday to start a new House subcommittee as five Border Caucus representatives met to discuss immigration reform with the public.
Rep. Filemon Vela, D-Brownsville, organized the event, which attracted more than 50 members of the public to a forum where residents peppered the congressmen with questions about border walls, paths to citizenship and the political battles holding back the nation from comprehensive reform.
The five Democrats fielded questions that centered mostly on the language of the bill the U.S. Senate passed earlier this summer.
That bill was amended many times in a manner that some Democrats said put too much emphasis on border security while not providing enough options for undocumented immigrants to become U.S. citizens.
Many at the forum wore T-shirts or carried signs in opposition to the proposed border fence, which is being completed across South Texas’ border with Mexico.
Rep. Henry Cuellar, who represents McAllen and Texas’ 28th District, called the wall “a 14th century solution to a 21st century problem,” likening it to the Great Wall of China and other failed attempts throughout history during which countries built physical barriers to keep intruders out.
Scott Nicol, a McAllen resident, made the case that the only thing the fence truly prevents from crossing is animals.
Nicol, the chairman of the Sierra Club Borderlands Team, said he was concerned about language in the Senate bill that he said allowed the federal government to suspend laws within 100 miles of the border.
Without environmental legislation to hold things in check, he was worried animals and plant life along the border would suffer.
“Why waive the Clean Water Act or the Endangered Species Act if you’re not planning on violating them?” he pointed out following the meeting.
The fence also creates issues from a property rights standpoint, he said, referring to examples throughout Brownsville where the fence cut through property.
During the forum, Cuellar pointed out the disproportion between the fence’s cost and its effectiveness.
Cuellar said the price per mile to use technology – cameras, sensors and the like – to secure the border cost about one-eighth of that to build a fence per mile.
He also noted the testimony of an expert in Washington who admitted the fence, on average, deterred those attempting to cross by about 15 seconds.
The public’s questions about the border fence led into a discussion about the so-called “trigger” in the Senate legislation that calls for increased border security before the implementation of a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Cuellar said that to the majority of Congress, border security means more boots on the ground and a fence, the construction of which began in 2006.
Vela, speaking after the meeting, said he felt that while border security and immigration reform were connected, they should be discussed and legislated separately.
“We of course need to be mindful of border security, but I don’t think those two need to be conditioned on each other,” he said.
What he does think should be factored into the immigration debate, however, is international commerce.
“(The debate) needs to include a discussion about the significant trade relationship we have with Mexico,” he said.
Vela has recently led a shift in strategy for House Republicans aiming to bring about immigration reform by moving away from discussions about divided families and deportations to talk about jobs and the impact the United States’ third-largest trading partner has on the economy.
Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who represents the El Paso area, said he felt those who would be swayed by moral arguments have already chosen their side, noting that Vela’s efforts to show how Mexico directly impacts states is the congressmen’s best bet to bring about immigration reform in the near future.
“It connects members of Congress with their interdependence on Mexico,” he said, noting that Democrats will try to sell immigration reform as the key to job growth for districts from Ohio and Tennessee to New York.
Rep. Raul Grijalva, who represents the Nogales, Ariz., area, said the dialogue concerning immigration needed to shift to jobs, noting that House Speaker John Boehner’s Ohio district alone depends on Mexico directly for about 125,000 jobs.
“It’s got to be about how it creates jobs,” he said, again referencing the need to change reformists’ approach to immigration.
The problem facing Congress now, though, is time, Rep. Gene Green of Houston said.
Noting that there are only 39 days left in this year’s session, Green suggested that budget talks, debt ceiling debates and a vote concerning military strikes against Syria have the potential to dominate discussions through December.
“We may end up spending two weeks on (Syria),” he said, pointing out how the debate on whether to intervene in the Middle East has taken congressional focus away from other matters. “It’s kind of sucked the wind out of other issues.”
Still, Vela and the Border Caucus have not given up on the push for reform this session, as the representatives and others will be in Grijalva’s district next weekend to again bring congressional representatives to the border.
Congress reconvenes Monday.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_7217123a-182d-11e3-a1af-0019bb30f31a.html
September 7, 2013
by Ty Johnson
There were nearly enough members of Congress in Port Isabel Saturday to start a new House subcommittee as five Border Caucus representatives met to discuss immigration reform with the public.
Rep. Filemon Vela, D-Brownsville, organized the event, which attracted more than 50 members of the public to a forum where residents peppered the congressmen with questions about border walls, paths to citizenship and the political battles holding back the nation from comprehensive reform.
The five Democrats fielded questions that centered mostly on the language of the bill the U.S. Senate passed earlier this summer.
That bill was amended many times in a manner that some Democrats said put too much emphasis on border security while not providing enough options for undocumented immigrants to become U.S. citizens.
Many at the forum wore T-shirts or carried signs in opposition to the proposed border fence, which is being completed across South Texas’ border with Mexico.
Rep. Henry Cuellar, who represents McAllen and Texas’ 28th District, called the wall “a 14th century solution to a 21st century problem,” likening it to the Great Wall of China and other failed attempts throughout history during which countries built physical barriers to keep intruders out.
Scott Nicol, a McAllen resident, made the case that the only thing the fence truly prevents from crossing is animals.
Nicol, the chairman of the Sierra Club Borderlands Team, said he was concerned about language in the Senate bill that he said allowed the federal government to suspend laws within 100 miles of the border.
Without environmental legislation to hold things in check, he was worried animals and plant life along the border would suffer.
“Why waive the Clean Water Act or the Endangered Species Act if you’re not planning on violating them?” he pointed out following the meeting.
The fence also creates issues from a property rights standpoint, he said, referring to examples throughout Brownsville where the fence cut through property.
During the forum, Cuellar pointed out the disproportion between the fence’s cost and its effectiveness.
Cuellar said the price per mile to use technology – cameras, sensors and the like – to secure the border cost about one-eighth of that to build a fence per mile.
He also noted the testimony of an expert in Washington who admitted the fence, on average, deterred those attempting to cross by about 15 seconds.
The public’s questions about the border fence led into a discussion about the so-called “trigger” in the Senate legislation that calls for increased border security before the implementation of a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Cuellar said that to the majority of Congress, border security means more boots on the ground and a fence, the construction of which began in 2006.
Vela, speaking after the meeting, said he felt that while border security and immigration reform were connected, they should be discussed and legislated separately.
“We of course need to be mindful of border security, but I don’t think those two need to be conditioned on each other,” he said.
What he does think should be factored into the immigration debate, however, is international commerce.
“(The debate) needs to include a discussion about the significant trade relationship we have with Mexico,” he said.
Vela has recently led a shift in strategy for House Republicans aiming to bring about immigration reform by moving away from discussions about divided families and deportations to talk about jobs and the impact the United States’ third-largest trading partner has on the economy.
Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who represents the El Paso area, said he felt those who would be swayed by moral arguments have already chosen their side, noting that Vela’s efforts to show how Mexico directly impacts states is the congressmen’s best bet to bring about immigration reform in the near future.
“It connects members of Congress with their interdependence on Mexico,” he said, noting that Democrats will try to sell immigration reform as the key to job growth for districts from Ohio and Tennessee to New York.
Rep. Raul Grijalva, who represents the Nogales, Ariz., area, said the dialogue concerning immigration needed to shift to jobs, noting that House Speaker John Boehner’s Ohio district alone depends on Mexico directly for about 125,000 jobs.
“It’s got to be about how it creates jobs,” he said, again referencing the need to change reformists’ approach to immigration.
The problem facing Congress now, though, is time, Rep. Gene Green of Houston said.
Noting that there are only 39 days left in this year’s session, Green suggested that budget talks, debt ceiling debates and a vote concerning military strikes against Syria have the potential to dominate discussions through December.
“We may end up spending two weeks on (Syria),” he said, pointing out how the debate on whether to intervene in the Middle East has taken congressional focus away from other matters. “It’s kind of sucked the wind out of other issues.”
Still, Vela and the Border Caucus have not given up on the push for reform this session, as the representatives and others will be in Grijalva’s district next weekend to again bring congressional representatives to the border.
