[Senate Hearing 114-516]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-516
BORDER SECURITY_2015
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
SECURING THE BORDER: UNDERSTANDING THREATS AND STRATEGIES FOR THE
NORTHERN BORDER, APRIL 22, 2015
SECURING THE BORDER: FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY FORCE
MULTIPLIERS, MAY 13, 2015
THE 2014 HUMANITARIAN CRISIS AT OUR BORDER: A REVIEW OF
THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO UNACCOMPANIED MINORS ONE YEAR LATER, JULY
7, 2015
SECURING THE BORDER: UNDERSTANDING THREATS AND STRATEGIES FOR THE
MARITIME BORDER, JULY 15, 2015
ALL HANDS ON DECK: WORKING TOGETHER TO END THE
TRAFFICKING AND ABUSE OF PRESCRIPTION OPIOIDS, HEROIN, AND FENTANYL,
SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
ONGOING MIGRATION FROM CENTRAL AMERICA: AN EXAMINATION OF FY 2015
APPREHENSIONS, OCTOBER 21, 2015
AMERICA'S HEROIN EPIDEMIC AT THE BORDER: LOCAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS TO COMBAT ILLICIT NARCOTIC TRAFFICKING,
NOVEMBER 23, 2015
----------
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
S. Hrg. 114-516
BORDER SECURITY_2015
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SECURING THE BORDER: UNDERSTANDING THREATS AND STRATEGIES FOR THE
NORTHERN BORDER, APRIL 22, 2015
SECURING THE BORDER: FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY FORCE
MULTIPLIERS, MAY 13, 2015
THE 2014 HUMANITARIAN CRISIS AT OUR BORDER: A REVIEW OF
THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO UNACCOMPANIED MIN0RS ONE YEAR LATER, JULY
7, 2015
SECURING THE BORDER: UNDERSTANDINF THREATS AND STRATEGIES FOR THE
MARITIME BORDER, JULY 15, 2015
ALL HANDS ON DECK: WORKING TOGETHER TO END THE
TRAFFICKING AND ABUSE OF PRESCRIPTION OPIOIDS, HEROIN, AND FENTANYL,
SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
ONGOING MIGRATION FROM CENTRAL AMERICA: AN EXAMINATION OF FY 2015
APPREHENSIONS, OCTOBER 21, 2015
AMERICA'S HEROIN EPIDEMIC AT THE BORDER: LOCAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS TO COMBAT ILLICIT NARCOTIC TRAFFICKING,
NOVEMBER 23, 2015
__________
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-901 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
RAND PAUL, Kentucky JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BEN SASSE, Nebraska
Keith B. Ashdown, Staff Director
Christopher R. Hixon, Chief Counsel
Brooke N. Ericson, Deputy Chief Counsel for Homeland Security
Jena N. McNeil, Deputy Director of Homeland Security
Jose J. Bautista, Professional Staff Member
Gabrielle A. Batkin. Minority Staff Director
John P. Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director
Mary Beth Schultz, Minority Chief Counsel
Stephen R. Vina, Minority Chief Counsel for Homeland Security
Holly A. Idelson, Minority Senior Counsel
Harlan C. Geer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member
Jill B. Mueller, Minority U.S. Customs and Border Protection Detailee
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Lauren M. Corcoran, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator1, 165 303, 425, 599, 771, 933, 1087, 1207, 1409, 1585, 1919
Senator Carp3, 166, 305, 427, 600, 771, 934, 1098, 1208, 1410, 1587
Senator Baldwin............................................22, 1227
Senator Heitkamp.......................................24, 331, 963
Senator Lankford.....................27, 204, 797, 1113, 1431, 1612
Senator Booker..............................31, 182, 453, 950, 1097
Senator Ayotte..................33, 179, 325, 977, 1229, 1420, 1481
Senator Ernst.........................184, 171, 335, 795, 961, 1426
Senator Peters.................202, 449, 789, 956, 1224, 1428, 1609
Senator McCain.................................320, 958, 1422, 1920
Senator Tester............................................446, 1104
Senator Sasse................................................ 953
Senator McCaskill............................................ 1605
Senator Shaheen.............................................. 1485
Senator Flake................................................ 1922
Prepared statements:
43, 209, 351, 465, 645, 813, 981, 1129, 1241, 1443, 1515, 1625, 1961
Senat45, 210, 353, 467, 646, 814, 982, 1130, 1243, 1444, 1517, 1626
Senator Ayotte...........................................1519, 1964
Senator Shaheen.............................................. 1523
Senator McCain............................................... 1963
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
WITNESSES
Stephen C. Goss, Chief Actuary, U.S. Social Security
Administration................................................. 6
Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
LLP............................................................ 8
Luke Peter Bellocchi, Of Counsel, Wasserman, Mancini and Chang,
and Former Deputy Ombudsman for U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services ath the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security....................................................... 10
Shawn Moran, Vice President, National Border Patrol Council...... 12
Bo Cooper, Partner, Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen and Loewy LLP, and
Former General Counsel at the Immigration and Naturalization
Service........................................................ 14
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Bellocchi, Luke Peter:
Testimony.................................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Cooper, Bo:
Testimony.................................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 91
Goss, Stephen C.:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement with attachment........................... 47
Moran, Shawn:
Testimony.................................................... 12
Prepared statement with attachment........................... 80
O'Connor, Hon. Eileen J.:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 61
APPENDIX
Chart submitted by Senator Johnson............................... 104
Goss Actuarial Note submitted by Senator Johnson................. 105
Statement submitted for the Record from American Immigration
Council........................................................ 110
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record:
Mr. Goss..................................................... 141
Ms. O'Connor................................................. 143
Mr. Bellocchi................................................ 147
Mr. Moran.................................................... 161
Thursday, March 12, 2015
WITNESSES
Hon. Michael Chertoff, Co-Founder and Executive Chairman, The
Chertoff Group................................................. 168
Marc E. Frey, Ph.D., Senior Director, Steptoe and Johnson, LLP... 170
Brian Michael Jenkins, Senior Adviser to the President, The RAND
Corporation.................................................... 172
Mark Koumans, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International
Affairs, Office of Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 189
Maureen Dugan, Deputy Executive Director, National Targeting
Center, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.............................................. 191
Edward J. Ramotowski, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa
Services, U.S. Department of State............................. 193
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Chertoff, Hon. Michael:
Testimony.................................................... 168
Prepared statement........................................... 212
Dugan, Maureen:
Testimony.................................................... 191
Joint prepared statement..................................... 239
Frey, Marc E., Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 170
Prepared statement........................................... 219
Jenkins, Brian Michael:
Testimony.................................................... 172
Prepared statement........................................... 228
Koumans, Mark:
Testimony.................................................... 189
Joint prepared statement..................................... 239
Ramotowski, Edward J.:
Testimony.................................................... 193
Prepared statement........................................... 246
APPENDIX
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record:
Dr. Frey..................................................... 251
Mr. Jenkins.................................................. 254
Mr. Koumans and Ms. Dugan.................................... 266
Mr. Ramotowski............................................... 295
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
WITNESSES
Chris Cabrera, Border Patrol Agent, Rio Grande Valley Sector,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, on behalf of the National
Border Patrol Council.......................................... 308
Mark J. Dannels, Sheriff, Cochise County, Arizona................ 310
Howard G. Buffett, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Howard
G. Buffett Foundation, and Arizona Landowner................... 313
Othal E. Brand, Jr., Farmer, McAllen, Texas...................... 315
Monica Weisberg-Stewart, Chairwoman, Committee on Border Security
and Immigration, Texas Border Coalition........................ 318
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Brand, Othal E., Jr.:
Testimony.................................................... 315
Prepared statement with attachment........................... 394
Buffett, Howard G.:
Testimony.................................................... 313
Prepared statement........................................... 364
Cabrera, Chris:
Testimony.................................................... 308
Prepared statement........................................... 355
Dannels, Mark J.:
Testimony.................................................... 310
Prepared statement........................................... 358
Weisberg-Stewart, Monica:
Testimony.................................................... 318
Prepared statement........................................... 400
APPENDIX
Statement for the Record:
American Civil Liberties Union............................... 406
National Immigration Forum................................... 414
Responses to questions for the Record:
Ms. Weisberg-Stewart......................................... 422
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
WITNESSES
General Barry R. McCaffrey, USA (Ret.), Former Director (1996-
2001) of the Office of National Drug Control Policy............ 430
John P. Torres, Former Acting Director and Former Deputy
Assistant Director for Smuggling and Public Safety at U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.............................................. 433
Elizabeth Kempshall, Executive Director, Arizona High Intensity
Drug Trafficking Area, Office of National Drug Control Policy.. 435
Benny Martinez, Chief Deputy Sheriff, Brooks County, Texas....... 437
Bryan E. Costigan, Director, Montana All-Threat Intelligence
Center, Division on Criminal Investigation, Montana Department
of Justice..................................................... 439
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Costigan, Bryan E.:
Testimony.................................................... 439
Prepared statement........................................... 539
Kempshall, Elizabeth:
Testimony.................................................... 435
Prepared statement........................................... 487
Martinez, Benny:
Testimony.................................................... 437
Prepared statement with attachment........................... 494
McCaffrey, General Barry R.:
Testimony.................................................... 430
Prepared statement........................................... 469
Torres, John P.:
Testimony.................................................... 433
Prepared statement........................................... 477
APPENDIX
Picture submitted by Senator Johnson............................. 552
Statement submitted for the Record from AIC...................... 553
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
WITNESSES
William A. Kandel, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Congressional
Research Service, U.S. Library of Congress..................... 603
Hon. Roger F. Noriega, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise
Institute, and Former Assistant Secretary for Western
Hemisphere Affairs at the U.S. Department of State............. 605
Hon. Adolfo A. Franco, Former Assistant Administrator for Latin
America and the Caribbean at the U.S. Agency for International
Development.................................................... 607
Eric L. Olson, Associate Director, Latin American Program,
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars............... 610
Hon. Alan D. Bersin, Acting Assistant Secretary and Chief
Diplomatic Officer, Office of Policy, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.............................................. 627
Francisco Palmieri, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Central
America and the Carribean, Bureau of Western Hemisphere
Affairs, U.S. Deparment of State............................... 629
Lieutenant General Kenneth E. Tovo, USA, Military Deputy
Commander, U.S. Southern Command, U.S. Department of Defense... 631
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Bersin, Hon. Alan D.:
Testimony.................................................... 627
Prepared statement........................................... 683
Franco, Hon. Adolfo A.:
Testimony.................................................... 607
Prepared statement........................................... 673
Kandel, William A.:
Testimony.................................................... 603
Prepared statement........................................... 648
Noriega, Hon. Roger F.:
Testimony.................................................... 605
Prepared statement........................................... 659
Olson, Eric L.:
Testimony.................................................... 610
Prepared statement........................................... 677
Palmieri, Francisco:
Testimony.................................................... 629
Prepared statement........................................... 689
Tovo, Lt. Gen. Kenneth E.:
Testimony.................................................... 631
Prepared statement with attachment........................... 694
APPENDIX
Chart submitted by Senator Johnson............................... 734
Statement submitted for the Record from Church World Service..... 735
Statement submitted for the Record from United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees...................................... 736
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record:
Mr. Bersin................................................... 741
Mr. Palmieri................................................. 749
Thursday, March 26, 2015
WITNESSES
Jeffrey S. Passel, Ph.D., Senior Demographer, Hispanic Trends
Project, Pew Research Center................................... 774
Daniel Garza, Executive Director, The LIBRE Initiative........... 776
Madeline Zavodny, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, Agnes Scott
College, and Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute.... 779
Randel K. Johnson, Senior Vice President, Labor, Immigration, and
Employee Benefits, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.................... 781
Marc R. Rosenblum, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Immigration Policy
Program, Migration Policy Insitute............................. 784
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Garza, Daniel:
Testimony.................................................... 776
Prepared statement........................................... 848
Johnson, Randel K.:
Testimony.................................................... 781
Prepared statement........................................... 862
Passel, Jeffrey S., Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 774
Prepared statement with attachment........................... 816
Rosenblum, Marc R., Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 784
Prepared statement........................................... 881
Zavodny, Madeline, Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 779
Prepared statement........................................... 853
APPENDIX
Charts submitted by Senator Johnson.............................. 906
Statements submitted for the Record from:
AFL-CIO...................................................... 909
Farmworker Justice........................................... 912
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.............. 920
Immigration Myths............................................ 921
Jobs with Justice............................................ 927
National Association of Home Builders........................ 929
National Roofing Contractors Association..................... 931
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
WITNESSES
Michael J. Fisher, Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security........ 936
James C. Spero, Special Agent in Charge Buffalo, Homeland
Security Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.............. 938
John Wagner, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field
Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security........................................... 939
David Rodriguez, Director, Northwest High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area, Office of National Drug Control Policy....... 942
Hon. Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney, Northern
District of New York, U.S. Department of Justice............... 944
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Fisher, Michael J.:
Testimony.................................................... 936
Prepared statement........................................... 984
Hartunian, Hon. Richard S.:
Testimony.................................................... 944
Prepared statement........................................... 1019
Rodriguez, David:
Testimony.................................................... 942
Prepared statement with attachment........................... 1002
Spero, James C.:
Testimony.................................................... 938
Prepared statement........................................... 992
Wagner, John:
Testimony.................................................... 939
Prepared statement........................................... 984
APPENDIX
Charts submitted by Senator Johnson.............................. 1027
Chart submitted by CBP to Senator McCain......................... 1029
Prepared statements submitted for the Record by:
John Ghertner, Director, Greater Rochester Coalition for
Immigration Justice........................................ 1030
Northern Border Coalition.................................... 1034
New York Civil Liberties Union............................... 1038
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record:
Mr. Fisher & Mr. Wagner...................................... 1046
Mr. Spero.................................................... 1082
Mr. Rodriguez................................................ 1086
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
WITNESSES
Randolph D. Alles, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Air and
Marine, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.............................................. 1088
Mark Borkowski, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Technology
Innovation and Acquisition, U.S. Cusoms and Border Protection,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security........................... 1090
Ronald Vitiello, Deputy Chief, Office of Border Patrol, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security....................................................... 1091
Anh Duong, Director, Borders and Maritime Security Division,
Directorate of Science and Technology, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.............................................. 1092
Rebecca Gambler, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S.
