Images de page
PDF
ePub

violators and participate in intelligence-sharing efforts with other agencies.

We also participate in followup efforts to identify convicted offenders for apprehension and removal from the United States through deportation proceedings. We recently completed and are presently implementing a three- phased strategy called the Alien Criminal Apprehension Program, a copy of which I previously furnished to you for your staff's review and interest. The purpose of this alien apprehension program is to more effectively address the problem of criminal aliens, including narcotics violators in our midst, and to assure more rapid removal under deportation proceedings. While INS is not primarily a drug enforcement agency, we will not avoid actual involvement in narcotics law enforcement matters where violations of the immigration laws are part of the criminal activity.

We trust our initiatives will continue to provide a more effective deterrent to those who would violate this nation's drug and immigration control laws.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee. [The statement of ir. Shaw appears on p. 241.]

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Commissioner. I find it difficult to separate the immigration laws from narcotic law enforcement along our borders. I look at immigration and Border Patrol as there to stop aliens from bringing drugs into the United States. You seem to say that you yield to the expertise at DEA.

Mr. SHAW. As the primary drug law enforcement agency.

Mr. RANGEL. Everybody is talking about what other people's function is. DEA says that stuff is pouring in across the border, and they are doing the best they can. I want to see who is in charge of the borders. Immigration says that is DEA. Really, it is what Congressman Roybal is talking about. How many people do you have on the borders?

Mr. SHAW. We have 3,500 Border Patrol Control agents assigned to all borders, primarily the southern border.

Mr. RANGEL. At any given time we have less than 1,000?

Mr. SHAW. True.

Mr. RANGEL. We can give up, if we are depending on less than 1,000 people protecting our borders, to prevent illegal aliens coming in, DEA says it is not their mission, and Customs says it is a seive, so we don't know who is going to come up with an answer as to who is going to come up with a better job at our borders.

The members talked about stories, experiences they had, not too long ago I had the occasion to visit our borders in San Diego, and I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't see it myself, where the Border Patrol pointed out hundreds, thousands of Mexicans on our side of the border, waiting for the sun to go down so they could rush across the San Diego line and they tell me, if you got the time, you can see that every evening, and Customs picks up some, takes them back over, and they come back the next day.

Do we still have that exciting event taking place daily?

Mr. SHAW. I believe so, Mr. Chairman, and pending some more effective sanctions to preclude open entry across our borders, for whatever reason these persons still come. This has been the subject

of congressional debate for the last 9 years, certainly from the aspect of immigration control.

You mention narcotics control, but since my time at INS and 20plus years at Justice, I have listened with interest on how to effectively control the surge of illegal entrants across the borders of the United States, with little by way of sanctions, other than an expeditious return south of the border.

Mr. RANGEL. We are talking about violation of our drug laws, too, and it is hard for me to really believe that providing sanctions in our immigration laws is going to stop these people from bringing drugs into the United States. They are not actually coming for a job where the employer would be penalized if they didn't produce the papers. Drug pushers don't fill that route.

Mr. SHAW. In the waning days of Congress, in your omnibus drug bill, there are some very important provisions that impact the Service relative to expedited exclusion and deportation provisions, and levying a requirement on the Department of Defense to come up with an alternative facilities program, to determine whether there are any excess Department of Defense facilities to help Immigration resolve this critical issue of detention space and detention funds.

Whether they are criminals or simply persons awaiting deportation hearings, the fact remains that today the Immigration Service has a very limited detention capacity.

Mr. RANGEL. I don't know whether it is a national problem, but we don't look to Immigration for anything regarding law enforcement in New York. I mean, our prosecutors don't depend on them as a force that can help them in terms of deportation, investigating felons.

Mr. SHAW. I am aware of the GAO study; I have a copy with me. I have responded to the criticism levied by Senator D'Amato, and I am well aware of the New York problem. Interestingly enough, the criminal alien strategy report which we sent to your staff gets right to the heart of the problem. Some of the New York problem is ineffective communications on our part. We have taken both remedial action and proactive steps. We are in the process of adopting a criminal alien apprehension program to address substantively the issues that the Senator and you have raised.