Congress reconvenes Monday.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_7217123a-182d-11e3-a1af-0019bb30f31a.html
Thursday, July 18, 2013
The Border Fence: Horrible Deal At Cost Up To $40,000 Per Illegal Immigrant Apprehended
Forbes
July 18, 2013
by Richard Finger
There are few topics today that arouse more passionate debate than the current immigration reform bill which though recently passed by overwhelming majority (68-32) in the senate most probably will, according to the political cognoscenti, languish in our fractious House of Representatives. Not only is this not a new issue, it has been tackled through various iterations over the past three quarters of a century. The Bracero Program from 1942-1964 was designed to alleviate wartime labor shortages in the agricultural sector. Workers were often taken advantage of through very poor wages and abysmal living conditions while unions offered strenuous objections over American workers being displaced. The H-2 visa program guarantees guest workers a minimum wage and other protections and at the end of the contract period that person returns to his or her country of origin. In the “Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986” sitting President Ronald Reagan famously offered immediate blanket amnesty to an estimated 2.8 million illegal immigrants and a simple five year path to citizenship. (I will come back to this). In 2004, President George W. Bush’s proposal to mend our nation’s immigration cleavage through “Fair and Secure Immigration Reform” foundered.
Fast forward to 2013 where President Obama faces the tough challenge of placating intractable political tribes, each huddled inwardly in coveys and, many of whom, in my opinion, are much more concerned about survival of midterm elections than really taking the time to understand the nuance of this very important issue. How many of our politicians have actually gone to Texas and California and spent time on the border? Republicans have pre-conditions of a “secure border”. What does that mean exactly? Democrats presumably see 11 million potential voters which is an equally simplistic view.
Almost always, when dealing with a far reaching “hot button issue” such as immigration, the reality is far more complex and subtle than a simple black or white position postulated in many of the media reports. To write this article I talked with two people who have informed opinions on this issue that will impact our great nation for generations to come. I interviewed Mr. Gary Jacobs, a successful Laredo Texas businessman and from there I secured what turned into a very long conversation with Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar of Texas’s 28th district which encompasses a significant swath of the Texas-Mexico border from Laredo and 150 miles south to McAllen. Congressman Cuellar is one of but a handful of “blue dog” Democrats that has often been willing to risk his party’s wrath to step across the aisle and engage in constructive dialogue with Republicans. Mr. Jacobs, a lifelong Texas resident, has called Laredo home since the mid 1960’s. He was Chairman and CEO of Laredo National Bank from 1976 to 2005 when it was acquired for $850 million by Spain based BBVA (Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria). As an international banker promoting commerce with one of our country’s three most important trading partners Mr. Jacobs has spent a lifetime understanding the social, cultural, political issues of Mexico and promoting economic ties and bilateral trade between the two countries. This will be a three part article of which part one will discuss the logistics, economic impacts, and practical ramifications of building a 700 mile border fence. Subsequent material will look at the reality of hiring an extra 20,000 border patrol agents. And then these experts will give their views on what it means to effectively grant amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants. Some discussion of Homeland Security current policy will be debated and whether or not there exist more efficient ways to deal with illegal immigration, a problem that sooner or later must be faced, and our answer which will effect this nation for generations to come.
Richard: Mr. Jacobs and Congressman Cuellar, thanks for taking the time to discuss what has become a very polarizing issue in America today. Both of you spent half a century or more living in Laredo….. can you share some insights into what is happening in Washington regarding the immigration bill?
Jacobs: What the republicans are proposing is not only outlandishly expensive, from my perspective it is absolutely impossible to completely secure our border in a way envisioned by Republicans.
Richard: You are referring to the proposed extra 700 miles of proposed fencing and the extra 20,000 more border patrol agents.
Jacobs: I think the new plan calls for a double-layer fence which translates to two parallel barriers on either side of a corridor manned by Border Patrol. First, it doesn’t matter how many fences you build, how high, how thick, if people want to get in they will find a way. Second, and I can only speak to the area from El Paso to Brownsville….that is impossible to totally seal off. The physical challenges there are insurmountable. Look on a border map and explain to me how you would propose to interdict on Lake Amistad, or Falcon Lake……or Big Bend National Park which people don’t realize is over 1,250 square miles, bigger than Rhode Island and has mountains that have several thousand feet of vertical height.
Richard: You mention that illegals will find some way to circumvent the fences.
Jacobs: Yes. The ingenuity of smugglers is always steps ahead of law enforcement. Boatloads of immigrants will be bussed on boats into the Gulf of Mexico and dropped off on Padre Island. Or watch the migration flow north to the Canadian border where there are no fences and security is extremely lax compared to Texas….and there is 3,000 miles of it. Some of the 9/11 terrorists came through Canada, if you recall.
Richard: You referred in your opening statement to the cost of the fence.
Jacobs: It is impossible to pin down exactly, but there are some estimates. In a 2007 study the non-partisan Congressional Research Office pegged the bill to construct and maintain (for 25 years) a 700 mile fence to be $49 billion. This is the same type of double fences contemplated in today’s bill. That was six years ago…..materials and labor prices have increased and then there is my “law of government”……..things always take longer and cost more, usually much more, than they tell us. So what’s the cost today….you pick a number.
And that’s just the beginning. We haven’t tallied the costs for all the new ancillary surveillance paraphernalia; unmanned aerial drones, helicopters, radars, night vision goggles, high tech cameras, airboats, blimps, other high speed power boats, who knows what else…..and then factor all the costs of maintenance on this high tech equipment…..over time it’s well into the billions.
Cuellar: Gary, your points are well taken. When I was on Homeland Security Committee I put forth some simple questions. How much does one mile of fence cost versus one mile of technology (high frequency sensors, etc.) A mile of technology costs $1 million while the fence is many many multiples of that. I then wanted to know if statistics are available that could tell whether technology or fences were more effective at securing our borders. The answer was it was hard to have an idea. A fence, even the double fence contemplated gives law enforcement maybe a minute or less to react and apprehend.
Richard: Besides the enormous expense, why else don’t you favor a fence?
Cuellar: Simply stated, a fence is a 14th century solution to a 21st century problem. Gary is right, if the fence is an impediment undocumented aliens will find another way. According to Homeland Security, 40 percent of all undocumented aliens came here legally on some type of work or student visa. They just never went back home. Of the other 60 percent many were brought in by smuggling operations. It is troubling that some politicians pontificate on sealing a border when they live 1,200 miles away and have not spent an adequate amount of time to visit and understand the terrain or the local dynamics.
Jacobs: A giant issue that nobody brings up are the environmental impacts of a fence right up against the Rio Grande. The river provides the water for the roughly 7 plus million people that live on either side of the border from El Paso to Brownsville. The Rio Grande has hundreds and hundreds of significant tributaries that flow into it. Water always seeks its lowest point. Any solid contiguous fence, especially the double type fence contemplated, would impede water flow and effectively create what amounts to water being dammed up. Not only would the water back up, all the debris like rotten wood and tree branches will leave areas looking like hundreds of beaver dams. If our government is planning on leaving spaces where these waterways exist to let water flow naturally, then people could get through too…..so if that’s true, what’s the point of a fence?
Further evidence of the impracticality of this project is there seems to be no consideration of the massive flooding that occurs in the (Rio Grande) valley. It doesn’t rain often, but when it does come…….we often have bursts of 5 to 10 inches or more…..and the river gets high and fierce and escapes its banks. Unless the geniuses in Washington plan on digging concrete footings five, eight feet into the ground next to the riverbank, these fences will get washed away with the first big flood. The river also rages on the occasions water is released from (lake) Amistad. Add billions to whatever repair bill the senators had in mind.
I almost forgot a major point. With all the resulting mini dam’s that will form, normal drainage in the main source (the Rio Grande) would change…the watershed would be altered….as a lot of water gets stuck on the U.S. side (of the border). The U.S. and Mexico share rights to the river’s water per the 1944 US-Mexico Water Treaty. It governs both the Rio Grande and the Colorado (river) and delineates riparian rights and specific acre feet water allocations. Under our “fence plan” the Mexican side of the border would certainly be shortchanged……..a huge potential problem.
If this thing has to be (built), then build it along the highways a thousand or two thousand feet inland. There are checkpoints there already, and a barrier there would, in my opinion, be much easier to enforce and far cheaper to construct. That said, I want to be on record that I find all fences socially and politically offensive……they hark of East and West Berlin.
Richard: That’s pretty powerful. What other negatives for the fence?
Cuellar: I recently visited Mexico a week or so ago, and had a chance to visit my counterpart senators and congressmen. I have to tell you they are mystified by our obsession to create this giant barrier between our countries. Some are having some hard feelings about a neighbor who is supposed to be a friend. Consider this; $1.2 billion of goods cross the Texas border from Mexico daily. 44.91 percent of all U.S. Mexico trade comes through my district at Laredo. This trade is directly tied to six million U.S. jobs. There are those in Mexico who view this fence as an extremely hostile act. I currently sit on State,Foreign Operations, a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.