Government Accountability Office............................... 1094
Michael John Garcia, Legislative Attorney, Congressional Research
Service, U.S. Library of Congress.............................. 1095
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Alles, Randolph D.:
Testimony.................................................... 1088
Joint Prepared statement..................................... 1131
Borkowski, Mark:
Testimony.................................................... 1090
Joint Prepared statement..................................... 1131
Duong, Anh:
Testimony.................................................... 1092
Prepared statement........................................... 1147
Gambler, Rebecca:
Testimony.................................................... 1094
Prepared statement........................................... 1153
Garcia, Michael John:
Testimony.................................................... 1095
Prepared statement........................................... 1175
Vitiello, Ronald:
Testimony.................................................... 1091
Joint Prepared statement..................................... 1131
APPENDIX
Chart referenced by Senator Johnson.............................. 1190
Prepared statements submitted for the Record by:
American Civil Liberties Union............................... 1191
National Immigration Forum................................... 1194
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record from:
Mr. Borkowski & Ms. Duong.................................... 1200
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
WITNESSES
Juan P. Osuna, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review,
U.S. Department of Justice..................................... 1212
Mark H. Greenberg, Acting Assistant Secretary, Administration for
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services....................................................... 1214
Philip T. Miller, Assistant Director of Field Operations,
Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security...... 1216
Joseph E. Langlois, Associate Director, Refugee, Asylum, and
International Operations Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security..... 1218
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Greenberg, Mark H.:
Testimony.................................................... 1214
Prepared statement........................................... 1252
Langlois, Joseph E.:
Testimony.................................................... 1218
Prepared statement........................................... 1273
Miller, Philip T.:
Testimony.................................................... 1216
Prepared statement........................................... 1267
Osuna, Juan P.:
Testimony.................................................... 1212
Prepared statement........................................... 1245
APPENDIX
Chart referenced by Senator Johnson.............................. 1279
Prepared statements submitted for the Record by:
American Immigration Council with an attachment.............. 1280
American Immigration Lawyers Association..................... 1307
Alliance To End Slavery and Trafficking...................... 1313
Center for Gender and Refugee Studies........................ 1319
Church World Service......................................... 1328
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America....................... 1329
First Focus Campaign for Children............................ 1332
Freedom Network USA.......................................... 1334
Kids Post.................................................... 1339
Kids in Need of Defense...................................... 1343
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service and Women's Refugee
Commission................................................. 1347
National Immigration Forum................................... 1356
National Immigrant Justice Center............................ 1360
Safe Passage Project......................................... 1366
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees................ 1369
U.S. Committee for Refugee and Immigrants.................... 1375
Young Center with an attachment.............................. 1377
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record
Mr. Osuna.................................................... 1393
Mr. Greenberg................................................ 1396
Mr. Miller and Mr. Langlois.................................. 1400
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
WITNESSES
Rear Admiral Peter J. Brown, Assistant Commandant for Response
Policy, U.S. Coast Guard....................................... 1412
Randolph D. Alles, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Air and
Marine, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.............................................. 1414
Peter T. Edge, Executive Associate Director, Homeland Security
Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security................................ 1416
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Alles, Randolph D.:
Testimony.................................................... 1414
Prepared statement........................................... 1452
Brown, Rear Admiral Peter J.:
Testimony.................................................... 1412
Prepared statement........................................... 1446
Edge, Peter T.:
Testimony.................................................... 1416
Prepared statement........................................... 1462
APPENDIX
Response to post-hearing questions for the Record from Mr. Alles. 1475
Monday, September 14, 2015
WITNESSES
Enoch ``Nick'' Willard, Chief, Manchester Police Department,
Manchester, New Hampshire...................................... 1486
Doug Griffin, Father of Courtney Griffin, Newton, New Hampshire.. 1488
Heidi Moran, Clinical Administrator, Southeastern New Hamsphire
Services, Dover, New Hampshire................................. 1491
Hon. Michael P. Botticelli, Director, Office of National Drug
Control Policy................................................. 1499
Hon. R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security............... 1501
John ``Jack'' Riley, Acting Deputy Administrator, Drug
Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Justice......... 1503
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Botticelli, Hon. Michael P.:
Testimony.................................................... 1499
Prepared statement........................................... 1544
Griffin, Doug:
Testimony.................................................... 1488
Prepared statement........................................... 1531
Kerlikowske, Hon. R. Gil:
Testimony.................................................... 1501
Prepared statement........................................... 1568
Moran, Heidi:
Testimony.................................................... 1491
Prepared statement........................................... 1536
Riley, John ``Jack'':
Testimony.................................................... 1503
Prepared statement........................................... 1576
Willard, Enoch ``Nick'':
Testimony.................................................... 1486
Prepared statement........................................... 1525
APPENDIX
Photos submitted by Chief Willard................................ 1529
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
WITNESSES
Kimberly M. Gianopoulos, Director, International Affairs and
Trade, U.S. Government Accountability Office................... 1590
Chris Cabrera, Border Patrol Agent, Rio Grande Valley Sector,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, on behalf of the National
Border Patrol Council.......................................... 1591
Kevin Casas-Zamora, D.Phil., Senior Fellow and Program Director,
Peter D. Bell Rule of Law Program, Inter-American Dialogue..... 1593
Duncan Wood, Ph.D., Director, Mexico Institute, Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars.............................. 1595
The Most Reverend Mark J. Seitz, Bishop, Diocese of El Paso,
Texas, on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.... 1597
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Cabrera, Chris:
Testimony.................................................... 1591
Prepared statement........................................... 1641
Casas-Zamora, Kevin, D.Phil.:
Testimony.................................................... 1593
Prepared statement........................................... 1643
Gianopoulos, Kimberly M.:
Testimony.................................................... 1590
Prepared statement........................................... 1628
Seitz, Bishop Mark J.:
Testimony.................................................... 1597
Prepared statement........................................... 1666
Wood, Duncan, Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 1595
Prepared statement with attachment........................... 1656
APPENDIX
Documents submitted by Senator McCaskill......................... 1681
Charts submitted by Senator Johnson.............................. 1831
Document submitted by Bishop Seitz............................... 1833
Statement submitted for the Record from:
American Immigration Council with an attachment.................. 1834
Interfaith Immigration Coalition................................. 1895
Women's Refugee Commission, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee
Service (LIRS) and Kids in Need of Defense (KIND).............. 1907
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record
Ms. Gianopoulos.............................................. 1913
Mr. Casas-Zamora............................................. 1917
Monday, November 23, 2015
WITNESSES
Hon. Douglas A. Ducey, Governor, State of Arizona; accompanied by
Colonel Frank Milstead, Director, Arizona Department of Public
Safety......................................................... 1922
Hon. R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security............... 1926
Hon. Bill Montgomery, County Attorney, Maricopa County........... 1930
Hon. Mark J. Dannels, Sheriff, Cochise County.................... 1940
Dawn Mertz, Executive Director, Arizona HIDTA, Office of National
Drug Control Policy............................................ 1944
Brandon Judd, President, National Border Control Council......... 1945
Jeff Taylor, Member, Public Advisory Board/Public Policy, The
Salvation Army................................................. 1948
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Dannels, Hon. Mark J.:
Testimony.................................................... 1940
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 1987
Ducey, Hon. Douglas A.:
Testimony.................................................... 1922
Prepared statement........................................... 1966
Judd, Brandon:
Testimony.................................................... 1945
Prepared statement........................................... 2026
Kerlikowske, Hon. R. Gil:
Testimony.................................................... 1926
Prepared statement........................................... 1971
Mertz, Dawn:
Testimony.................................................... 1944
Prepared statement........................................... 2017
Montgomery, Hon. Bill:
Testimony.................................................... 1930
Prepared statement with attachment........................... 1981
Taylor, Jeff:
Testimony.................................................... 1948
Prepared statement........................................... 2029
APPENDIX
Wilmot statement for the Record.................................. 2033
Chart submitted by Senator Johnson............................... 2053
SECURING THE BORDER: UNDERSTANDING
THREATS AND STRATEGIES FOR THE NORTHERN BORDER
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, McCain, Portman, Lankford,
Ayotte, Ernst, Sasse, Carper, Heitkamp, Booker, and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON
Chairman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing will come to
order. Senator Carper is on his way, and his staff informed me
that we could get underway here.
I would like to, without objection, enter my opening
comments into the record.\1\ Hearing no objection, so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
Appendix on page 981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I was talking to the witnesses before the hearing here,
this is our fifth in a series of four hearings on border
security, and what we are trying to do is we are trying to lay
out the reality. And I think Senator Booker would agree with me
it is not a pleasant reality. It is an enormously difficult
problem. And, of course, in terms of illegal immigration, in
terms of drug trafficking, the biggest problem is, no doubt
about it, on the Southern Border.
As my Ranking Member says repeatedly--and I completely
agree with this, coming from a manufacturing background--we
really need to analyze the root cause of the problem.
We had an extremely good meeting with General Kelly, head
of Southern Command, yesterday just discussing the problems in
Central America and the problems with border security and the
drug trafficking. And looking for that root cause we were
discussing that it is really America's demand for drugs, how
that demand has created these drug cartels that really has
corroded and been so harmful to the societies in Central
America. We bear some responsibility for that.
So these are not going to be easy problems to solve, but we
have to make incremental improvements. I come from a
manufacturing background. Nothing is ever perfect. You always
have to continuously improve.
So, again, the purpose of this hearing and every hearing is
to get the people watching, the people on the dais here,
admitting we have the problem by trying to lay out that reality
properly.
I see that my Ranking Member, our Ranking Member has joined
us here, so I would like to turn it over to you if you have
some opening comments.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. I would love to. Not too long.
Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for pulling
this together. It is an important hearing, and we appreciate
those Members, including the Senator from New Jersey, who has
been very strong and encouraging to have this kind of hearing.
So thank you, Cory.
Over the past couple months, we have spent a fair amount of
time on this Committee, as some of you know because you have
been here, focusing on trying to better understand the security
challenges that we face along our Southern Border with Mexico.
But as large and challenging as our Southern Border is, our
shared border with Canada is even larger and comes with its own
unique opportunities and risks. Our shared border with Canada
is--listen to this--the largest in the world. It spans some
4,000 miles. And when you add in Alaska, Alaska's borders with
Canada, that goes up to about 5,500 miles. It is huge.
It is also an economic powerhouse for both of our
countries. According to at least one estimate, some 300,000
people and $1.5 billion in trade cross the U.S.-Canada border
every day. That is something to celebrate, even as we pay close
attention to addressing potential border threats.
Last Congress, I had the pleasure of visiting Michigan with
Senator Levin and North Dakota with Senator Heitkamp, and a
memorable visit with Carl Levin. A memorable visit. Carl and I
went to this Mexican restaurant. We sat in the parking lot and
listened to the opening game in Minnesota. The Tigers beat the
Twins. I will not forget that. A great day.
The risks along our Northern Border include both northbound
and southbound flows of drugs, other transnational criminal
activity, and potential exploitation by terrorists.
Since 9/11, we have increased our border staffing and
technology footprint along the Northern Border. For instance, I
think there are about 2,000 Border Patrol agents stationed on
the Northern Border today, and that is compared to, I think,
340 in 2001. That is almost a sevenfold increase. And there are
about 3,700 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers at the
northern ports of entry (POE); that is an increase of about a
third over the last 10 years. We now have several CBP drones
patrolling high above our Northern Border as well.