Mr. RANGEL. I hope at some level that you guys can get together. The Congress has gotten together and shoved down the administration's throat what we think is some kind of a strategy to effectively deal with the problem.

As long as you are restricted by the administration from telling us what you think you need to do a better job, we could be tragically missing each other in the middle of the night. I don't say that as a criticism for you, but each time we go to your superiors, we are able to do more with less, Gramm-Rudman, and Congress says we can't see where you are doing such a great job. We give you what we think you want and that is not the way to run a government. The President did sign the bill, in any event. The only thing that means to me is that he signed the bill. I don't know what it means in terms of the spirit in which the administration is going to provide the leadership. Certainly we see the conflicts between Customs and the Coast Guard which the Congress has contributed toward

that problem. Healthy competition is good, but we may not have come up with the right answer. We don't know anyone who is prepared to give us the right answer.

If you tell us to find the Vice President, he has got to give it to us. Then we got problems in the next Congress.

Mr. ROYBAL. I would like to understand the contribution that you are making to this effort. We had testimony by the sheriff of the county of LA who said that most of the narcotics coming through the border comes by ground transportation, by bus, by car, and is brought in by individuals. Is that a correct statement, as far as you know?

Mr. SHAW. I defer to the Drug Enforcement Administration to answer that or Chief Eliason in the back, who controls that sector. I would suspect it is a safe statement, but I don't know if it considers the problem of aircraft transportation-

Mr. ROYBAL. The truth of the matter is that the aircraft that goes to Mexico and to Central America to pick up that junk, it all originates in the United States, all American-made airplanes with American pilots. They go to whatever country and pick up the coke, and bring it back to the United States.

That was not mentioned this morning, but what was mentioned this morning was that narcotics does in fact come in by car, by bus, so forth, and then I asked the sheriff whether or not it was true that it came in through an established port of entry and he said that most of it did. I asked him specifically whether or not there was some secret place that was used for these cars to come through without running into the law, and he didn't know of any place. They come through an established point of entry, cars, buses, everything else.

Now, you tell the committee that you have 3,500 people that are in the Border Patrol. Isn't it true that the Border Patrol does not in fact stand at the border station, that the Border Patrol devotes all of its time to the apprehension of illegal aliens after they cross the border?

Mr. SHAW. No, not so, sir. First of all, the distinction is at ports of entry, there is an inspection presence. Between ports of entry is the jurisdiction of the Patrol.

Mr. ROYBAL. Border Patrol at points of entry.

Mr. SHAW. Immigration and Customs inspectors.

Mr. ROYBAL. There is a difference between the Border Patrol and Immigration inspector. The Immigration inspector is at the border with Customs, not the Border Patrol, so the Border Patrol is separate and apart from the work being done at the point of entry.

Customs is there all the time. They don't go any place else except there.

Mr. SHAW. That is not true, sir.

Mr. ROYBAL. I don't think Customs is part of the Border Patrol. Mr. SHAW. Customs investigations and Customs partrol are between ports; they are operating between ports of entry.

Mr. ROYBAL. They are not part of the Border Patrol?

Mr. SHAW. Right, sir.

Mr. ROYBAL. What I am getting at, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that Customs and Immigration do have the responsibility at the point of entry that working together, and a lot better job could be

done if it is true that most of this junk comes in by bus and private car, I have been to the Mexican border many times and also to the Canadian border, and there is a vast difference between what is done in Canada and in the southern border.

In Canada, you wouldn't even know that there was anybody there. They just wave you through no questions asked, but yet at the border here, there are two agencies that are involved, and still the testimony is that most of this junk comes through that border in a bus or in a car.

Now, how many agents does Immigration have at the border working with Customs? Use, as an example, Tiajuana, all along the border with Mexico.

Mr. SHAW. Fifteen hundred inspectors, and over half of them are assigned to southern border inspection points.

Mr. ROYBAL. Say that 800 are assigned to that point of entry, Mr. Logan, Do you know how many Customs people are there?