Our mandate is to dispense aid to countries around the world. According to Congressional Research Service, in fiscal year 2012, we gave over $1.5 billion annually to Egypt in total funding and over $2.5 billion to Pakistan. In the same year, we provided neighbor Mexico just $281 million. Bottom line is that Mexico is a friend and a huge net positive for America.
Gary: Let’s have a look at some numbers and see what value we will be getting for our money. Right now there are an estimated 11 million illegals in America today….which is down from over 12million in 2007. Between March 2007 and March 2009 the average numbers of illegals crossing our borders was 150,000 down from peaks of 500,000 annually earlier in the decade.
It should be quite obvious that the flow of illegals corresponds with the health of the American economy. As we bottomed and the construction industry dried up in 08 and 09 immigration tailed off proportionately. Now that our economy is on somewhat better footing, illegal crossings are up marginally, though nothing like earlier levels. The net flow for the last couple of years though has been flat…..as many people are returning as those that are arriving. Most of these facts came from the Pugh Hispanic Center.
Let’s now assume that over 25 years we spend $75 to $100 billion on the fence, the equipment, maintenance, etc. The next step is that we will guess that without the new fence 200,000 illegals will arrive annually. After this new fence is built many estimates say the number of illegals entering the US would fall by half, to 100,000. So over 25 years the fence prevented 2.5 million people from coming to America illegally. At $100 billion in cost that comes out to $40,000 per illegal…..at $75 billion the number is $30,000.
Richard: Put that way it’s not a lot of bang for your buck.
Cuellar: No it’s not. Did you know that only 58 percent of undocumented aliens are of Mexican descent? According to the Pew Research Center 23 percent are from other Latin American countries while 11 percent come from the area of the Pacific Rim and Asia. To hear the polarizing forces speak today…..some make it sound like Mexico is 100 percent of the problem. As a past member of Homeland Security, I understand first hand a secure border is absolutely critical……but to erect a fence that which there is no measurable data to estimate its ultimate efficiency, is little more than an extravagance that reaps minimal benefits for America.
Richard: Gentlemen, thank you both.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardfinger/2013/07/18/the-border-fence-horrible-deal-at-cost-up-to-40000-per-illegal-immigrant-apprehended/
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Vela wins praise for opposing 'border surge' legislation
Rio Grande Guardian
July 3, 2013
by Steve Taylor
SAN JUAN, July 3 - A colonia group leader has praised Congressman Filemon Vela for his strong stand against “border surge” legislation.
“I so applaud Congressman Vela's bold move,” said Ann Cass, executive director of Proyecto Azteca. “We do not need any more militarization of the border. The Republican plan would have more boots on the ground than we have in South Korea and we are not at war with Mexico!”
Proyecto Azteca builds houses for colonia residents. It is a member of the RGV Equal Voice Network, a coalition of ten colonia groups.
“If we cannot find money in Congress for rural housing, health care, education, why are we going to spend all this money militarizing the border?” Cass asked. “The last border wall in the Rio Grande Valley averaged $12.5 million per mile. I would love to have one mile of that spending for housing in the colonias, one mile of that spending for indigent health care, one mile of that spending for community centers, education, more parks, etc. For a border wall? It is immoral. We thank the Congressman for using common sense and saying ‘No!’”
Congressman Vela, a Democrat from Brownsville, announced Tuesday he was quitting the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in protest at new provisions in the Senate immigration reform legislation. The bill is known as S.744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.
An amendment to S.744 authored by Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, and John Hoeven, R-North Dakota, requires an additional 20,000 Border Patrol agents to be hired to man the southern border with Mexico. The amendment also calls for the completion of 700 miles of border fencing, as well as the use of more cameras, sensors, watchtowers and drones. Because of its focus on border security, the amendment has been dubbed the “border surge” amendment. The Senate bill was passed by a big majority and has been sent over to the U.S. House.
“Instead of spending $8 billion on border fence we should be tearing it down, or $30 billion on more agents when we are not even giving the current force the gasoline that they need to do the job,” Vela said Tuesday.
“I just have a real fundamental problem with it. To me, we should be tearing the border wall down that we got, not building more. I just think it is important to take a stand on it.”
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has not taken an official position on the Senate immigration reform bill. However, its chair, Congressman Rubén Hinojosa, D-Mercedes, is a strong supporter.
“The United States Senate passed landmark legislation designed to create a path for citizenship for millions of undocumented residents who will contribute to this great country the way so many immigrants in the past have done,” said Hinojosa, after S.744 passed the Senate.
“The Senate showed us that it is possible for Democrats and Republicans to come together to solve one of our nation's most pressing issues. I applaud the ‘Gang of Eight’ for ensuring the bill they passed provides all immigrants the opportunity to earn citizenship. Now, it is time for my colleagues in the House of Representatives to follow suit and develop a sensible, comprehensive bill that is reflective of our American values.”
The Senate bill has also won support from Congressmen Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, and Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio. “The bill is a bipartisan bill - it accounts for the political reality in Washington, D.C.,” Castro told reporters in San Antonio on Tuesday. “Many of the provisions are not provisions Democrats are in love with ... but I think it was the best compromise the Senate could come up with.”
Taking a different stance to Hinojosa, Gallego and Castro are border Congressmen Vela, Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, and Beto O’Rourke, D-El Paso. They issued a joint statement on the Corker-Hoeven amendment which read: “In 1987 Ronald Reagan famously challenged Russia by declaring: ‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.’ We object to the Corker-Hoeven Amendment. This amendment will condition a pathway to citizenship on the construction of additional border fencing. As congressmen actually representing communities along the US-Mexico border, and having grown up there ourselves, we believe this amendment is an outrageous assault on border culture; and is an ineffective and misguided attempt to solve this country’s immigration issues. For these reasons, we want to be clear: We will oppose any attempt to condition a pathway to citizenship on the construction of additional fencing along the US-Mexico border.”
Vela decried the loss of the cross-border culture he grew up in during a meeting with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in March. “I wanted to make sure Secretary Napolitano understood that here along our South Texas border, our cross-border culture has been destroyed because of the violence in Mexico,” Vela said, in an interview with the Guardian.
Vela said the reason he brought this subject up is because those who live along the border and those who represent the South Texas border region need to let people in Washington know that “the border we now live in is not the same border we lived in just ten years ago.”
Vela repeated what many living along the border knows first-hand. “In a relatively short period of time we have gone from a cross-border culture to one where our neighbors and family members who live in Mexico are no longer safe.” Vela said many Mexican nationals have moved to South Texas to avoid the violence. “And, those of us here who enjoyed going across the border no longer can enjoy it like we used to. I think that is a message that Washington needs to hear loud and clear. I think that is something Secretary Napolitano understood, when I met with her,” Vela said.
http://www.riograndeguardian.com/bordernews_story.asp?story_no=21
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Feds may acquire more land for new border fence construction, CBP proposal shows
The Monitor
May 1, 2013
by Jacqueline Armendariz
McALLEN — About 100 people in Starr and Hidalgo counties could be impacted under a proposed construction plan regarding the final sections of the border fence, with more than half living at a nursing home, federal documents show.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection draft plan differs from that of the International Boundary and Water Commission, the bi-national agency tasked with regulating the U.S-Mexico border and water releases along the Rio Grande.
The plan also hinges on whether funding is available to finish the job. As recently as March, federal officials said the remaining border fence project was halted due to a lack of funding.
But the border security component of Congress’ comprehensive immigration reform debate opens up the possibility that could change.
The path of the wall likely is not a surprise for residents of the three area communities impacted — Rio Grande City, Roma and Los Ebanos — as federal legislation for the project goes back to 2006.
However, two documents recently released by CBP show a another path for the fence that will likely mean a second round of property condemnations, Scott Nicol, chair of the Sierra Club Borderlands Team, said.
Nicol warns the fence plan will have serious consequences for humans and wildlife, which roam through the nearby federal refuge, because of the flood plains there.
“It’s an issue of CBP saying the water’s just going to pass right through these walls. The evidence with walls of almost the same design, in the past, shows that’s not the case,” he said. “Basically, if you stick a wall in the middle of a flood plain it’s going to act as a dam.”
He points to examples of the same fence construction in Arizona that, in some instances, have clogged with debris that eventually backed up as high as six feet.
The environmental advocacy group obtained the CBP records through the Freedom of Information Act and released them to The Monitor. One is a proposed fence plan dated November 30, 2012 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The other is a CBP Facilities Management and Engineering department planning document from March 1 titled “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Planning.”