Is there more that we can do to better secure our Northern
Border? Sure there is; however, we can no more seal this border
than we can totally close our Southern Border with Mexico.
Having said that, we need to better understand the risks
associated with it. Then we need to implement the most cost-
effective strategies to buy down those risks. And we need to do
this while sustaining the robust trade and travel relationships
that benefit us and our neighbors so greatly.
Not unlike our Southern Border, force-multiplying
technology such as aerial surveillance, underground sensors,
and cameras on mobile towers can greatly increase our ability
to detect and respond to threats along this vast Northern
Border.
Good intelligence and strong information-sharing networks
can also help make the best use of limited staffing and
resources. Fortunately, our relationship with Canada is perhaps
the best ``force multiplier'' we could wish for. Canadian and
U.S. agents are working closer and closer together in a number
of areas to enhance our shared security and ensure our shared
prosperity.
We look forward to hearing more about how this relationship
is working under the 2011 ``Beyond the Border (BTB)'' framework
and any other areas where progress is still needed. I also hope
the witnesses will address whether there are successful
practices at the Northern Border--either for increasing
security or expediting trade or both--that we could replicate
and use on our Southern Border with Mexico.
Finally, I continue to hope that our focus on border
security will become part of a larger conversation on how to
fix our broken immigration system and pass comprehensive
immigration reform.
With that, we look forward to your testimony. Thank you all
for coming and for your service.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper.
This Committee really is pretty well populated with
Senators from those Northern Border States. We have got Senator
Peters from Michigan. I am from Wisconsin. We have Senator
Tester from Montana, Senator Heitkamp from North Dakota,
Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire. So this really is a pretty
relevant hearing, and----
Senator McCain. Should I leave?
Chairman Johnson. No. You are welcome as well. It is all
part and parcel of the same problem. [Laughter.]
We are actually glad to see you, Mr. Chairman.
But, again, I do want to welcome the witnesses. Thank you
for your very thoughtful testimony, and we are really looking
forward to your testimony.
It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in
witnesses, so if you would all rise and raise your right hand.
Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Fisher. I do.
Mr. Wagner. I do.
Mr. Spero. I do.
Mr. Rodriguez. I do.
Mr. Hartunian. I do.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you.
By the way, we do have votes starting at 10:45, so I would
ask the witnesses to keep your opening statements to the 6-
minute timeframe so we have time for questions, because we have
got good attendance here by our Committee.
Our first witness is Michael J. Fisher. He is the Chief of
the U.S. Border Patrol. Chief Fisher joined the U.S. Border
Patrol in June 1987 and has served in numerous sectors and
positions since then, including Field Operations Supervisor in
El Paso, Deputy Chief Patrol Agent of the Detroit Sector,
Assistant Chief Patrol Agent in the Tucson Sector, and Chief
Patrol Agent of the San Diego Sector. Mr. Fisher.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL FISHER,\1\ CHIEF, U.S. BORDER PATROL, U.S.
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Mr. Fisher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carper,
and Members of the Committee. It is indeed a privilege to
appear today on behalf of the United States Border Patrol to
discuss our strategy to secure the Northern Border between the
ports of entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The joint prepared statement of Mr. Fisher and Mr. Wagner
appears in the Appendix on page 984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our approach along the Northern Border supports U.S.
Customs and Border Protection's overarching strategic themes of
collaboration, integration, and innovation. Collaboration at
all levels, including information sharing and operational
coordination, among U.S. and Canadian law enforcement is
critical to the shared security of the border.
Advanced information and intelligence is and will always be
the key to minimizing risk along our borders. For instance, the
Operational Integration Center (OIC), located at Selfridge Air
National Guard Base in Michigan, is a information-sharing
demonstration project to enhance the situational awareness of
CBP and our mission partners, including U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), State and
local law enforcement, as well as the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police (RCMP) and the Canadian Border Services Agency.
The OIC consolidates a wide range of information, including
radar and camera feeds, blue force tracking, database queries
from databases not previously available to CBP, remote sensor
inputs, remote video surveillance and mobile surveillance
system (MSS) feeds, and video from various ports of entry.
Additional information feeds such as local traffic cameras will
be added in the near future.
In terms of innovation, our joint efforts to improve
existing surveillance technologies that can overcome Northern
Border terrain and environmental challenges, the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate is
collaborating with Canada along with us in a Sensor Sharing
Pilot to demonstrate the capability and operational utility of
a common surveillance picture between CBP and the RCMP, using a
combination of U.S. and Canadian sensor information. Our
situational awareness on the Northern Border is enhanced by
technological capabilities, including thermal camera systems,
mobile surveillance systems, and remote video surveillance
systems.
CBP's Office of Air and Marine (OAM) has 41 fixed-wing and
rotary aircraft equipped with sensors stationed along the
Northern Border, including two unmanned aerial systems (UASs),
and they operate out of the Grand Forks Air Force Base in North
Dakota. UAS flights improve our situational awareness and
border security in areas that are difficult to reach.
In addition, we are expanding the coherent change detection
technology along the Northern Border this year. As this
Committee is aware, this is the same methodology that allows us
to cover approximately 900 miles along the Southwest Border
without having to deploy technology or Border Patrol agents.
Finally, our integration efforts continue as well. For
instance, each month CBP produces the State of the Northern
Border Briefing, which provides a cross-component, multi-agency
intelligence report for identifying, monitoring, and addressing
emerging trends and threats along the Northern Border. The
report is produced in direct collaboration with our Canadian
partners as well as other Federal, State, and local partners.
The State of the Northern Border has provided a broader avenue
for information sharing and great intelligence insight to
activity with a nexus along our Northern Border.
The Border Patrol is also an active participant in several
targeted joint operations which are called the ``Integrated
Border Enforcement Teams,'' (IBET). They are comprised of U.S.
and Canadian law enforcement personnel, encompassing 15 regions
along the Northern Border. IBETs operate as intelligence-driven
information teams designed to increase information-and
intelligence-sharing capabilities among the appropriate U.S.
and Canadian authorities. By incorporating integrated mobile
response capabilities in the air, land, and the marine
environments, the IBETs provide participating law enforcement
agencies with a force multiplier that maximizes border
enforcement efforts.
Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, again, thank you
for the opportunity to appear today, and I look forward to your
questions.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Chief Fisher.
I do want to note that the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of
the Office of Field Operations (OFO), John Wagner, that was
also your written statement, but let me just introduce you as
well. You have been assigned to the CBP headquarters since
1999. Mr. Wagner began his Federal law enforcement career in
1991 when he joined U.S. Customs Service as a Customs
Inspector. Mr. Wagner also has worked at the New York-New
Jersey Seaport and the Port of Laredo, Texas. So, again, we
appreciate you joining us here and look forward to your answers
to questions.
Our next witness will be James Spero. He is a Special Agent
in Charge for the Buffalo, New York, area. Mr. Spero also
served as the Deputy Assistant Director of the ICE
Transnational Crime and Public Safety Division, Unit Chief for
the Identify and Benefit Fraud Unit at ICE headquarters, and
Acting Assistant Special Agent in Charge for Homeland Security
Investigations (HSI) Washington field office. Mr. Spero.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES C. SPERO,\1\ SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE,
HOMELAND SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS BUFFALO, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S., DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Spero. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, and
distinguished Members, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you to discuss ICE's efforts to improve security along
the Northern Border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Spero appears in the Appendix on
page 992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As DHS' principal investigative agency, Homeland Security
Investigations is positioned to leverage its broad statutory
authority to support border enforcement. HSI works in close
coordination with DHS components and U.S. interagency partners,
as well as our counterparts in Canadian law enforcement, to
target transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) involved in
illicit travel, trade, and finance. HSI applies a full range of
innovative investigative and enforcement techniques, including
leading and participating in joint U.S.-Canadian task forces,
undercover operations, controlled deliveries, asset
identification and removal, confidential informants, and Title
III electronic intercepts to identify and disrupt criminal
operations. We have nearly 1,300 special agents and 100
intelligence research specialists operating along the Northern
Border.
In fiscal year (FY) 2014, HSI's seven Special Agent in
Charge offices covering the Northern Border, often in joint or
cooperative investigations with Federal, State, local, tribal,
and Canadian law enforcement, seized more than $237 million in
cash and monetary instruments, nearly 26,000 pounds of
marijuana, 2,000 pounds of cocaine, 146 pounds of ecstasy, 719
pounds of heroin, 949 pounds of methamphetamine, nearly 1,400
weapons and firearms, over 55,000 rounds of ammunition, and
about 8,400 weapon components. HSI Special Agents made over
5,700 criminal arrests resulting in nearly 3,800 indictments
and approximately 3,500 convictions. These statistics reflect
the impact of our coordinated law enforcement investments and
investigations along the Northern Border.
Additionally, HSI maintains the largest investigative
footprint of any U.S. law enforcement agency in Canada. HSI's
four attache offices, located in Ottawa, Vancouver, Toronto,
and Montreal, further enhance national security by serving as
ICE's liaison to our interagency partners and our counterparts
in local government and law enforcement.
Our partnerships are essential to joint operations and
information sharing along the Northern Border and beyond. One
example is how HSI participates in the Federal Bureau of
Investigations (FBI)-led Joint Terrorism Task Force. HSI brings
its unique authorities and experience to the task force to help
protect the homeland from threats to national security.
HSI's flagship task force program, the Border Enforcement
Security Task Force (BEST), was created in 2005 as a mechanism
to address the threat of cross-border crime. In 2007, ICE began
to deploy BEST units along the Northern Border. BEST provides a
proven and flexible platform from which DHS investigates and
targets transnational criminal organizations that attempt to
exploit perceived vulnerabilities at our Nation's borders.
BEST units differ from other task forces due to their
proximity to the border and the program's focus on cross-border
criminal activity. Currently, there are four BEST units
operating along the Northern Border. One significant advantage
of the BEST task force model is the participation and
integration of foreign law enforcement personnel who have the
ability to conduct cross-border investigations with HSI and our
Federal, State, local, and tribal partners to address criminal
activity on both sides of the border.
One successful collaboration with our international law
enforcement partners is Operation Primed, which is an HSI
Buffalo investigation that targeted a cocaine-smuggling
organization involved in the illicit movement of cocaine and
bulk cash within Canada, the United States, and Mexico.
Investigators estimated that this organization was responsible
for the smuggling of approximately 1,600 kilograms of cocaine
into Canada with a street value of over $60 million. Through
successful collaboration with Canadian law enforcement, a high-
level target was sentenced in May 2014 to 84 months of
incarceration. This individual was arrested in September 2010
when attempting to export 97 kilograms of cocaine across the
Lewiston Bridge Port of Entry from New York into Canada. The 97
kilograms of cocaine seizure is to this day the largest seizure
in the history of the Port of Buffalo.
In conclusion, ICE remains dedicated and committed to this
mission, and we look forward to continuing to work with this
Committee on these efforts.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I
would be pleased to answer any questions.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Spero.
I have been informed that Mr. Wagner does have an opening
statement. Would you like to give that now, or would you like
to wait until the very end?
Mr. Wagner. I thought I was off the hook.
Chairman Johnson. Oh, no. Would you like to give it now or
would you like to----
Mr. Wagner. I will give it now if that is OK.
Chairman Johnson. OK, sure. Mr. Wagner.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN WAGNER,\1\ DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF FIELD OPERATIONS, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Wagner. Thank you. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member
Carper, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today on behalf of CBP's Office of Field
Operations to discuss our security and facilitation efforts at
ports of entry along our Northern Border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The joint prepared statement of Mr. Fisher and Mr. Wagner
appears in the Appendix on page 984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. international boundary with Canada delineates two
friendly nations with a long history of social, cultural, and
economic ties that have contributed to a high volume of cross-
border trade and travel, amounting to $2 billion a day. CBP
ensures that our Northern Border operations protect and secure
the vital flow of commerce through trade and travel between our
two countries.
The United States and Canada are connected by more than 120
land ports of entry, 750 daily flights by commercial aircraft,
and numerous commercial and recreational vessels that cross the
maritime border, ensuring the security and efficient flow of
cross-border activity. CBP has more than 3,600 CBP officers and
190 agriculture specialists stationed on the border, ensuring
dangerous goods, contraband, and individuals are intercepted
and legitimate travelers and cargo are expedited.
At many Northern Border ports of entry, we continue to
invest in and deploy radio frequency identification technology.
This technology, along with the 2009 implementation of the
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), which requires a
passport or other secure document to enter the United States,
allows CBP to query nearly 100 percent of travelers against law
enforcement and terrorist screening databases. We also continue
to deploy next-generation license plate readers, large-scale
and small-scale imaging technology, as well as a variety of
portable and handheld technology, including radiation portal
monitors.
Additionally, DHS and Canadian agencies are collaborating
to develop, advance, operationally test, and use technologies
to enhance cross-border operations. As part of this effort, we
have also made significant investments in infrastructure. Since
February 2009, the U.S. Government has invested over $400
million to rebuild and improve more than 30 ports of entry
along the Northern Border.