Mr. LOGAN. Total inspectors within the Southwest are about 1200 within the four States.

Mr. ROYBAL. There is a great difference between what the Customs is doing so far as personnel is concerned and what Immigration is doing at the border?

Mr. LOGAN. Yes, there is. If you might allow me to help my colleague out here just a bit, beginning back in July, as part of Alliance itself, both Immigration inspections and Customs inspections began dual programs, working together. For quite some time now in the Southwest, the available lanes and port of entry, 50 percent manned by INS and 50 percent manned by Customs.

Since July, we have actually tried programs between Immigration and Customs to use both persons' resources, both the individual agency resources to concentrate on narcotic smuggling. I am not in a position to say how well that is working or not working. I am in much the same position as Mr. Shaw when it comes down to the exact number, but I know it is a program that since July, they have been working together.

Mr. ROYBAL. I am aware of that effort and the reason why it came about, and I agree with that. I think you all should work as a team at the border and there should be one Immigration officer for every Customs officer there and every car coming through should be inspected thoroughly, and that drug-sniffing dogs should be used.

The reason that most of these cars come through is because there is not enough time or personnel at the border to take care of this problem. The illegal alien is not responsible for the tremendous use of marijuana in the United States, or for the fact there is so much sold in the United States; it is the buses and the cars and the airplanes that bring it in.

If the only narcotics that came into the United States was were brought by illegal aliens it would be a problem, but that is not the case. We have to attack the real problem, and we come back to the need to pay more attention to you gentlemen who are in the front lines by giving you the personnel and equipment that you need to do the job. I don't think you are getting that from this administration.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Dixon.

Mr. Dixon. Mr. Hunter, I have read your testimony and ask that you please comment for just 30 seconds.

Mr. RANGEL. If the gentleman would yield, Mr. Mouton, I have not overlooked you but I want this panel to complete its testimony and then we will have you wrap it up. I am sorry.

Mr. DIXON. Comment on designer drugs and what kind of problem, if any, they are presenting.

Mr. HUNTER. Experience with designer drugs has been with the drug fentanyl, a synthetic, "China white", much like heroin. We have had two experiences in the LA area where there was a clandestine manufacturer, and because of some in-place programs we have been able to nip them in the bud.

Our greatest fear is with that type of drug getting out of hand. We have been fortunate at this point in time to keep it at a fairly minimum level of abuse.

Mr. DIXON. Thank you.

Mr. RANGEL. Any other members wish to inquire?

I hope when you do have an opportunity to get to Washington, that you might be able to express the frustrations that we have. It was a successful legislative effort, but we could have done a heck of a lot better if we had any input at all, any, and I mean exactly that, from any of the agencies that we are trying to give assistance to. Perhaps if you could share that at our hearings early next year, if we made mistakes, we hope you will be able to point us in the right direction legislatively.

Thank you very much.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Mouton is the deputy director for the Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, and we are pleased to have him, and also, Councilman Tabor, Danny Tabor, from the Inglewood area, who was expected to testify earlier. He is here with us now. TESTIMONY OF LEO MOUTON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNCIL ON DEAFNESS

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Mouton.

Mr. MOUTON. Mr. Chairman, members, friends, I am here today to make an awareness of a group of people who have been totally excluded out of the direct service delivery system as it pertains to people having access to federally funded services nationally speaking. We are talking about 10 percent of the population that has a profound hearing loss, a communication problem.

I will give you an example locally of an administration who has shown total lack of sensitivity to the deaf and hearing impaired. We have contacted the administration since 1982 requesting they adhere to the civil rights laws as pertains to hearing-impaired people, and we have gotten zero. Recently, a young man came to our agency requesting services and we called up the local LA County drug abuse administration office requesting services. They made three referrals, of which none could help my client. One program had one bed for all of LA County's Deaf and Hearing Impaired, a population of 500,000 people with a profound hearing loss. We have an administration here in LA County that has zero sensitivity to the problems of the hearing impaired. We had a 26-yearold gentleman recently die because he was begging, crying for help

« PrécédentContinuer »