The bi-partisan group of senators known as the Gang of Eight rolled out their comprehensive immigration reform bill last month. While the impact of the federal government’s sequestration is felt, the legislation included $1.5 billion for new border wall construction — the final pieces of which were never constructed in the three towns.
When contacted for this story, CBP cited an email exchange with Nicol that had been forwarded to The Monitor. In the email dated March 29, CBP stated it worked closely with the IBWC on the proposed plan to address flooding concerns.
“On February 2012, IBWC’s Principal Engineer issued a letter approving that the referenced fence segments could be built without adversely impacting the floodplain, so long as CBP follows the proposed alignment and design, as well as provides maintenance and provides any future repairs,” the email reads in part.
However, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers plan from November notes areas of deviation, due to various engineering reasons, from the path approved by the IBWC and developed with flood concerns in mind.
Bill Brooks, CBP branch chief of the agency’s southwest border media division, said CBP’s statement in the email confirming fence construction in the three cities has been delayed due to a lack of funding hasn’t changed.
“The so-called ‘Gang of 8’ immigration bill is proposed legislation and we cannot make decisions on or even speculate on the outcome of proposed legislation,” Brooks said in a statement to The Monitor.
This week, an IBWC spokesperson said the agency had not received the border fence plan from November to evaluate it.
CBP notes in one of the documents that the boundary commission agency warns it’s an international treaty violation if flood waters are pushed away from the U.S. into Mexico.
Nicols said that could to happen if the government’s fence path is followed, while gaps in the wall could also flood even more U.S. lands north of the structure during a substantial rain event.
The CBP document titled “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Planning” outlines a timeline indicating that within the next six months the government will notify property owners it wants their land.
The nursing home within the potential condemnation area, according to maps, is likely Retama Manor Nursing Center in Rio Grande City. A staff member who answered the facility’s phone last week said he was not aware the nursing home may need to relocate. A representative for the nursing home’s parent company in Atlanta said no one would be available for comment on the situation until next week.
In an email dated March 29, sent to the Sierra Club and released to The Monitor, Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, also said CBP told him fence construction was on hold because of a lack of funding.
Cuellar’s office sent a statement Friday that has no mention of the phrase “border fence” in response to a series of questions from The Monitor on the subject, including whether he is aware of the proposal that might cause nearly 100 residents in his congressional district to relocate.
“It is our responsibility to ensure that our law enforcement officers have the necessary tools and equipment to keep our communities safe,” Cuellar said, in part. “We ought to pass an immigration bill that that enhances border security and ensures a comprehensive guest worker plan to provide opportunities for those hard working individuals and families who have come to our great country.”
Within one of the documents, the government notes 95 percent of cases result in condemnation, meaning property owners are taken to court for their land. Nicol notes most of those who could be affected by the plan won’t likely have the resources to take the government to court to fight for the best price for their land.
“They’re sort of guaranteed to get shafted,’ he said.
The wall, he said, is nothing more than a political prop, particularly when one considers the number of immigrants entering the country illegally has decreased likely due to an economic downturn and increasing cartel drug violence.
“It’s something you can walk in front of a look tough. The fact that it doesn’t do anything doesn’t matter,” he said. “I think it’s kind of despicable to tear up people’s property and wildlife refuges and potentially cause flooding that could ruin homes and drown people.”
http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/article_6c0bf08a-b45b-11e2-91e6-001a4bcf6878.html
May 1, 2013
by Jacqueline Armendariz
McALLEN — About 100 people in Starr and Hidalgo counties could be impacted under a proposed construction plan regarding the final sections of the border fence, with more than half living at a nursing home, federal documents show.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection draft plan differs from that of the International Boundary and Water Commission, the bi-national agency tasked with regulating the U.S-Mexico border and water releases along the Rio Grande.
The plan also hinges on whether funding is available to finish the job. As recently as March, federal officials said the remaining border fence project was halted due to a lack of funding.
But the border security component of Congress’ comprehensive immigration reform debate opens up the possibility that could change.
The path of the wall likely is not a surprise for residents of the three area communities impacted — Rio Grande City, Roma and Los Ebanos — as federal legislation for the project goes back to 2006.
However, two documents recently released by CBP show a another path for the fence that will likely mean a second round of property condemnations, Scott Nicol, chair of the Sierra Club Borderlands Team, said.
Nicol warns the fence plan will have serious consequences for humans and wildlife, which roam through the nearby federal refuge, because of the flood plains there.
“It’s an issue of CBP saying the water’s just going to pass right through these walls. The evidence with walls of almost the same design, in the past, shows that’s not the case,” he said. “Basically, if you stick a wall in the middle of a flood plain it’s going to act as a dam.”
He points to examples of the same fence construction in Arizona that, in some instances, have clogged with debris that eventually backed up as high as six feet.
The environmental advocacy group obtained the CBP records through the Freedom of Information Act and released them to The Monitor. One is a proposed fence plan dated November 30, 2012 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The other is a CBP Facilities Management and Engineering department planning document from March 1 titled “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Planning.”
The bi-partisan group of senators known as the Gang of Eight rolled out their comprehensive immigration reform bill last month. While the impact of the federal government’s sequestration is felt, the legislation included $1.5 billion for new border wall construction — the final pieces of which were never constructed in the three towns.
When contacted for this story, CBP cited an email exchange with Nicol that had been forwarded to The Monitor. In the email dated March 29, CBP stated it worked closely with the IBWC on the proposed plan to address flooding concerns.
“On February 2012, IBWC’s Principal Engineer issued a letter approving that the referenced fence segments could be built without adversely impacting the floodplain, so long as CBP follows the proposed alignment and design, as well as provides maintenance and provides any future repairs,” the email reads in part.
However, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers plan from November notes areas of deviation, due to various engineering reasons, from the path approved by the IBWC and developed with flood concerns in mind.
Bill Brooks, CBP branch chief of the agency’s southwest border media division, said CBP’s statement in the email confirming fence construction in the three cities has been delayed due to a lack of funding hasn’t changed.
“The so-called ‘Gang of 8’ immigration bill is proposed legislation and we cannot make decisions on or even speculate on the outcome of proposed legislation,” Brooks said in a statement to The Monitor.
This week, an IBWC spokesperson said the agency had not received the border fence plan from November to evaluate it.
CBP notes in one of the documents that the boundary commission agency warns it’s an international treaty violation if flood waters are pushed away from the U.S. into Mexico.
Nicols said that could to happen if the government’s fence path is followed, while gaps in the wall could also flood even more U.S. lands north of the structure during a substantial rain event.
The CBP document titled “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Planning” outlines a timeline indicating that within the next six months the government will notify property owners it wants their land.
The nursing home within the potential condemnation area, according to maps, is likely Retama Manor Nursing Center in Rio Grande City. A staff member who answered the facility’s phone last week said he was not aware the nursing home may need to relocate. A representative for the nursing home’s parent company in Atlanta said no one would be available for comment on the situation until next week.
In an email dated March 29, sent to the Sierra Club and released to The Monitor, Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, also said CBP told him fence construction was on hold because of a lack of funding.
Cuellar’s office sent a statement Friday that has no mention of the phrase “border fence” in response to a series of questions from The Monitor on the subject, including whether he is aware of the proposal that might cause nearly 100 residents in his congressional district to relocate.
“It is our responsibility to ensure that our law enforcement officers have the necessary tools and equipment to keep our communities safe,” Cuellar said, in part. “We ought to pass an immigration bill that that enhances border security and ensures a comprehensive guest worker plan to provide opportunities for those hard working individuals and families who have come to our great country.”
Within one of the documents, the government notes 95 percent of cases result in condemnation, meaning property owners are taken to court for their land. Nicol notes most of those who could be affected by the plan won’t likely have the resources to take the government to court to fight for the best price for their land.
“They’re sort of guaranteed to get shafted,’ he said.
The wall, he said, is nothing more than a political prop, particularly when one considers the number of immigrants entering the country illegally has decreased likely due to an economic downturn and increasing cartel drug violence.
“It’s something you can walk in front of a look tough. The fact that it doesn’t do anything doesn’t matter,” he said. “I think it’s kind of despicable to tear up people’s property and wildlife refuges and potentially cause flooding that could ruin homes and drown people.”
http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/article_6c0bf08a-b45b-11e2-91e6-001a4bcf6878.html
Saturday, January 26, 2013
South Texas border fence in limbo amid flooding, wildlife worries
E & E News
January 23, 2013
by April Reese
In south Texas, where the Rio Grande divides the United States from Mexico, three of the last remaining sections of border fence -- approved more than five years ago -- remain unbuilt.