Our northern ports of entry experience a very high volume
of international trade and travel. Each year, approximately 72
million travelers enter the United States through the border
with Canada for business, tourism, school, and to visit family
and friends. Many of our initiatives to facilitate lawful
international travel at the Northern Border simultaneously
increase security. Likewise, CBP develops effective and
efficient security operations designed to be contributors to
travel facilitation, not barriers.
Security measures vitally protect travel and tourism from
the damaging effects of terrorists and other security
incidents. Identifying and separating low-risk travelers from
those who may require additional scrutiny is a key element in
our efforts to facilitate and secure international travel.
The volume of trade crossing the Northern Border is equally
significant. In 2014, the combined two-way trade and investment
between the United States and Canada totaled $759 billion. The
United States and Canada are each other's largest export
market, with roughly 16 percent of all U.S. exports destined to
Canada.
CBP is committed to a coordinated approach working with our
Federal, private sector, and Canadian partners to facilitate
the secure flow of trade and travel, reduce transaction costs,
and promote economic growth along the Northern Border.
In 2011, the United States and Canada signed the Beyond the
Border Initiative. CBP is the primary lead on 15 of the Beyond
the Border Initiatives and has significant interest and
participates in seven others. I would like to highlight just a
few of our accomplishments to date.
We have completed the first two phases of the entry-exit
pilot, which involves an exchange of entry records of travelers
at ports of entry along the U.S.-Canadian border in such a
manner that land entries into one country will serve as the
exit record from another.
We have launched a cargo pre-inspection pilot to test the
feasibility of conducting primary cargo processing in Canada to
reduce wait times and congestion. Phase I of the pilot was
completed in Blaine, Washington, and Surrey, British Columbia;
Phase II at the Peace Bridge between Buffalo and Fort Erie,
Ontario, also recently concluded.
On March 16, DHS concluded negotiations of a new
preclearance agreement for land, rail, marine, and air modes of
travel. We have also expanded the NEXUS trusted traveler
program to over 1.1 million travelers, an increase of
approximately 80 percent since 2011.
Canada and the United States are striving to provide a
secure and trusted global supply chain that allows for safe,
timely, economically prosperous movement of cargo into and
between the two countries. A key means of achieving this
objective is through the Integrated Cargo Security Strategy,
which seeks to address risks at the earliest opportunity. We
conducted pilots in Prince Rupert and Montreal, testing the
ability to use advance data and adopt common standards for
security screening and inspecting inbound marine cargo at the
first point of arrival in North America.
Canada and the United States continue to align and
harmonize their Tier 1 trusted trader programs--in Canada, the
Partners in Protection (PIP) Program, and in the United States,
the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT)
program. We are expecting to launch a fully automated
harmonization process allowing a joint application for the
cross-border highway carriers in the PIP and C-TPAT programs by
fall of this year, and this will allow companies interested in
joining both programs to submit a single application and to
manage only one partnership account instead of two.
We have also engaged with local entities and authorities to
increase security through public-private partnerships. For
example, CBP and the DHS Domestic Nuclear Detection Office have
partnered with Buffalo and the Fort Erie Public Bridge
Authority to replace 18 radiation portal monitors at the CBP
primary inspection lanes in northern New York. This agreement
was reached in November 2014 and was just recently completed.
The enhancements will increase security and efficiency by
supporting new calibration procedures that will reduce
radiation nuisance alarm rates by over 50 percent.
Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, Members of the
Committee, thank you again for the opportunity to testify
today, and I am happy to answer any of your questions.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Deputy Commissioner.
Our next witness is David Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez began
his career with the U.S. Customs Service in 1970. From 1973 to
1997, Mr. Rodriguez worked at the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA). In 1997, he was selected as the Director
for the Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (NW
HIDTA) program in Seattle, Washington. In 2010, the NW HIDTA--
you get used to acronyms in this business--received national
awards for its interdiction program on the U.S.-Canada border.
Mr. Rodriguez.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID RODRIGUEZ,\1\ DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST HIGH
INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREA, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG
CONTROL POLICY
Mr. Rodriguez. Chairman Johnson, distinguished Members of
the Committee, my name is Dave Rodriguez from Seattle,
Washington. We coordinate and do joint operations with more
than 115 international, Federal, local, and State agencies
throughout the Northwest. We help these agencies to identify
drug threats as well as to implement strategies to address
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez appears in the Appendix
on page 1002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The transnational criminal organizations operating on both
sides of the U.S.-Canada border continue to move proceeds from
illegal drugs sold in the United States and Canada, as well as
drugs, weapons, and bulk cash. These organizations include
Caucasian groups, ethnic East Indians, Asian Organized Crime
groups, and members of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club. Also
of prominence are the Mexican National drug-trafficking
organizations, particularly those headed by Consolidated
Priority Organization Targets, which have gained a strong
foothold in the Pacific Northwest. These include but are not
limited to the Sinaloa cartel, the Knights Templar, and the
Beltran-Leyva organizations.
Washington's topography and location render it susceptible
to drug smuggling and production. The Washington section of the
U.S. border is approximately 430 miles long, with 13 official
ports of entry. A significant portion of the international
border is located in secluded, dense forest. Remote expanses of
public lands are susceptible to many types of drug-related
criminal activities, and particularly to large-scale cannabis
cultivation.
Public lands that are adjacent to the U.S.-Canada border
also serve as routes for drug and currency smuggling. Most of
the area on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border is sparsely
populated and encompassed by densely forested public lands
where crossing the border can be accomplished without
detection.
Other threats to the U.S. Northern Border include illegal
alien entry, human trafficking, money laundering, firearms
trafficking, maritime and air smuggling, and threats relating
to terrorist activities.
The I-5 corridor is the main transportation route into the
Pacific Northwest and into British Columbia, Canada. Multi-
agency investigations show that Drug-Trafficking Organization
(DTOs) continue to exploit remote areas along the Washington
border, often throwing duffel bags or hockey bags containing
drugs directly across the border. In some areas, we just have a
ditch that separates the United States and the Canadian part of
the territories.
DTOs and transnational criminal organizations in the
eastern region of the State take advantage of the remote areas
of the border, the lack of cross-border detection equipment
such as radar, and the lack of critical infrastructure cell
towers to increase the use of these rural routes.
Narcotics are often concealed in legitimate cargo onboard
commercial trucks, cars, concealed truck compartments, and
commercial and private trailers. Helicopters, airplanes, and
boats are used to smuggle drug loads into and out of Canada.
While cocaine and marijuana seizures along the Northern Border
and Idaho declined in 2014 compared to previous years, there
was a demonstrated increase in the quantity and frequency of
methamphetamine loads being smuggled into British Columbia.
MDMA seizures totaled over 48 kilograms in 2014. MDMA, or
Ecstasy, smuggled from British Columbia to Washington State
will continue as Canada is a primary source of MDMA in North
America. The precursors are smuggled from China into Canada
where it is processed. MDMA in tablet form remains a standard;
however, recent investigations in the Northwest indicate that
MDMA is also being smuggled in powdered form.
Cocaine continues to be smuggled north into Canada, but
seizures have been on the decline; 101 kilograms were seized on
the Northern Border in the State of Washington, compared to
over 800 kilograms that were seized in 2008 and 2009. Shipments
are also known to be sent directly to Canada from areas outside
the United States via air and maritime conveyances.
Bulk cash seizures in 2013 totaled $3.1 million, and the
year before that it was less than half a million. In 2014 it
was approximately a million, demonstrating the fluctuation seen
in bulk cash seizures year to year.
Our efforts are guided by the 2012 Northern Border
Counternarcotics Strategy updated in 2014, which articulates
the U.S. framework for the ongoing effort to reduce the threats
on both sides of the border. The strategy addresses joint
efforts in the areas of intelligence collection, information
sharing, interdiction at and between ports of entry, as well as
in the air and maritime domains; investigations and
prosecutions; disrupting and dismantling drug-trafficking
organizations.
Northwest HIDTA participates fully in the Northern Border
programs and will continue to foster cooperation among Federal,
State, local, tribal, and international law enforcement
agencies along the Washington-British Columbia border. We also
believe we share in and participate in an important role in
intelligence sharing and enforcement initiatives, training,
interdiction, and analytical support.
To conclude, I would like to thank you for the opportunity
to be able to testify here today.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.
Our next witness is Richard Hartunian. Mr. Hartunian is the
U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York, which
covers 300 miles of the U.S.-Canada border. Mr. Hartunian sits
on the Attorney General's Advisory Committee where he serves as
the Co-Chair of the Border and Immigration Subcommittee in
which he leads the Northern Border Working Group. Prior to
this, he served as the Assistant U.S. Attorney and as the
Northern District's Narcotics Chief and Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Force Coordinator. Mr. Hartunian.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN,\1\ UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
Mr. Hartunian. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you today about securing our Northern
Border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Hartunian appears in the Appendix
on page 1019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Attorneys for the 16 Federal judicial districts
along the Northern Border know well that border security is a
critical component of our national security and work with
Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies and
our Canadian counterparts to combat the transnational crime
that threatens it.
The four districts with the largest volume of border
crossings and significant border-related criminal activity are
western Washington, eastern Michigan, western New York, and my
district. The Northern District of New York shares a 310-mile
international border with Canada and includes 8 of New York's
11 ports of entry. A huge volume of people and goods pass
through the Northern District from the major population centers
of eastern Canada by road, rail, forest, field, and waterway.
The territory of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, or Akwesasne,
straddles the border, with portions in New York, Ontario, and
Quebec. Smugglers exploit the circumstances at Akwesasne, the
Seaway, and the large rural areas to cross the border
surreptitiously.
All along the line, criminal organizations try to take
advantage of the nature of the border, the volume of traffic,
the bi-national commitment to accelerate the legitimate flow of
trade and travel and jurisdictional divisions.
The prevention of terrorism remains, of course, our No. 1
priority. My family and I have personally felt the impact of
terrorism, having lost my 21-year-old sister, Lynne, in the
skies over Lockerbie in the December 1988 bombing of PanAm 103.
The terrorist threat is current and real, as dramatically
illustrated by the Canadian convictions last month of two men
for conspiracy to murder for the benefit of a terrorist group.
They plotted to derail a passenger train traveling between New
York and Toronto, but were thwarted by a joint investigation
that included undercover work by an FBI agent.
U.S. Attorneys' Offices work closely with the 12 Joint
Terrorism Task Forces operating at and beyond the border and
their Canadian counterparts to spot and stop terrorism,
understanding that our vigorous enforcement of the Federal
criminal code--prosecuting human traffickers, child exploiters,
and those who smuggle drugs, guns, illegal immigrants, and
cash--reduces the threat of another attack.
Our national effort to combat transnational crime includes
initiatives promoting coordination and collaboration, such as
the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams, the Border Enforcement
Security Task Forces, and Shiprider, all led by DHS, and DEA-
led drug task forces. Each of the four busiest districts has a
BEST, and Shiprider is expanding eastward after establishing
regular operations on the maritime borders in Washington and
Michigan.
Drug organizations use boats, helicopters, snowmobiles, and
vehicle compartments to cross the border without detection of
their illicit cargo--Ecstasy or high-potency marijuana moving
south, and cocaine, firearms, and cash moving north. For
example, in northern New York, we recently dismantled a ring
that regularly transported hockey bags filled with 100 to 250
pounds of Canadian marijuana across the Seaway through
Akwesasne for distribution in the Northeast and seized 16
handguns headed for Canada.
Another group we dismantled obtained Ecstasy in Montreal
and regularly delivered 50,000 pills to wholesalers in New York
and Boston, returning with cash and several kilos of cocaine.
In the fight against human trafficking, a joint
investigation by RCMP and HSI into the smuggling of young
Romanian women through the United States to Montreal for
prostitution recently resulted in charges in Canada and the
United States.
We cooperate to combat child exploitation, like the case
where a defendant was charged in Canada when he tried to bring
in child pornography but did not show up for trial. So we took
the case, and the defendant was convicted and sentenced to
imprisonment for 225 months for transporting nearly 4,000
images and over 100 videos of graphic child pornography.
As these cases illustrate, the existing enforcement teams
and task forces have had significant successes, but their
structure, composition, and mandates have left them short of
true integration. The Beyond the Border declaration in 2011
included the commitment ``to build on existing bilateral law
enforcement programs to develop the next generation of
integrated cross-border law enforcement operations.'' With our
Canadian counterparts, we are addressing the issues associated
with integrated enforcement. Meanwhile, the vital work of
advancing border security goes on, and now includes the Border
Operations Leadership Team (BOLT), which brings together
operational leaders from law enforcement and prosecution
agencies with border missions for their insights and action on
measures to enhance our efforts to eradicate cross-border
crime.