Unlike many existing sections, those in limbo would be constructed within the floodplain. They would stretch a total of 7 miles and skim the southern edge of three Texas towns -- Roma, Rio Grande and Los Ebanos.
Mexican officials, border town mayors, environmental groups, residents and some congressional leaders remain concerned that those projects could potentially push Rio Grande floodwaters into Mexican towns and block wildlife corridors.
After languishing on the back burner for several years, the projects have advanced recently after receiving a needed stamp of approval from an international governmental body. But as many opponents have made clear, the fence Congress authorized in 2006 will not be completed without a major fight.
"I've lived here all my life," said Rio Grande City Mayor Ruben Villarreal, who has governed the city for five years. "The minute you manipulate anything along the river, it affects you, and how that will affect the community is a big concern. It's going to obstruct the natural flow of the water and obstruct wildlife."
If the sections in question are constructed, local officials and residents fear debris will build up along the fence, causing severe flooding and erosion.
At first, officials with the International Boundary Water Commission (IBWC), created to address water-related issues along the border, shared those concerns. But after alterations to the original plans, the agency has changed its mind, said Sally Spener, a foreign affairs officer with the United States' section of the IBWC, or the USIBWC.
"There was a new design that they came up with that did not cause a prohibitive obstruction," Spener said, referring to the Department of Homeland Security, which is charged with implementing the projects. "In other words, it wasn't a solid fence. It was a different design back in 2008."
The fence could also block wildlife from key migration corridors, environmental groups say.
Scott Nichols, who works for the Sierra Club's Borderlands Project and lives in the border town of McAllen, Texas, worries about the fence's impact on rare and endangered species, including the ocelot, whose population has dropped to about 100 breeding animals. If the fence is built, that will be one more barrier hemming in wildlife -- along with roads, buildings and other fencing.
The Department of Homeland Security has already constructed fence segments through prime wildlife areas, including the Las Palomas Wildlife Management Area and the South Texas Refuge Complex, over the objections of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The agencies, along with conservation groups, have worked for decades to purchase and restore habitat in the lower Rio Grande Valley, and the new fencing could severely undermine those efforts, Nichols and other conservationists say.
Villarreal said DHS and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) haven't paid enough attention to what the people who live along the border want.
"At some point, stop asking Washington and start asking border residents, and you'll find a solution," he said, "because we live on the river."
In the end, opponents' best hope of killing the fence in south Texas may be the congressional funding crunch. CBP says it currently does not have the money to pursue the project.
"There is no funding to build any additional fence at this time," said Bill Brooks, a spokesman for CBP's south Texas office. But many locals worry the money will be found in the next few years.
Under a 1970 boundary treaty, IBWC -- both the agency's Mexican section and the U.S. section -- must ensure that projects built in the Rio Grande floodplain do not obstruct or deflect the river's flows or exacerbate flooding. In particular, IBWC officials worried that during rainstorms, debris would build up against the fence and turn it into a dam of sorts, diverting flows into Mexican communities (Land Letter, March 27, 2008).
But after consultants analyzing the potential effects of the fence on river flows revised their original model, USIBWC dropped their concerns.
The Mexican section of IBWC, however, remained unconvinced.
"The location, alignment and design of the proposed fence represent a clear obstruction of the Rio Grande hydraulic area, since in the towns of Rio Grande City and Roma, Texas, the fence would occupy nearly all of the hydraulic area on the U.S. side, causing deflection of flows toward the Mexican side," wrote Luis Antonio Rascon Mendoza, principal engineer for IBWC-Mexico, in a Dec. 13, 2011, letter to the USIBWC.
The fence would obstruct 60 to 70 percent of the hydraulic area, and considering the amount of debris that could pile up against the barrier, "the fence constitutes a serious obstruction and deflection of the Rio Grande flows toward Mexico," he wrote.
But last year, engineers for the USIBWC cleared the way for the project to proceed, concluding that the fence would not violate the 1970 boundary treaty.
"After an in-depth and thorough review, the USIBWC has concluded that the proposed fence project(s) will not cause significant deflection or obstruction of ... flood flows of the Rio Grande," USIBWC engineer John Merino wrote in a Feb. 3, 2012, letter responding to the concerns of the Mexican section of IBWC.
The fence would be constructed of 6-inch vertical bollard posts with 4-inch spaces in between. Computer models show that the amount of water that would be directed into Mexico by the fence is "within the threshold limits," partly because some of the flow would pass through the fence, Merino said.
Based on that information, the USIBWC notified the Department of Homeland Security that it had no objection to the three fence projects -- a necessary step for DHS to move forward.
Multiple attempts to reach a DHS representative familiar with the projects garnered no response. DHS has told IBWC it would come up with a plan to keep debris from piling up against the fence during storms.
It is unclear whether the Mexican section of IBWC remains concerned about the project. In a brief phone conversation, Mendoza referred an inquiry from Greenwire about Mexico's position on the project to a spokesperson, who did not respond to requests for comment in time for publication.
Despite the USIBWC's assurances, local opposition in the United States remains strong. At a meeting held by USIBWC in Rio Grande City late last summer, the majority of the crowd of residents and local officials questioned the agency's conclusions.
"How can you really tell us it's going to work 100 percent?" said Aleida Garcia, of Los Ebanos, a small community that lies within the floodplain, according to an Associated Press account of the Aug. 29, 2012, meeting. "Because we're talking about people, communities, families."
Jose Nuñez, supervisory civil engineer with USIBWC, said in response that "whether the fence is there or not, you're still in the floodplain," according to AP. He reiterated that the computer model used by the agency's engineers to analyze the project's hydrologic effects suggests that the fence will not create a significant obstruction.
The fence is unpopular in other areas of Texas, as well. In places where CBP tried to avoid building in the floodplain, the new 18-foot barrier has cut off landowners from some of their private property, including farmland. Some landowners have sued over DHS's use of eminent domain to allow construction through private property.
Around the time the Secure Fence Act was passed, Congress also gave its stamp of approval to the Real ID Act, which allowed more than 30 environmental and cultural laws to be waived by the DHS secretary to expedite construction of the ambitious project. But the south Texas projects still have to comply with international treaties governing actions along the section of the Rio Grande that serves as the border there.
Critics maintain that in south Texas, there is no need for the fence in the first place. Nichols of the Sierra Club points to a June 2008 document drafted to address community concerns as evidence that the CBP itself believes the fence projects planned for south Texas would be overkill. CPB said in the document that at that time, it was able to "effectively control" that section of the border with boots on the ground.
But the agency went on to say it believed further reinforcements would be necessary if illegal activity increased in the Rio Grande Valley sector.
The number of apprehensions in the Rio Grande Valley actually dropped in the ensuing years, however.
According to data provided by CBP, apprehension of illegal border crossers has decreased almost every year since 2008. Apprehensions in the Rio Grande sector went from 134,186 in fiscal 2005 to 59,243 in fiscal 2011.
Some local officials, including Mayor Villarreal and U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), whose district includes some of the area slated for the projects, have called for alternatives to the fence to secure the area, primarily by expanding the law enforcement presence.
"Let's get more money for our local sheriffs and police," Cuellar said in a video posted on his website after a DHS hearing on border security.
Villarreal, however, remains convinced the fence will be built within the next few years.
"I think we'll have to deal with the strong possibility that we'll have a fence to contend with," he said.
January 23, 2013
by April Reese
In south Texas, where the Rio Grande divides the United States from Mexico, three of the last remaining sections of border fence -- approved more than five years ago -- remain unbuilt.
Unlike many existing sections, those in limbo would be constructed within the floodplain. They would stretch a total of 7 miles and skim the southern edge of three Texas towns -- Roma, Rio Grande and Los Ebanos.
Mexican officials, border town mayors, environmental groups, residents and some congressional leaders remain concerned that those projects could potentially push Rio Grande floodwaters into Mexican towns and block wildlife corridors.
After languishing on the back burner for several years, the projects have advanced recently after receiving a needed stamp of approval from an international governmental body. But as many opponents have made clear, the fence Congress authorized in 2006 will not be completed without a major fight.
"I've lived here all my life," said Rio Grande City Mayor Ruben Villarreal, who has governed the city for five years. "The minute you manipulate anything along the river, it affects you, and how that will affect the community is a big concern. It's going to obstruct the natural flow of the water and obstruct wildlife."
If the sections in question are constructed, local officials and residents fear debris will build up along the fence, causing severe flooding and erosion.
At first, officials with the International Boundary Water Commission (IBWC), created to address water-related issues along the border, shared those concerns. But after alterations to the original plans, the agency has changed its mind, said Sally Spener, a foreign affairs officer with the United States' section of the IBWC, or the USIBWC.