We are confident that our bilateral commitment to border
security, our mutual respect for national sovereignty, and our
shared tradition of protecting both public safety and
individual rights will strengthen our efforts to achieve more
integrated cross-border enforcement. We are committed to
continued vigilance, using the full range of investigative
tools and laws available to us. With BOLT's operational charge,
the Northern Border U.S. Attorneys and Federal law enforcement
agencies are poised to capitalize on the historic opportunity
to forge bonds with our Canadian counterparts that increase our
effectiveness.
Thank you for the opportunity to describe for you the
challenges we are facing on the Northern Border. I look forward
to answering your questions. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Hartunian. I thank all the
witnesses for your testimony.
Certainly one of the purposes of this hearing is to try and
give some sense for where our main problems occur. We have
limited resources, but we have the Southern Border, we have the
Maritime Borders, we have the Northern Border. So I would like
to go to you, Chief Fisher, and first just talk about in
general the basic extent of the problems. The stats I have are
that on the southwest border we had 480,000 apprehensions of
people crossing into this country illegally; on the Northern
Border, a little over 3,000. Obviously even though we have a
much larger border, the bigger problem in terms of illegal
immigration is coming through the Southern Border.
In testimony, we have had contradictory testimony on this.
That apprehension rate, according to the Customs and Border
Protection, is about 75 percent, is what we believe we are
apprehending. We have had some BP agents say it is somewhere
between 30 and 40. Again, I realize it is very difficult to get
that number.
Do we have some sense of what the apprehension rate is on
the Northern Border?
Mr. Fisher. Mr. Chairman, the effectiveness rate is
primarily used on the Southern Border because at that point
along the Southern Border, years ago we have defined the
threat, among other things, as flow, flows of people. On the
Northern Border, that is not necessarily the case. The threat
is defined in different ways. So using an effectiveness rate
like we do on the Southern Border to the Northern Border really
does not make a lot of sense to us.
What we do do when we take a look at our strategy and
looking to where should we deploy our finite resources, we
looked a few years ago, and if you take a look at approximately
90 percent of the Canadian population lives within 100 air
miles of the border, and then you take that 4,000 miles and
look where the density of population areas are where
transnational criminal organizations and potential people
seeking entry between the ports of entry need to operate, it is
very concentrated in some of those areas. Our resourcing
deployments and redeployments try to match those areas, and it
is driven primarily by intelligence.
Chairman Johnson. OK, but, again, is your sense that we
really do apprehend a higher percentage on the Northern Border
versus the Southern Border or less? Again, I would ask anybody
else who would want to chime in on that one.
Mr. Fisher. We do not measure that in terms of the
effectiveness rate, sir. My sense would be it is at or higher
than the Southern Border, primarily because the flow rate is so
low.
Chairman Johnson. What about in terms of drug trafficking?
Do we have any statistics in terms of the total number of tons
coming from the Southern Border versus the drugs being
trafficked through the Northern Border? Is it 10 percent? Is it
5 percent?
Mr. Fisher. I do not have the percentage off the top of my
head, Mr. Chairman, but I will tell you it is considerably less
in terms of the smuggling that occurs between the ports of
entry on the Northern Border than what we see on the Southern
Border.
Chairman Johnson. Again, we have had testimony from General
McCaffrey, for example, on the Southern Border, estimates
somewhere between 5 to 10 percent of all drugs are interdicted,
which means, 90 to 95 percent are getting through. Would we
have a similar type of interdiction rate on the Northern
Border? Anybody want to answer that that might have some sense
of that? Or do we simply not know?
Mr. Fisher. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with the
General's methodology on that. Generally when we look at
seizure rates along the Northern Border versus the Southern
Border, we do not measure that in terms of the comparison to
differentiate threat.
Chairman Johnson. In terms of the drugs that are flowing
through, we have had, again, contradictory testimony on the
Southern Border. We have had one witness saying that the
majority of those drugs flow through the actual ports of entry.
Other witnesses say, no, they go around the ports of entry. Do
we have any sense on the Northern Border where the primary drug
trafficking is occurring? Are they smuggled literally through
the ports of entry with lack of detection? Or are they coming
through the vast, unmonitored parts of the border? Anybody want
to answer that one? Mr. Spero.
Mr. Spero. Yes, Senator. One of the things that I would say
about the flow of drugs on the Northern Border is it is
certainly bi-directional. So certain drugs are coming in from
Canada, certain types of drugs are still coming in from Canada,
and other drugs are being exported from the United States and
going from the United States into Canada.
As far as the difference between whether or not we are
making investigations at drugs being interdicted either at the
port of entry or between the ports, we are seeing both, just in
some cases different drugs.
The case that I spoke about during my oral statement was a
case where the tractor-trailer that was being used by the drug-
smuggling organization to get cocaine from the Ontario-
California part--or where the drugs were being stored at the
warehouse was actually being transported across the United
States and through the port of Buffalo and was supposed to be
delivered to Canada. That particular method was in a trap or a
concealed compartment. It was actually under the floor boards
of the tractor-trailer. Had that particular delivery been
successful, that would have been a case of drug smuggling going
into Canada through the ports of entry.
But, likewise, we still see smuggling--I believe it was Mr.
Hartunian and Mr. Rodriguez who were talking about the hockey
bags coming across in between the ports, whether those are
hockey bags with marijuana or some other kind of drug. We get
referrals from both the Border Patrol who make those
interdictions between the ports as well as we do from the
Office of Field Operations who are making those interdictions
at the ports. So we are seeing a mix from Homeland Security
Investigations, sir.
Chairman Johnson. One huge difference between the borders,
south versus north, is the cooperation of the bordering
country. We obviously have far greater cooperation between the
United States and Canada than we have with the United States
and Mexico, which makes our job a whole lot easier. On March
16, 2015, we entered into or signed an agreement on land, rail,
marine, and air transport preclearance, which is going to
require legislation on both sides of the border here. But,
Chief Fisher, can you just speak to the difference between the
cooperation we have with the Mexican Government versus the
cooperation we have with the Canadian Government and what an
enormous difference that makes?
Mr. Fisher. Well, information for us is the key to be able
to reduce any vulnerabilities, regardless of what border we are
talking about. And in particular with Canada, what we have
found over the years is the information sharing is really good.
It gets better. I had the opportunity to have three Border
Patrol agents that are embedded with the RCMP in Canada, with a
fourth to come along shortly this year. And having a Border
Patrol agent in Canada working with the RCMP only bolsters our
ability to understand the evolving threats and helps us secure
the border on both sides.
Chairman Johnson. So that type of model that we have with
Canada, if we could implement something similar in Mexico, it
would make a tremendous difference?
Mr. Fisher. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it would.
Chairman Johnson. OK. Thank you, Chief Fisher. Senator
Carper.
Senator Carper. I think the question the Chairman raised is
a really important one. A really important one. And to the
extent that we can grow, strengthen our relationship with
Mexico, improve our confidence in the information that they can
provide them and that they can provide us, it will only help. I
think maybe one of the best force multipliers on the Canadian
border is our relationship with Canada.
I want to just dwell on force multipliers for a while. At
least one of you, maybe a couple of you, in talking about force
multipliers, mentioned the assets that we are able to deploy
between the ports of entry. We have drones on the border of
Mexico; we have drones, a couple at least, up on our border
with Canada. We have fixed-wing aircraft down along our border
with Mexico; we have fixed-wing aircraft up along our border
with Canada.
We had an Inspector General's report come out a couple of
months ago, and it raised some real serious questions about the
efficiency, the effectiveness of the drones that we are using
on our Southern Border. They already have problems. We know if
the wind above a certain velocity, they cannot fly, they cannot
operate. And in certain kinds of weather, they cannot operate.
They have not always had the Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation
Radar (VADER) systems on board which make them far more
effective in terms of a sensory platform.
We saw some aircraft used along the Mexican border, fixed-
wing aircraft, that we just sent them out with binoculars as
opposed to having something like a VADER system on board.
Let us talk just a bit about how effective some of those
force multipliers are, not so much along the Southern Border,
but let us talk about how effective they are on the Northern
Border. And what can we do to make sure that they are even more
effective? I do not know that we need to add a whole lot of
people. We have added a lot of people on the Northern Border.
We certainly added a lot of people on the Southern Border. What
we need to do is be able to deploy them more effectively.
Mr. Fisher. Senator, you raise a really interesting point
and very important point in terms of our strategy along the
Northern Border. You are right, a lot of times people look at
the Northern Border deployments with an eye toward the south
and say, ``How come you are not deploying that way?''
I will tell you, in terms of technology, whether it is
handheld sensing equipment, unattended ground sensors, remote
video surveillance systems, the type of technology that we
deploy along the Southern Border is the same along the Northern
Border. Our enforcement posture in response to some of those
tips and cues may be different; however, our ability to
increase that situational awareness is the same in terms of our
strategy of the implementation.
What is, at least for us, very exciting on the Northern
Border, because of the vast terrain, because of the remoteness
of some of these locations and our inability to access the
immediate border, whether it is because of lack of
infrastructure or roads, or because of the impediments which
the terrain provides, we have and will start this year the
collection effort that we are doing along the Southern Border,
which, in fact, we started back in March 2013, and utilizing
the unmanned aerial systems, utilizing additional VADER
technology and synthetic aperture radar. We have targeted over
this past year about 80 percent of the Northern Border from the
field chiefs identifying those very remote locations for us to
start doing collection against those areas to be able to do a
before and after picture.
And so think of it in terms of a 30-mile stretch along the
Northern Border, and the unmanned aerial system will go out and
deploy, and it will take a series of videos along those remote
areas. Twenty-four hours later, that unmanned aerial system,
along with the same technology, will do the same flight.
Now, those before and after videos will then be sent into a
computer at what we call a processing exploitation and
dissemination cell, and there, very smart and very talented
analysts will take a look and see if there has been any change,
incursions, if you will, across that border from the first
picture to the next picture.
That gives us a sense on whether or not, one, we have
incursions; two, whether those areas are emerging threats; or,
equally important, what we find along the Southern Border,
areas where there is no activity for a variety of reasons,
which is equally important, where not to deploy technology and
Border Patrol agents so that we can focus on those areas that
we know, based on intelligence, based on experience, where
those crossings are more likely to occur.
Senator Carper. OK. I was talking earlier in my opening
statement, I mentioned that we have a 4,000-mile border with
Canada, plus another 1,500 miles with Alaska and Canada--5,500
miles. Any idea how many drones we have up there?
Mr. Fisher. We currently have approximately nine unmanned
aerial systems within the CBP inventory. There are currently
two that are assigned to North Dakota. That does not
necessarily mean we can only fly to there. We do what is called
``federated flights,'' so we can move those unmanned aerial
systems from the Northern Border to the Southern Border based
on identified threats. And because of the capability to run
federated queries, we also have through the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) the Certificates of Authorization to be
able to move across from the Northern to the Southern border
based on threats.
Senator Carper. So at any given day we might have two or
three or four drones along our border with Canada? Does that
sound about right?
Mr. Fisher. Primarily it would be two. In the event we
needed to plus that up for a variety of reasons, we would be
able to augment that.
Senator Carper. And how often do we have them up in the
air?
Mr. Fisher. That I do not know, sir. Again, as you
indicated, weather permitting, just like any other manned
system, whether it is a helicopter or fixed-wing, the weather
is going to be a limiting factor and the readiness rate on when
those can fly.
Senator Carper. OK. I am going to ask you to answer that
for the record, if you would, please.
Mr. Fisher. I will do that. Yes, Senator.
Senator Carper. Let me ask each of you, starting with you,
Mr. Hartunian, giving us good advice. What should we be doing
more of in our roles that would be helpful to you in the work
that you do? And I must say I am very impressed by the work
that you are all doing. But just give us some--for the
legislative body here, we are going to be taking up
appropriations very soon.
Mr. Hartunian. Yes.
Senator Carper. Anything that you would especially bring to
our attention that could be helpful.
Mr. Hartunian. Well, Senator, thank you for that question,
which is important. The first thing I think you are doing,
which is to call attention to the Northern Border, and we are
grateful for the Committee's attention on this issue. There are
a lot of challenges we face up there, but as you could tell, I
think we are doing some good work. We have great geographic
challenges, a lot of big space. But, as I think about some of
the things that could be helpful to us in our work with the
Canadians, we have had great challenges that have come about in
recent years as a result of the explosion of requests for
information, formerly the MLAT requests. And we are seeing more
and more of those. Information in investigations is frequently
needed from computer systems and e-mails, and while we are
taking great steps to improve our informal information-sharing
efforts and protocols, we are still seeing an explosion in MLAT
requests. And so support for perhaps our Office of
International Affairs in that effort, Congress working with us.
Senator Carper. Thank you. My time has expired.
Let me just ask the other witnesses to respond to the same
question, if you will, for the record.
Chairman Johnson. Yes, for the record.
Senator Carper. For the record, please.
Chairman Johnson. We have other Senators.
Senator Carper. And thank you for that response.