"There was a new design that they came up with that did not cause a prohibitive obstruction," Spener said, referring to the Department of Homeland Security, which is charged with implementing the projects. "In other words, it wasn't a solid fence. It was a different design back in 2008."
The fence could also block wildlife from key migration corridors, environmental groups say.
Scott Nichols, who works for the Sierra Club's Borderlands Project and lives in the border town of McAllen, Texas, worries about the fence's impact on rare and endangered species, including the ocelot, whose population has dropped to about 100 breeding animals. If the fence is built, that will be one more barrier hemming in wildlife -- along with roads, buildings and other fencing.
The Department of Homeland Security has already constructed fence segments through prime wildlife areas, including the Las Palomas Wildlife Management Area and the South Texas Refuge Complex, over the objections of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The agencies, along with conservation groups, have worked for decades to purchase and restore habitat in the lower Rio Grande Valley, and the new fencing could severely undermine those efforts, Nichols and other conservationists say.
Villarreal said DHS and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) haven't paid enough attention to what the people who live along the border want.
"At some point, stop asking Washington and start asking border residents, and you'll find a solution," he said, "because we live on the river."
In the end, opponents' best hope of killing the fence in south Texas may be the congressional funding crunch. CBP says it currently does not have the money to pursue the project.
"There is no funding to build any additional fence at this time," said Bill Brooks, a spokesman for CBP's south Texas office. But many locals worry the money will be found in the next few years.
Of rivers and boundaries
Concerns about the fence date back to the late 2000s. In 2008, the IBWC, a binational government agency that deals with water-related border issues, warned DHS that the fence segments in Rio Grande City, Roma and Los Ebanos could potentially cause flooding and shift the international boundary.Under a 1970 boundary treaty, IBWC -- both the agency's Mexican section and the U.S. section -- must ensure that projects built in the Rio Grande floodplain do not obstruct or deflect the river's flows or exacerbate flooding. In particular, IBWC officials worried that during rainstorms, debris would build up against the fence and turn it into a dam of sorts, diverting flows into Mexican communities (Land Letter, March 27, 2008).
But after consultants analyzing the potential effects of the fence on river flows revised their original model, USIBWC dropped their concerns.
The Mexican section of IBWC, however, remained unconvinced.
"The location, alignment and design of the proposed fence represent a clear obstruction of the Rio Grande hydraulic area, since in the towns of Rio Grande City and Roma, Texas, the fence would occupy nearly all of the hydraulic area on the U.S. side, causing deflection of flows toward the Mexican side," wrote Luis Antonio Rascon Mendoza, principal engineer for IBWC-Mexico, in a Dec. 13, 2011, letter to the USIBWC.
The fence would obstruct 60 to 70 percent of the hydraulic area, and considering the amount of debris that could pile up against the barrier, "the fence constitutes a serious obstruction and deflection of the Rio Grande flows toward Mexico," he wrote.
But last year, engineers for the USIBWC cleared the way for the project to proceed, concluding that the fence would not violate the 1970 boundary treaty.
"After an in-depth and thorough review, the USIBWC has concluded that the proposed fence project(s) will not cause significant deflection or obstruction of ... flood flows of the Rio Grande," USIBWC engineer John Merino wrote in a Feb. 3, 2012, letter responding to the concerns of the Mexican section of IBWC.
The fence would be constructed of 6-inch vertical bollard posts with 4-inch spaces in between. Computer models show that the amount of water that would be directed into Mexico by the fence is "within the threshold limits," partly because some of the flow would pass through the fence, Merino said.
Based on that information, the USIBWC notified the Department of Homeland Security that it had no objection to the three fence projects -- a necessary step for DHS to move forward.
Multiple attempts to reach a DHS representative familiar with the projects garnered no response. DHS has told IBWC it would come up with a plan to keep debris from piling up against the fence during storms.
It is unclear whether the Mexican section of IBWC remains concerned about the project. In a brief phone conversation, Mendoza referred an inquiry from Greenwire about Mexico's position on the project to a spokesperson, who did not respond to requests for comment in time for publication.
Despite the USIBWC's assurances, local opposition in the United States remains strong. At a meeting held by USIBWC in Rio Grande City late last summer, the majority of the crowd of residents and local officials questioned the agency's conclusions.
"How can you really tell us it's going to work 100 percent?" said Aleida Garcia, of Los Ebanos, a small community that lies within the floodplain, according to an Associated Press account of the Aug. 29, 2012, meeting. "Because we're talking about people, communities, families."
Jose Nuñez, supervisory civil engineer with USIBWC, said in response that "whether the fence is there or not, you're still in the floodplain," according to AP. He reiterated that the computer model used by the agency's engineers to analyze the project's hydrologic effects suggests that the fence will not create a significant obstruction.
The fence is unpopular in other areas of Texas, as well. In places where CBP tried to avoid building in the floodplain, the new 18-foot barrier has cut off landowners from some of their private property, including farmland. Some landowners have sued over DHS's use of eminent domain to allow construction through private property.
Securing the border?
The fence projects in limbo were authorized as part of a larger border reinforcement effort mandated under the Secure Fence Act of 2006. It called for construction of a total of about 700 miles of fence along sections of the U.S.-Mexico border, which spans 1,954 miles from Texas to California. The barrier was needed to "make the border more secure," President George W. Bush said in signing the legislation into law on Oct. 26, 2006.Around the time the Secure Fence Act was passed, Congress also gave its stamp of approval to the Real ID Act, which allowed more than 30 environmental and cultural laws to be waived by the DHS secretary to expedite construction of the ambitious project. But the south Texas projects still have to comply with international treaties governing actions along the section of the Rio Grande that serves as the border there.
Critics maintain that in south Texas, there is no need for the fence in the first place. Nichols of the Sierra Club points to a June 2008 document drafted to address community concerns as evidence that the CBP itself believes the fence projects planned for south Texas would be overkill. CPB said in the document that at that time, it was able to "effectively control" that section of the border with boots on the ground.
But the agency went on to say it believed further reinforcements would be necessary if illegal activity increased in the Rio Grande Valley sector.
The number of apprehensions in the Rio Grande Valley actually dropped in the ensuing years, however.
According to data provided by CBP, apprehension of illegal border crossers has decreased almost every year since 2008. Apprehensions in the Rio Grande sector went from 134,186 in fiscal 2005 to 59,243 in fiscal 2011.
Some local officials, including Mayor Villarreal and U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), whose district includes some of the area slated for the projects, have called for alternatives to the fence to secure the area, primarily by expanding the law enforcement presence.
"Let's get more money for our local sheriffs and police," Cuellar said in a video posted on his website after a DHS hearing on border security.
Villarreal, however, remains convinced the fence will be built within the next few years.
"I think we'll have to deal with the strong possibility that we'll have a fence to contend with," he said.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Cuellar: No money to build more border walls in Rio Grande Valley
Rio Grande Guardian
September 2, 2012
by Raul De la Cruz
RIO GRANDE CITY, September 2 - U.S. Henry Cuellar says an official from Customs and Border Protection has told him the agency does not have enough money right now to build border walls in Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos.
Opposition from the general public to the border wall plans was evident at a public meeting in Rio Grande City on Wednesday.
“After holding extensive conversations with members of the Starr County community about U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) proposed 14-mile fence spanning Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos, I extended a formal inquiry to CBP requesting an update on the status of the proposed fence,” Cuellar said, in a news release issued Friday afternoon.
“I have received an official response from CBP stating that there are currently no plans to construct this fence due to a lack of available funding.”
Cuellar said that as CBP moves forward, he will “continue facilitating discussions between the agency and the community to help ensure that the concerns of the community are fully voiced and considered.”
The displeasure in Starr County with the border wall plans was evident at a public meeting in Rio Grande City on Wednesday evening. The U.S. section of the International Boundary and Water Commission hosted the meeting to explain why it has given the go-ahead to CBP’s plans for three new border walls.
“It remains my highest priority as your representative to maintain the strength of our border and the security of our border communities. I will also continue fighting against the construction of the fence so this way we can have the right mixture of personnel and technology to better secure our border,” Cuellar added, in his news release.
Meanwhile, in other Starr County news, the North American Development Bank has announced it will hold a $450,000 grant signing agreement next week for a solid waste facility. Congressman Cuellar is slated to attend the event. It is scheduled for Tuesday, September 4, at 1:00 pm at the Starr County Courthouse Annex in Rio Grande City.