Chairman Johnson. Thanks, Senator Carper. Senator Booker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOOKER
Senator Booker. Thank you, Chairman, and I want to thank
the Chairman and the Ranking Member for working with my team in
hosting this very important hearing. I am grateful for it.
I want to thank the panel for your extraordinary service to
our country. Your dedication and your leadership is essential
to our safety and security as a Nation.
It is clear, as was stated already by the Chairman and
Ranking Member, that the scale differences in the challenges
and threats between the Northern and Southern Border, it is
just not the same scale on the Northern Border, and we
understand that. This Committee has held numerous hearings that
have tended to focus on the Southern Border, and I am happy
that we are having one here because there are still, as you all
have enumerated in your various written testimonies, there is
still tremendous threats along our Northern Border. And the
fact that it is so porous--and I asked for that picture to be
put up there, this vast, over-5,000-mile border, with
incredibly diverse terrain, has areas that are tremendously
porous, as this picture right here demonstrates how easy it is
to cross undetected, really illustrates the need for--the
urgency for the threat.
Now, I for one obviously am not calling for any fence, but
also what I am really looking for is a proportionate focus on
our Northern Border threats. And, Mr. Hartunian, you
illustrated a lot of the terrorist nature of these threats,
whether it is the recent train incident--we can go back to
numerous ones, In 1997, Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer was convicted of
conspiring to detonate a bomb in the New York City subway
station. In 1999, the Millennial Bomber, Ahmed Ressam, was
stopped at Port Angeles, Washington, with components to be used
to produce a bomb.
The list, as you all know as well as I do, of terrorist
threats and incursions from the Northern Border are real, are
substantive, and should be taken seriously. And so we have
tremendous cooperation, and I have been grateful for our
northern Canadian borders. Our governments really work well
together. But I am also concerned that that cooperation is not
going as far as it could be. For example, Canada does not share
its no-fly list information with us, which to me raises some
concerns for people that they have put on their no-fly list.
So I want to maybe ask that question specifically about the
no-fly list. What efforts are we taking to obtain that
information from Canada and to ensure the safety and protection
of Americans from terrorists who may try to enter our country
across that Northern Border? And that can be answered by
anyone.
Mr. Hartunian. Well, Senator, I cannot speak to that issue
directly, but I can tell you, your point is well taken, and
that is, public safety and the threat of terrorism, that is our
No. 1 priority. We ought to be mindful of that. We are very
concerned about it every day. And to address it, I think we
have been working closely with the Canadians.
One of the things that we have been doing is to integrate
more closely with the Canadian prosecution teams, and we have
been talking to them more frequently, meeting with them and
sharing information, not just between the agencies, with the
agents and with the prosecutors. So it is a very important
point that you make.
Senator Booker. But would not that list, just knowing who
they have put on a list to stop them from flying, it seems like
something that would be common sense to share with us, the
people that they might have concerns about.
Mr. Hartunian. Senator, I am not really familiar with their
position on that, but I will tell you that in the realm of
criminal cases and criminal work, we have had good luck with
interaction and sharing.
Senator Booker. Mr. Fisher, do you know about that issue,
about the sharing of that information?
Mr. Fisher. With respect, Senator, I believe John Wagner is
prepared to answer that question.
Senator Booker. Thank you, Mr. Wagner.
Mr. Wagner. Thank you, Senator. The FBI owns the watchlist
for the U.S. Government, and as users of that watchlist or any
other information they could glean from another country, we
certainly as the operator would welcome that information. We do
have fairly robust sharing procedures with our counterparts in
Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). We have
officers embedded in each of our different targeting centers
where we go through airline reservation data and airline
manifests to identify national security threats. And we have
protocols to exchange information in cases when we see that.
Now, most of the watchlisted individuals we see traveling
are through commercial aviation still. The preponderance of
watchlisted individuals is still coming via commercial
aviation, and we have seen the incidents over the past number
of years, focused primarily on commercial aviation, between the
Underwear Bomber, the Shoe Bomber, et cetera. We do see a
couple hundred a year, though, cross through the Northern
Border as well.
Senator Booker. Are the Canadians forthcoming with their
watchlist or are we not getting that information? Because,
again, not only do we have a Northern Border issue--and, again,
proportionality between the Southern Border--but 40 percent of
our so-called undocumented immigrants are coming from
airplanes, airports, overstays on visas in general. So I would
think that that would be important information to share.
Mr. Wagner. Yes, so we set protocols to exchange when each
of us identify a threat through our commercial aviation
targeting. We have the protocols established to exchange that
information and request additional information from each other
to do that, and that is where we have our liaisons situated and
physically present at each of our different targeting centers
to be able to facilitate that exchange of that information.
We also do a lot of what we call rules sharing or joint
rule creation where, as we sift through the reservation data in
the airline information, we create rules on what we are looking
for, what we would consider to be activity we would want to
look closer at, and we sit down with the Canadian Government
and actually come up with joint rules between the two of us so
we can really go through a North American approach on how we do
that.
Senator Booker. Great. Just because I have limited time, I
am going to submit questions I have for the CBP regarding
racial profiling specifically, excessive force issues, which
looks like I will not have time to ask here, but I would like
to submit them and get those responses.
But the last question I really want to ask is just again
the resources we are applying to the challenges, and you all,
again, are exhibiting extraordinary leadership and commitment
and our Canadian partners, extraordinary partnership, the
Canadians should be praised. But I just really am concerned
about the personnel challenges, including only 2,093 border
agents stationed on the Northern Border compared to the 18,000,
again, understandably, on the southwest border with the size of
that challenge. But that really means that only about 2,000
border agents are responsible for roughly 300,000 people that
cross the U.S.-Canadian border each day.
Do you all share my concern that we need more resources
targeting the security of the Northern Border given the
vastness of the terrain and the large amounts of people that
are coming through? Just in general, are we resource-short on
our Northern Border?
Mr. Wagner. Yes, and we have articulated those needs in the
administration's 2015 and 2016 budget requests through a
workload staffing model that measures the activity, at least at
the ports of entry, and the workload and the volume and
attributes a staffing number to be able to accomplish that. So
we are happy to follow up afterwards on how that methodology
works and what those numbers are.
Senator Booker. Thank you.
Mr. Spero. And if I may, Senator, one of the things that
Homeland Security Investigations is looking at is that when
there are plus-ups along either the Southwest Border or the
Northern Border from either our sister agencies and our
counterparts in Office of Field Operations at the port or
between the ports under Chief Fisher, a plus-up in CBP, Border
Patrol, or inspectors is logically going to result in more
interdictions, which could also result in more referrals for
the need for investigators and more investigative work. So we
would ask that the Committee--and it would not just affect us
because as we undertake more, invest in border-related or
transnational criminal organization-related investigations,
then that would affect Mr. Hartunian and the Department of
Justice (DOJ) prosecutorial resources as well.
So we would ask the Committee to look at it as integrated
agencies, how each one affects the other.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Booker. Senator Sasse.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SASSE
Senator Sasse. Thank you, Chairman Johnson and Senator
Carper, for hosting this hearing. Thank you to all of you for
making time for us.
Chief Fisher, I would like to talk about the term
``operational control.'' In 2011, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) found that CBP had operational control of 32 miles
of the Canadian border. We have since abandoned that
definition. I wonder if you can explain what ``operational
control'' meant then, why we abandoned it, and if we had the
same metric today, would we be at 32 miles or would we be in a
lot healthier place?
Mr. Fisher. Thank you, Senator. That is an excellent
question.
First of all, ``operational control'' was defined back in
2004 in our previous strategy as the extent to which we were
able to identify, develop, track, and bring to a law
enforcement resolution all entries along the border. The
fundamental premise within the 2004 strategy was predicated on
deterrence. So you wanted to prevent the entry in the first
instance all across the board.
And so we started getting additional technology like border
mile fence, which, by the way, we measured in a linear fashion,
and we started deploying Border Patrol agents in the same
manner and technology in the same manner.
Operational control as a default equaled the amount of
technology deployments that we were doing. In other words, if
you had 5 more miles of fence and cameras, it was acceptable
based on our internal definitions of the levels of control to
be able to count that as operational control. The difficulty
came in two different areas. First and foremost is we were
actually measuring the inputs. We were not necessarily
measuring the outcomes as a result of those deployments. And,
second, at some point in time, which it did, those resourcing
capabilities ran out, and so we could not as an organization
then come back to this Committee or others and say, ``Well, we
cannot gain any more operational control based on our
definitions unless you give us more stuff.''
And so we abandoned it because it did not measure what we
needed it to measure, and we switched to a risk-based approach
to then take a look at measuring the probability of individuals
coming across the border versus just the mere possibility,
which the previous strategy was predicated to be able to secure
the border in that fashion.
Senator Sasse. If we had a lot more than 6 minutes, I would
want to unpack whether or not the last point you made, which I
completely concur with, that we want a risk-based approach,
whether or not that is really reconcilable with it sounds like
you are saying we have a kind of baseline budgeting approach
around here--many of us are new, and so Gary Peters can ask
``new guy'' questions--whether or not really you think that the
threats are driving your budget requests or whether or not year
over year what would the Congress tolerate is what drives the
request. And I think that Senator Booker asked a lot of great
questions about the relative threats between Northern and
Southern Border, and I wonder if that is a place to pivot to
the radiological concerns.
In 2009, Secretary Napolitano testified that DHS had
deployed radiation detection equipment across all northern
ports of entry. Yet 2 years later, in 2011, the same GAO report
found that it would not be difficult at all to get nuclear
material across the northern ports. I wonder if DHS is still
using the same equipment. I wonder if that technology should be
called a failure from that point because of the experience of
2009 to 2011, and if better technology exists today, is that
something you are requesting of us?
Mr. Fisher. Senator, again, I would defer the answer to
that question to John Wagner, who is responsible for the port
of entry operations.
Mr. Wagner. Thank you. Yes, that equipment is still in
place, and we are working with the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office as part of DHS to look at the recapitalization of that
and what is the right equipment to purchase and design and
build and deploy to be able to do that. We are looking at the
calibration settings of the equipment, reducing what we call
the ``nuisance alarms,'' to really better focus on what the
threats are and what our operational protocols in response to
them are.
Senator Sasse. And so what would you say to the GAO 2011
report that it would be easy--or ``not difficult'' I think was
their term, to get nuclear material across the Northern Border?
And is that the case today as well?
Mr. Wagner. I do not necessarily agree with that.
Senator Sasse. What would give you comfort----
Mr. Wagner. The equipment functions as it was designed to
do. It looks at detecting what it was designed to do. I am not
familiar offhand with the report or how they drew that
conclusion; to say it would be easy to do, whether it would be
open or concealed or how it would be detected, I would really
have to go back and look at that.
Senator Sasse. OK. I think we will follow up with a formal
question on that as well.
When you think about the sources of Canadian threat, one
way to think about the problem is what can we deter at the
border. Another is: Is the nature of potential terrorist
threats originating in Canada changing? So you could have
illegal immigration into Canada, you could have legal
immigration into Canada, and you could have homegrown terrorist
threats inside Canada. After the Ottawa attacks, the Canadian
Government said that they thought homegrown terrorism in Canada
was a real and potentially prevalent problem.
How do we respond strategically after the Ottawa threats
and potential threats in the future if there were another
instance of domestic terrorism inside Canada? Strategically
inside DHS, where would that threat be assessed and how would
it change our behavior?
Mr. Fisher. Well, Senator, in my experience as the
Department has matured since 2003, what we have heard so far
this morning in terms of integrated planning and execution,
sharing of intelligence and information, the more as time goes
on, the more dependent all of us are fighting the same fight on
each other to be able to do this. No component within the
Department of Homeland Security owns the corner market on
protecting America. We are so dependent, and each and every day
it becomes clear when John and I sit up and we get our
intelligence briefing every morning about the evolving threat.
And that is a really key thing as a takeaway.
This threat changes all the time, and we have to be able to
be as responsive and perhaps more predictive as we start seeing
those changes, which is the reason why a couple of years ago
CBP transitioned into integrated counternetwork operations as a
strategic philosophy, which basically means we are not just
going to put Border Patrol agents every 25 meters and fence in
front of them and then cameras behind them and, again, try to
deter somebody from coming across. Pragmatically, again, in my
28 years' experience, that does not work for a couple of
reasons.
One, as a strategic objective, if you have deterrence as a
goal, one, you are always going to fail because somebody will
always come through. And, No. 2, it is very difficult to
measure. So if you are trying to figure out if you are
deterring more people this year than last year, it gets very
difficult to really understand. At least I get mired up in all
the statistics to try to understand whether, in fact, we are
winning.
And so when we look at the intent and capability which
defines the threat of those adversaries, be they transnational
criminal organizations or terrorism or, as the 2011 strategy to
combat transnational organized crime introduced, the
convergence of TCOs and terrorism, those are the things that
our organization within the Department of Homeland Security are
trying to get better each and every day.