The grant signing will involve Starr County Judge Eloy Vera and NADB Deputy Managing Director Alex Hinojosa. NADBank says the grant will help Starr County finance part of its recently built solid waste facility, as well as to fund an operations and maintenance reserve fund and a repair and replacement reserve fund.
http://www.riograndeguardian.com/bordernews_story.asp?story_no=23
September 2, 2012
by Raul De la Cruz
RIO GRANDE CITY, September 2 - U.S. Henry Cuellar says an official from Customs and Border Protection has told him the agency does not have enough money right now to build border walls in Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos.
Opposition from the general public to the border wall plans was evident at a public meeting in Rio Grande City on Wednesday.
“After holding extensive conversations with members of the Starr County community about U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) proposed 14-mile fence spanning Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos, I extended a formal inquiry to CBP requesting an update on the status of the proposed fence,” Cuellar said, in a news release issued Friday afternoon.
“I have received an official response from CBP stating that there are currently no plans to construct this fence due to a lack of available funding.”
Cuellar said that as CBP moves forward, he will “continue facilitating discussions between the agency and the community to help ensure that the concerns of the community are fully voiced and considered.”
The displeasure in Starr County with the border wall plans was evident at a public meeting in Rio Grande City on Wednesday evening. The U.S. section of the International Boundary and Water Commission hosted the meeting to explain why it has given the go-ahead to CBP’s plans for three new border walls.
“It remains my highest priority as your representative to maintain the strength of our border and the security of our border communities. I will also continue fighting against the construction of the fence so this way we can have the right mixture of personnel and technology to better secure our border,” Cuellar added, in his news release.
Meanwhile, in other Starr County news, the North American Development Bank has announced it will hold a $450,000 grant signing agreement next week for a solid waste facility. Congressman Cuellar is slated to attend the event. It is scheduled for Tuesday, September 4, at 1:00 pm at the Starr County Courthouse Annex in Rio Grande City.
The grant signing will involve Starr County Judge Eloy Vera and NADB Deputy Managing Director Alex Hinojosa. NADBank says the grant will help Starr County finance part of its recently built solid waste facility, as well as to fund an operations and maintenance reserve fund and a repair and replacement reserve fund.
http://www.riograndeguardian.com/bordernews_story.asp?story_no=23
Friday, June 15, 2012
Expensive drones generate lots of buzz, few results
ABC News
June 15, 2012
by Andrew Becker, G.W. Schulz
TUSCON, Ariz. -- An aerial drone, zooming somewhere out of sight high above the cooling scrubland, first spotted the group of nearly two dozen migrants.
Snaking through the Sonoran Desert on a warm, moonless night last month, the would-be immigrants traversed the rugged foothills southwest of Tucson, a few miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border.
It had been a relatively quiet shift in that area for U.S. Border Patrol agents, who paused to chat in their passing green-and-white SUVs as dusk crept closer. But just after 10 p.m. agents perked up, their radios crackling with activity.
A fixed-wing Cessna took over from the Predator B unmanned plane and from overhead the pilot helped direct agents toward the migrants, who wove around ocotillo and brush.
A helicopter swooped in, its spotlight beaming over the hillside and rotors slicing the desert solitude as agents dropped down a ridge to chase the scattering group.
All told, a dozen men and women in olive uniforms converged. They rounded up eight of the migrants, walked them toward their gathered trucks and lined them up in a shallow drainage ditch along a washboard dirt road. A few of the migrants asked about the "camera in the sky" that had caught them.
A pilotless aircraft may have awed the failed migrants, but such success stories about U.S. Customs and Border Protection's quarter-billion dollar drone program come in short supply, according to a Homeland Security Department inspector general's report released Monday.
Grounded by wind and bad weather, costly maintenance and poor planning, the underachieving aircraft have flown only a fraction of the agency's desired flight time from four bases in Arizona, Texas, Florida and North Dakota, the inspector general found.
In Arizona, where the agency keeps four drones, agents seemed pleasantly surprised that an unmanned craft had aided their efforts, though they had apprehended fewer than half of the detected migrants.
In its audit, however, the inspector general recommended that the agency stop buying the drones, manufactured by Poway-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, until officials can properly plan how to get the most out of the unmanned planes and budget for the program, which includes having enough equipment to perform their mission.
"CBP has not adequately planned to fund unmanned aircraft-related equipment," such as ground control stations, ground support equipment, cameras and navigation systems, the inspector general report says. "As a result of CBP's insufficient funding approach, future UAS [unmanned aerial systems] missions may have to be curtailed."
Customs and Border Protection officials said they concurred with the inspector general's recommendations and were committed to continuing to improve the drone program. In its written response to the inspector general's report, the agency said it had no plans to add more drones beyond the 10 already in operation or on order "unless directed by a higher authority."
The agency's previously stated goal was to expand to 24 drones, which cost about $18.5 million for the Predator B and $20.5 million for the maritime version, known as the Guardian, to operate. Those costs include maintenance, surveillance technology and ground equipment.
In the past year the agency has added two unmanned aircraft to its underutilized fleet and expects to receive its 10th system by September. The agency can still purchase up to 24 drones, but authorization is based on the availability of funding.
Officials this year also hope to secure permission from the Federal Aviation Administration to extend drone coverage just east of the San Diego metropolitan area, the last major section of the Southwest border to be patrolled by the aircraft.
Drones now patrol about 1,200 miles along the Southwest border from the Gulf of Mexico to just east of El Centro in southeastern California and can stay aloft for 20 hours.
Championed by Congress, derided by critics
The report echoes what critics including some Border Patrol agents have long said about the expensive, remotely controlled Predator B fleet.
They point to what they view as the program's meager returns since it began in 2006, as the drones have assisted in the seizure of nearly 50,000 pounds of drugs and the detention of about 7,500 people.
By comparison, decades-old P-3 Orion propeller planes, which once hunted submarines for the Navy, in the past five years have aided in the seizure or disruption of 863,000 pounds of drugs including 148,000 pounds of cocaine last year alone. Agency officials have described the plane as an "unsung hero."
"It is my sense that Congress has consistently overlooked (dare I say, 'ignored') not only the operational effectiveness, but also the cost effectiveness of the Predator [unmanned aerial vehicle] as a border surveillance tool," David Olive, a Washington-based homeland security consultant, wrote last year for the Security Debrief blog.
Customs and Border Protection officials have defended the drones, saying they are also used to assist in disaster and emergency relief, such as flooding, and other reconnaissance. The Office of Air and Marine also has flown missions for other agencies, including the FBI, FEMA, the Defense Department, Texas Rangers and the U.S. Forest Service.
Critics like Olive have said that the drones haven't met expectations in other situations, such as the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010, when the on-scene commander waved off the drones after a couple of weeks because they weren't helpful.
The inspector general also found that the agency does not have agreements to get reimbursed for missions flown for other agencies nor does it have a formal process to handle requests from outside agencies or ways to prioritize such missions.
In 2011, the agency's Office of Air and Marine flew its drones more than ever roughly 4,500 hours and 75 percent above any other fiscal year.
But that flight time amounts to a quarter of the agency's goal. The systems cost about $3,200 per hour to fly, for a total of about $14.5 million last year alone.
The result: Unmanned aircraft last year helped to find about 7,600 pounds of marijuana and apprehend 75 people suspected of engaging in illicit activities, according to the agency.
Overall, the U.S. Border Patrol, which is also part of Customs and Border Protection, in 2011 seized more than 2.5 million pounds of marijuana and apprehended 340,252 people, agency records show.
Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, who has championed drones as the Democratic co-chairman of the Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus, said that Customs and Border Protection has to go back to the basics and come up with a sound strategic plan for its drones.
"The first thing any agency should have is a strategic plan. I assumed they had a plan," said Cuellar. "We have to know where we are going before we start buying any more of the assets."
Yet, the program and drones in general continue to receive wide-ranging support from lawmakers. The unmanned systems caucus, which promotes "the overwhelming value" of drones and "the urgent need to rapidly develop and deploy" more of them, has nearly 60 members, including 11 California representatives and the Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee.
The House Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee recently pushed for an increase above the Homeland Security Department's request for $18.6 million to buy, deploy and operate sensors and other equipment used on its existing drones.
The Senate Armed Services Committee, meanwhile, has called for the broader use of unmanned aircraft in the country's national airspace as large numbers of drones used in Afghanistan and other operations may return to the United States as those battles wind down.
"Without the ability to operate freely and routinely in the [National Airspace System], UAS (unmanned aerial system) development and training and ultimately operational capabilities will be severely impacted," according to a recent committee report.