Senator Sasse. Thank you. We are at my time, but I will
follow up with some more strategic questions by letter. Thanks.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Sasse. Senator Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
hosting this hearing, which is so important for the Northern
Border, along with Ranking Member Carper. I think from Michigan
we are at the center of an awful lot of trade between Canada
and transactions across our borders. In fact, if you look at
the volume of trade that goes across ports of entry, of the top
five in the country, Detroit is No. 2, and Port Huron is No. 4.
So we are definitely the tip of the spear, so to speak, when it
comes to border control. So it is a very important issue for my
State as well as for the economy, and that is why I certainly
want to thank Senator Johnson for his cosponsorship of the
amendment that I put forward in the recent budget bill to make
sure that we are fully funding our ports of entry to make sure
that they have the security that they need and the ability to
process trade and travel efficiently. And that is why I am
going to make a brief pitch to make sure that we continue to
get funding for the international border crossing, particularly
with our new bridge that we are constructing between Detroit
and Windsor, and Port Huron. Port Huron does a great deal of
traffic. They have been promised improvements in that Customs
Plaza which have not occurred, and we need to have those. And
it is vitally important to our economy.
And I want to thank all of the panelists here. This is an
interesting hearing, and you have an extremely difficult job in
the fact that you really have dual purposes, particularly when
I look at my border crossings in Michigan. We are asking you to
keep us safe, and we are also asking you not to delay us while
we cross the border so that we can move trucks for just-in-time
delivery for our manufacturing facilities which rely on that.
We have substantial agricultural interests, crops on those
trucks that cannot rot. They have to go across very
expeditiously in order to get to the markets. And so that is a
conflicting role, one that you do well, but we are asking you
to do even more when it comes to moving traffic more
efficiently.
So I want to ask Mr. Fisher and Mr. Wagner, you have
mentioned in your testimony a number of things that are
happening to expedite some of the movement of goods in trade.
What is working and what is it that you need for you to do your
job of protecting us while also making sure we can make sure
trade is moving efficiently?
Mr. Wagner. Thank you, and it is a couple of programs that
we have that we really need to push and further get
participation in. In the trade environment, it is our trusted
trader programs; it is linking it to the Canadian programs; it
is getting more companies and more businesses and more trucking
companies enrolled in them. But it is also building the
infrastructure then to support the crossings and allowing us to
deliver on the promise that we can expedite those low risks or
secure supply chains, and it just cannot be over, say, the
bridge structure or through the border crossing. You have to
have the resulting highways to feed into that, to support that.
And it is, getting a higher percentage of transactions into
those programs.
On the traveler environment, it is the NEXUS program. It is
getting more travelers into those NEXUS lanes, getting
preapproved so you can go back and forth much easier. It is
less time we spend on these ``enrolled populations,'' as we
call them. It allows us to better focus on everyone else. So
getting those percentages up, but also having the
infrastructure to support, and allowing us to then deliver on
the promise that we make them of this facilitated or expedite
crossing to do that.
And then it is working closely with the Canadian
Government, looking at ways to increase the use of facilitative
technology, most notably like the Radio-Frequency
Identification (RFID)-enabled traveler documents, looking at
can we get a higher saturation of those types of documents,
because those save us time at the border. They save us
resources because we do not have to physically handle the card
and read it through the reader. It reads automatically. We have
seen great strides on the U.S.-Mexico border by getting a
higher saturation of RFID-enabled lanes. It allows us to then
do the watchlist queries automatically as the car pulls up. And
then building the infrastructure and segregating the traffic
according to risk and/or facilitative technology, you know,
just like the toll booths do with E-ZPass, Exact Change, and
everyone else. NEXUS is the E-ZPass lane or the SENTRI is the
E-ZPass lane. The Exact Change is something we call the ``Ready
Lane,'' and that is somebody with an RFID document, but not
necessarily vetted and preapproved like the trusted traveler
program of NEXUS or SENTRI.
And then everybody else goes over to the side, and there
might be a longer wait there because, we know less about them
or they have--a travel document does not allow us to facilitate
their crossing. So it is really just pushing that and getting
more people enrolled, and then the infrastructure to support
it.
Senator Peters. Well, we continue to have delays both in
Port Huron and Detroit, and I know you are making great strides
to expedite that. And it costs money. It costs a lot of money
with the delays based on how the system works now.
Are there additional resources that you need, or is it just
a matter of time to implement these systems?
Mr. Wagner. No, it is additional resources also. Like I
mentioned earlier, we have a workload staffing model that takes
all of the activity an officer does at a port of entry, takes
the average time it takes to do it, takes how many times a day
it is typically done, and comes up with the amount of hours to
run a port of entry, and divide that by the available work
hours of an officer, and we come up with the staffing number of
what we need to run based on the workload for that port of
entry.
Now, we can mitigate that need for new staff by some of our
business transformation improvements that we make. One of our
current efforts is the trucks pull up and are still paying
cash, a couple of dollars in change, to pay the user fees to
cross the border rather than buying the decal. So we are
looking at ways could they pay that in advance online so we are
not collecting cash in that primary booth and making change to
deliver back to them, and the resulting savings and the
workload savings and the time saving, that translates in to
staff at some point.
Then the facilities piece, we recognize the facilities are
extremely expensive just between the facility itself, the
staffing and the equipment needed, and then the highways to
connect it. So a lot of coordination needed, we would like to
see a lot of regional planning to look at crossings as a system
of crossings rather than individual bridges or tunnels or
crossings that sometimes compete with each other for traffic
and for toll revenue. We would really like to see regional
planning efforts that take them as a system of crossings,
working with our Canadian counterparts to move that traffic
north and south on both borders.
Senator Peters. Great. I am running out of time, Mr.
Chairman, but I do have questions also related to racial
profiling and the Justice Department's exemptions of the CBP
for racial profiling and with some of the Border Patrol's
activities in Michigan as well that a number of my constituents
have raised. I will do that in writing, and I look forward to
your response to some very serious concerns that have been
raised to me, and I would like to hear your response.
Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Peters. Senator
McCain.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN
Senator McCain. I thank the witnesses for being here.
Chief Fisher, last month, Congressman Salmon and I
introduced legislation that would provide Border Patrol with
access to Federal lands to conduct routine patrols and install
needed surveillance equipment to detect illegal entries across
the border. GAO testified that Border Patrol's access to some
Federal lands has been limited because of certain land
management laws. For example, the Organ Pipe National Monument,
they did not approve--the land manager did not approve of the
Border Patrol's request or plan to install detection equipment,
in this case a tower. But we see this time after time where the
land manager is making the final decision on the installation
of this equipment as opposed to the Border Patrol.
Can you explain to me why that should be--one, if it is
true and, two, why that should be?
Mr. Fisher. Well, Senator, I do not know for a fact that is
true. I am not going to dispute your report and what GAO may
have found. I can imagine in some locations along all of public
land there are decisions that are made within the Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife, that perhaps are antithetical
to the policies and/or the approach that we would take in terms
of the border.
Senator McCain. Well, then it seems to me there should be a
clear definition of who the final decisionmaker would be, which
it seems to me should be your organization, not the land
manager.
During a hearing, Chief Fisher, a month ago, General Kelly,
who is the Commander of the U.S. Southern Command, issued a
warning about the threat that budget sequestration poses to
security along our Southern Border. General Kelly warned that
the potential threat of terrorists crossing our Southern Border
``is extremely serious'' and called the budget cuts under
sequestration ``a catastrophe which could effectively put me
out of business.''
Mr. Wagner and Chief Fisher, do you agree with General
Kelly's assessment of the effect of sequestration on your
ability to control our borders?
Mr. Fisher. Senator, I would agree with the general's
assessment in terms of how the assessed threat is really
serious in terms of identifying risk along our border. I think
that is accurate.
Senator McCain. How about being able to carry out your
duties?
Mr. Fisher. There are challenges----
Senator McCain. Under sequestration.
Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir. There are challenges each and every
budget cycle with or without sequestration. We have finite
resources----
Senator McCain. So it does not matter to you?
Mr. Fisher. No, sir. It does matter to me.
Senator McCain. Then tell me, for the record tell us
whether it matters or not.
Mr. Fisher. Senator, it does matter, yes. Thank you.
Senator McCain. And how serious is the impact?
Mr. Fisher. At times it can be very serious.
Senator McCain. Thank you. Mr. Wagner.
Mr. Wagner. I concur with the Chief. It is something we
manage through. It is an additional challenge that can be
distracting from the mission. It can have detrimental----
Senator McCain. Or you can just manage through it, right?
Mr. Wagner. We manage through--well, we have to. We have no
other choice.
Senator McCain. Well, again, am I not making myself clear?
I want to know the effect of sequestration on your ability to
do your job.
Mr. Wagner. It makes it more difficult.
Senator McCain. How much more difficult?
Mr. Wagner. The entire process, getting a budget 6 months
into a fiscal year, makes it more difficult; looking at cuts
arbitrarily across the board makes it more difficult.
Senator McCain. How about your ability to secure our
borders?
Mr. Wagner. We do the best we have with the process that we
go through.
Senator McCain. I am asking how it affects your ability to
enforce our borders. What is the matter with you today? This is
a pretty straightforward question. I want to know what
sequestration--how it affects your ability to enforce our
borders.
Mr. Wagner. I said it makes it more difficult and more
challenging. I do not have a number that I can put up.
Senator McCain. OK. Chief Fisher, General Kelly also said,
and I quote, ``Terrorist organizations could seek to leverage
those same smuggling routes to move operatives with intent to
cause grave harm to our citizens or even bring weapons of mass
destruction into the United States.'' That is General Kelly,
the Commander of Southern Command's testimony last month before
the Armed Services Committee. Do you share that view?
Mr. Fisher. Yes, Senator, I do.
Senator McCain. Would you elaborate?
Mr. Fisher. Yes, Senator. I had mentioned earlier in terms
of the 2011 strategy to combat transnational criminal
organizations, and in particular the convergence, wherein that
strategy looked at the possibility of organized crime and
terrorism basically coming together to be able to exploit
vulnerabilities along our border, and other areas as well. And
we see that as an emerging threat. Our shift to taking a look
at risk and risk mitigation as opposed to just putting Border
Patrol agents and fence everywhere, was the reason for that as
well.
Senator McCain. Are you seeing apprehending people coming
across particularly our Southern Border but also our Northern
Border that are not from the traditional countries that we
usually see immigrants? I am talking about Mexico, Central
America. Are you seeing people coming from many other parts of
the world that you are apprehending?
Mr. Fisher. Yes, Senator. On average, over the past 3 years
along the Southern Border in particular, just because of the
volume, we see individuals that are represented from over 140
different countries.
Senator McCain. 140 different countries?
Mr. Fisher. Yes, Senator.
Senator McCain. And could you give us some examples the
kind that would surprise the average citizen?
Mr. Fisher. Although the vast majority is still with the
contiguous countries of Mexico, obviously on the Southern
Border, Central and South America, I think we saw some of that
increased activity predominantly from countries like Guatemala,
El Salvador, and Honduras in particular.
Senator McCain. Chinese?
Mr. Fisher. I beg your pardon?
Senator McCain. Have you seen Chinese come across the
border?
Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa?
Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir. North Africa. Like I said, I have the
list of 144. I do not have them with me right now, sir.
Senator McCain. Would you please submit that to the record
and the numbers of those from these--part of this obviously is
international human-smuggling operations, but also it could be
disturbing to all of us to see how far away many of these
illegal immigrants are coming across the border, obviously.
Does that concern you as well?
Mr. Fisher. It does, Senator. I would be happy to provide
that list to you.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, are you expecting another large
number of children showing up on our border, on our Southern
Border, in the next couple of months?
Mr. Fisher. Senator, I am confident at this point that,
based on where we are, halfway through this year, that we will
not see the level of unaccompanied children and levels of
family units that we saw last year.
Senator McCain. But you will see a significant number?
Mr. Fisher. Again, if you are defining ``significant'' as--
if you compare that to 2010 and 2011, it will be up above those
levels. But it is going to be down over the preceding 2 years.
Senator McCain. I thank the witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator McCain. Senator Ernst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I
appreciate you being here today, and thanks for your service in
protecting our great country.
Today we have heard a lot of testimony about shared efforts
between Canada and the United States, and I do believe that
they are a strong partner for us. I know Senator Booker had
mentioned sharing the no-fly list information. That would be
very important. But are there any other specific initiatives
that we need to look at as far as joint activities with Canada,
anything that in your mind--and maybe, Chief Fisher, if you
could address this, or Mr. Wagner, but specific initiatives
that we really do need to take a hard look at and implement?
Mr. Fisher. Yes, Senator. I would say I briefly mentioned
the IBET teams where we are working very closely, embedded in
many cases physically in space where we can share information,
and, equally important, not just the sharing of the
information, is then being able to figure out what we
collectively are going to do about that information on a
particular threat. And if you take a look at the two countries
and the different jurisdictional authorities and associated
authorities that go with that, we are a lot stronger in doing
that. And to the extent that we can expand not just the concept
but those teams in some of these regional concepts, I think we
will be better for doing just that.