Technologically advanced weather permitting
Touted for their technological advances and airborne omniscience, the drones require on average an hour of maintenance for every hour in the air, the report states.
Between 2006 and 2011, the agency spent $55.3 million to operate and maintain the drones. Congress has only appropriated $12.6 million for such costs, which include training, satellite links, facility rental and contractor support, since the agency's drone program began, according to the report.
Customs and Border Protection figures show that Congress has appropriated $240.6 million to establish, operate and maintain the unmanned aircraft program, which consists of 10 systems, and spent about $224 million.
Yet, winds often keep the drones on the ground, as it happened in late May when a reporter visited the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station, where two such aircraft are based. Cuellar said in his two visits to the base pilots could not launch or retrieve crafts because of weather conditions. The Predator B design allows it to take off and land in winds up to 30 miles per hour.
Cuellar said he plans to address the issue next week during a House Homeland Security Subcommittee meeting. He said he has pushed the agency to station the drones at other places that provide more consistent flight conditions. But officials have been "stubborn" about keeping the drones on military bases for security reasons.
"That's almost insulting to say there's no other place along the Texas border that can provide security for [unmanned aircraft]," he said.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=8703008
June 15, 2012
by Andrew Becker, G.W. Schulz
TUSCON, Ariz. -- An aerial drone, zooming somewhere out of sight high above the cooling scrubland, first spotted the group of nearly two dozen migrants.
Snaking through the Sonoran Desert on a warm, moonless night last month, the would-be immigrants traversed the rugged foothills southwest of Tucson, a few miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border.
It had been a relatively quiet shift in that area for U.S. Border Patrol agents, who paused to chat in their passing green-and-white SUVs as dusk crept closer. But just after 10 p.m. agents perked up, their radios crackling with activity.
A fixed-wing Cessna took over from the Predator B unmanned plane and from overhead the pilot helped direct agents toward the migrants, who wove around ocotillo and brush.
A helicopter swooped in, its spotlight beaming over the hillside and rotors slicing the desert solitude as agents dropped down a ridge to chase the scattering group.
All told, a dozen men and women in olive uniforms converged. They rounded up eight of the migrants, walked them toward their gathered trucks and lined them up in a shallow drainage ditch along a washboard dirt road. A few of the migrants asked about the "camera in the sky" that had caught them.
A pilotless aircraft may have awed the failed migrants, but such success stories about U.S. Customs and Border Protection's quarter-billion dollar drone program come in short supply, according to a Homeland Security Department inspector general's report released Monday.
Grounded by wind and bad weather, costly maintenance and poor planning, the underachieving aircraft have flown only a fraction of the agency's desired flight time from four bases in Arizona, Texas, Florida and North Dakota, the inspector general found.
In Arizona, where the agency keeps four drones, agents seemed pleasantly surprised that an unmanned craft had aided their efforts, though they had apprehended fewer than half of the detected migrants.
In its audit, however, the inspector general recommended that the agency stop buying the drones, manufactured by Poway-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, until officials can properly plan how to get the most out of the unmanned planes and budget for the program, which includes having enough equipment to perform their mission.
"CBP has not adequately planned to fund unmanned aircraft-related equipment," such as ground control stations, ground support equipment, cameras and navigation systems, the inspector general report says. "As a result of CBP's insufficient funding approach, future UAS [unmanned aerial systems] missions may have to be curtailed."
Customs and Border Protection officials said they concurred with the inspector general's recommendations and were committed to continuing to improve the drone program. In its written response to the inspector general's report, the agency said it had no plans to add more drones beyond the 10 already in operation or on order "unless directed by a higher authority."
The agency's previously stated goal was to expand to 24 drones, which cost about $18.5 million for the Predator B and $20.5 million for the maritime version, known as the Guardian, to operate. Those costs include maintenance, surveillance technology and ground equipment.
In the past year the agency has added two unmanned aircraft to its underutilized fleet and expects to receive its 10th system by September. The agency can still purchase up to 24 drones, but authorization is based on the availability of funding.
Officials this year also hope to secure permission from the Federal Aviation Administration to extend drone coverage just east of the San Diego metropolitan area, the last major section of the Southwest border to be patrolled by the aircraft.
Drones now patrol about 1,200 miles along the Southwest border from the Gulf of Mexico to just east of El Centro in southeastern California and can stay aloft for 20 hours.
Championed by Congress, derided by critics
The report echoes what critics including some Border Patrol agents have long said about the expensive, remotely controlled Predator B fleet.
They point to what they view as the program's meager returns since it began in 2006, as the drones have assisted in the seizure of nearly 50,000 pounds of drugs and the detention of about 7,500 people.
By comparison, decades-old P-3 Orion propeller planes, which once hunted submarines for the Navy, in the past five years have aided in the seizure or disruption of 863,000 pounds of drugs including 148,000 pounds of cocaine last year alone. Agency officials have described the plane as an "unsung hero."
"It is my sense that Congress has consistently overlooked (dare I say, 'ignored') not only the operational effectiveness, but also the cost effectiveness of the Predator [unmanned aerial vehicle] as a border surveillance tool," David Olive, a Washington-based homeland security consultant, wrote last year for the Security Debrief blog.
Customs and Border Protection officials have defended the drones, saying they are also used to assist in disaster and emergency relief, such as flooding, and other reconnaissance. The Office of Air and Marine also has flown missions for other agencies, including the FBI, FEMA, the Defense Department, Texas Rangers and the U.S. Forest Service.
Critics like Olive have said that the drones haven't met expectations in other situations, such as the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010, when the on-scene commander waved off the drones after a couple of weeks because they weren't helpful.
The inspector general also found that the agency does not have agreements to get reimbursed for missions flown for other agencies nor does it have a formal process to handle requests from outside agencies or ways to prioritize such missions.
In 2011, the agency's Office of Air and Marine flew its drones more than ever roughly 4,500 hours and 75 percent above any other fiscal year.
But that flight time amounts to a quarter of the agency's goal. The systems cost about $3,200 per hour to fly, for a total of about $14.5 million last year alone.
The result: Unmanned aircraft last year helped to find about 7,600 pounds of marijuana and apprehend 75 people suspected of engaging in illicit activities, according to the agency.
Overall, the U.S. Border Patrol, which is also part of Customs and Border Protection, in 2011 seized more than 2.5 million pounds of marijuana and apprehended 340,252 people, agency records show.
Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, who has championed drones as the Democratic co-chairman of the Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus, said that Customs and Border Protection has to go back to the basics and come up with a sound strategic plan for its drones.
"The first thing any agency should have is a strategic plan. I assumed they had a plan," said Cuellar. "We have to know where we are going before we start buying any more of the assets."
Yet, the program and drones in general continue to receive wide-ranging support from lawmakers. The unmanned systems caucus, which promotes "the overwhelming value" of drones and "the urgent need to rapidly develop and deploy" more of them, has nearly 60 members, including 11 California representatives and the Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee.
The House Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee recently pushed for an increase above the Homeland Security Department's request for $18.6 million to buy, deploy and operate sensors and other equipment used on its existing drones.
The Senate Armed Services Committee, meanwhile, has called for the broader use of unmanned aircraft in the country's national airspace as large numbers of drones used in Afghanistan and other operations may return to the United States as those battles wind down.
"Without the ability to operate freely and routinely in the [National Airspace System], UAS (unmanned aerial system) development and training and ultimately operational capabilities will be severely impacted," according to a recent committee report.
Technologically advanced weather permitting
Touted for their technological advances and airborne omniscience, the drones require on average an hour of maintenance for every hour in the air, the report states.
Between 2006 and 2011, the agency spent $55.3 million to operate and maintain the drones. Congress has only appropriated $12.6 million for such costs, which include training, satellite links, facility rental and contractor support, since the agency's drone program began, according to the report.
Customs and Border Protection figures show that Congress has appropriated $240.6 million to establish, operate and maintain the unmanned aircraft program, which consists of 10 systems, and spent about $224 million.
Yet, winds often keep the drones on the ground, as it happened in late May when a reporter visited the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station, where two such aircraft are based. Cuellar said in his two visits to the base pilots could not launch or retrieve crafts because of weather conditions. The Predator B design allows it to take off and land in winds up to 30 miles per hour.
Cuellar said he plans to address the issue next week during a House Homeland Security Subcommittee meeting. He said he has pushed the agency to station the drones at other places that provide more consistent flight conditions. But officials have been "stubborn" about keeping the drones on military bases for security reasons.
"That's almost insulting to say there's no other place along the Texas border that can provide security for [unmanned aircraft]," he said.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=8703008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)