Mr. Wagner. Yes, continuing to work with CBSA and other
colleagues in Canada as they develop additional targeting and
information-sharing systems. They are working on a system much
like our ESTA system for visa waiver travelers, their
preapproval of that, and working with Canada to build a similar
system really so we have a North American approach and
consistent targeting and identification of national security
factors; and then sharing and exchanging the ways and the
protocols on how we can address those at the earliest possible
opportunity.
Senator Ernst. OK. Yes, go ahead, Mr. Spero.
Mr. Spero. Thank you, Senator. Just to expand on Chief
Fisher and Commissioner Wagner's answer, one of the things that
I would like to call attention to is, we had talked about--and
I believe it was Mr. Hartunian who talked about a lot of the
leadership committees and collaboration that is going on,
whether it is the Beyond the Border executive group or the
Cross Border Crime Forum (CBCF) or BOLT. Those are, as I said
before, are great ways for us to strategize, identify the
threats, both interacting with our Canadian partners.
But one of the things I want to expand on what Chief Fisher
said was, in addition to the IBETs, our HSI Border Enforcement
Security Task Forces are doing--they are making a big
difference. They are the operators on the ground who are
actually out doing the--conducting the investigations, making
the search warrants on both sides of the border, and making the
arrests and identifying and disrupting and dismantling the
transnational criminal organizations.
It is a great model. It is a model where we are allowed
to--or we give our Title 19 cross-designation or essentially
deputize Canadian law enforcement, local Canadian law
enforcement as customs officers, and that way they can come
into the United States and actually conduct a side-by-side with
us, joint investigations under our close supervision, but to
have that connectivity investigator to investigator, agent to
agent, coordination, collaboration, and just working the cases
together has proven to be a very successful model.
Senator Ernst. OK. And these are all initiatives that
Canada is open to, and they are working well with the United
States. Is that a correct assessment?
Mr. Spero. Yes, Senator, they are.
Senator Ernst. OK. Are there--yes, sir, go ahead, please.
Mr. Rodriguez. I would just like to highlight some of the
other work that is going on in the Pacific Northwest,
specifically Operation Shiprider. Basically it is an RCMP-U.S.
Coast Guard initiative in which different officers are cross-
designated to operate in each other's waters.
I also wanted to highlight the fact that the State of
Washington and the Province of BC do a yearly meeting with
their law enforcement and trade representatives to share
issues, problems, and resolutions on our cross-border
trafficking. And so I think those are unique to how we operate.
We also engage in mutual discussions with them on a
quarterly basis in our joint management team, which has the
oversight of the BEST and the IBET programs. And we have a
yearly meeting coming up--it is called ``Project North Star''-
--in Spokane, in which we will, again, sit down with our
Canadian colleagues as well as our State and local officials
and Federal agencies, again, to strategize and to implement
those strategies in the near future.
Senator Ernst. That is great. I appreciate the
collaboration that we have with our neighbors to the north.
Through this process, have you seen any joint initiatives where
the Canadians have actually pushed back or they do not wish to
collaborate with U.S. authorities? Are there any of those
instances out there? Anybody? None that you have experienced?
Mr. Rodriguez. No. I would say the only reticence sometimes
is in the sharing of targeted information. They have certain
privacy rules which they have to abide by, and so sometimes
that can be a little bit difficult. I think we talked about the
MLATs and the information that is provided via that type of
format. But I think those are overcome in the field with
operational matters and between the different agencies.
Senator Ernst. OK.
Mr. Hartunian. Senator, from a prosecutor's perspective, we
have made great efforts and I think great strides to bring our
prosecution teams together to address some of the challenges
that we face when we do cross-border operations and
investigations. Sometimes there can be challenges sharing
information. We have to make sure we are in compliance with the
rules of each country. Sometimes we have to make charging
decisions. Who are we going to charge and in what jurisdiction
are we going to charge them? And there are different
considerations that come into play based upon the law of Canada
or the law of the United States.
So I think we have come a long way in bringing our
prosecution teams together, bringing the Canadian provincial
prosecutors and Federal crown prosecutors together with our
U.S. Attorneys to work some of those differences out.
Senator Ernst. That is very good. I appreciate it. It is
good to know what works and then if there are challenges out
there as well. Thank you, gentlemen. My time has expired.
Senator McCain [presiding]. Senator Heitkamp.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP
Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Chairman Johnson for the
introduction and for the opportunity to talk about a border
that we do not talk a lot about in this Committee, which is the
Northern Border. And it is interesting Senator McCain is still
here because I think one of the challenges we have both on the
north and on the south border is, as we have put and deployed
more resources at the points of entry, we have opened up rural
America, whether it is on the Northern Border or the Southern
Border, to mischief. Things that used to happen through the
port of entry now could--in fact, are happening on the Southern
Border in very remote locations, which creates huge disruption
to local communities, to rural America.
I recently hosted Ali Mayorkas, the Deputy Secretary, in
North Dakota, and I want to applaud blue and green. We gave
them a great look at how cooperation works in North Dakota. And
your folks have been just absolutely fabulous on the Northern
Border in cooperating with local law enforcement, cooperating
with Canadian officials, cooperating with local chiefs and
sheriffs. It is seamless. And the applause is all around, but
there are challenges.
In Minnesota, the challenges are wooded. In North Dakota it
is open prairie, miles and miles. If I took you up there,
farmers are farming around the boundary posts. So this is not
what you see typically on the Southern Border.
One of the big challenges we have is getting staff in
remote locations, and I think you both can say the challenge--I
think we are down a number of Customs and Border Protection
officers in Pembina, and we continue to struggle to get Border
Patrol to stay on the Northern Border.
And so my question to you is: What are you doing within the
Department of Homeland Security to secure additional incentives
for workforce to stay on the Northern Border?
Mr. Wagner. Thank you. So we recently commissioned an
internal work group to look at exactly that. We have a lot of
places that are hard to fill and hard to retain staff at. So we
are looking at what are the options at our disposal now as far
as relocation incentives, retention bonuses, paid moves,
promises of, limited assignments there of a couple of years,
and then looking at what is the right options to offer at the
different ports of entry.
Senator Heitkamp. Are you meeting with any resistance
internally in making pay adjustments or incentive adjustments
to secure staff on the Northern Border?
Mr. Wagner. No, we have not. It is just a matter of finding
the budget funds to do it and figuring out what is the right
approach at each one of the locations.
Senator Heitkamp. So once again we are back to budget
constraints giving us a less secure border, I think is the
point Senator McCain was trying to get at.
Mr. Wagner. Well, we have----
Senator Heitkamp. I know you do not want to say that, but--
--
Mr. Wagner. No. I am happy to say that, because, I mean----
Senator Heitkamp. OK. We would like it if you would say
that.
Mr. Wagner. We have submitted the staffing needs as part of
the annual budget for the last couple years. We did receive
2,000 more CBP officers 2 years ago, and we are in the process
of hiring them, but the need still remains for 2,624 more, and
it is just finding ways to pay for that, and these would be
distributed among with the workload staffing model to do that.
Senator Heitkamp. I think we would be foolish to say that
lack of--or that we can manage the borders, either the Northern
Borders or the coastal borders, which we have not yet talked
about, or the southern land border without additional
resources, be it additional aircraft that can monitor the
border, basically transport folks--in North Dakota we do not
have any capacity for detention, and we have a huge number of
what I would tell you are undocumented workers who are working
in construction in North Dakota, who are pulled off roofs and
pulled off construction projects, only to be on those
construction projects the next day.
And so I understand the lack of capacity, but I also think
that we have to be realistic about the squeeze that we are
putting on rural borders. We are trying to take care of it,
whether it is San Diego, McAllen, or El Paso. We see the
problems there, and we ignore Cochise County and Pembina and to
the west.
And so you guys have to help us work through this because,
as we push the envelope and put more and more restraints on
those border crossings, we are going to move the bad guys to
rural America, whether it is on the Southern Border or the
Northern Border.
The other question that I just want to broach quickly,
because I think the focus here is all people coming to this
country, but we have a fair number of people who are crossing
into Canada from this country, and that causes concern for
Canadian officials.
Mr. Wagner, I was interested in your exchange with Senator
Booker because it seemed like we were maybe two ships passing
in the night. Do the Canadian officials not share their
watchlist with us?
Mr. Wagner. I do not believe we get their actual watchlist.
Senator Heitkamp. Why is that?
Mr. Wagner. I do not know.
Senator Heitkamp. OK. Is that because we will not give them
ours? Or is it because they have privacy regulations that we
cannot work through?
Mr. Wagner. The FBI manages it for us, and we are users and
consumers of it, and we contribute to it. But we are not the
owners of that----
Senator Heitkamp. But what I heard all of you talking about
is this extraordinary cooperation you get from the Canadian
officials. Sometimes laws do not allow it to be seamless, but I
can tell you, as a former Attorney General from my State, when
we used to do intel briefings on the Northern Border with local
law enforcement, whether it is break-ins, burglaries, drugs,
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were always at those events.
And so I can tell you locally it works very well, and it sounds
like you believe that it works pretty well kind of country to
country.
If you were going to make any changes in that relationship,
what would you recommend? Any of you.
Mr. Wagner. It is really strengthening the information
exchange and the access to the information that you have
internally within, your organization or your country. We
exchange a lot of information with the Canadian Government. At
the land border our entry records are serving as their exit
records and vice versa, so we can start the exchange and the
identification of who is overstaying, and we can also see then
who left the country.
In the commercial aviation environment, we are doing joint
rules creation and joint targeting efforts to look at threats
to North America, not just necessarily the United States or
Canada in between. But it is what access do they have to be
able to then share with us, which brings up the watchlist.
Senator Heitkamp. Are we sharing lists of folks who are on
the list for deportation with the Canadian officials?
Mr. Wagner. I am not aware of--I do not know.
Senator Heitkamp. Mr. Chairman, I will submit some
additional questions. But I do want to once again give you a
high five for all the great work that is done in North Dakota
with constraints on resources and for the extraordinary cross-
border cooperation and local government cooperation. You guys
are doing a great job up there. Your folks should make you
proud.
Chairman Johnson [presiding]. Well, thanks, Senator
Heitkamp. I wish I would have been here for your questioning,
because I know this obviously affects your State quite a bit,
what is happening on the border.
Chief Fisher, I do want to go back a little bit to the
question from Senator McCain in terms of what is going to
happen this year with the unaccompanied children. We should not
be minimizing this. Yes, it is down from last year, but last
year was a humanitarian crisis. I do not know what you call a
60-percent level or where are we at in terms of the total
number that are coming as compared to last year? We are
somewhere around 60, 70 percent of last year's problem,
correct?
Mr. Fisher. Well, Senator, just so I am clear, it was not
my intent to minimize that flow, what happened last year, by
any stretch. And just looking at it--because it is more of a
statistical anomaly last year. For us, it is people coming
across the border for a variety of reasons. When we see what
happened, for instance, last year in South Texas, what the
Department of Homeland Security did this year--and, by the way,
I should also mention each and every year over the last 3 years
we have seen increases from individuals from Central America
coming between the ports of entry.
What changed last year was not necessarily the seasonal
trends. That continued almost exactly the way it has been over
the years. What did change was the volume, and what we tried to
do and what we did do with the Secretary's leadership is start
looking at after July when the numbers started going down, as
really looking back and say, one, how can we be better prepared
not just to react to it, but really to better predict it?
At least it was interesting for me to see and how the
Secretary approached this is the Department of Homeland
Security was one of three departments that had equities and
jurisdictional authority to respond to this. When you take a
look at Health and Human Services (HHS), that is a very big
piece when it comes to unaccompanied children. If you look at
the Department of Justice in terms of not just the prosecution
but what do we do across the board between the three different
departments, that I think was the first time in my experience
we started seeing peaks of volumes along the border----
Chairman Johnson. I just have to stop you. You used the
words that was a ``statistical anomaly.'' No, it was far more
than a statistical anomaly. It was a humanitarian crisis----
Mr. Fisher. I do not disagree with that.
Chairman Johnson [continuing]. And it was one that was
fueled by the actions of this government, this administration.
I do not have the chart here. We have used it in other
hearings. But we have a chart that shows really the number of
unaccompanied children coming from Central America declining
at, I guess call it, a manageable level, I think under 10,000.
I do not know the exact numbers. I do not have the chart. You
had Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals and that just shot
up. It was cause and effect; it was very clear.
And, by the way, in our trip down to McAllen, Texas, I want
to commend the Customs and Border Protection and the really
tremendous effort that they put forward to address that
humanitarian crisis. But it continues at--what?--a 60-or 70-
percent level. It is still a problem.
Just having met with General Kelly--and I do not want to
put words into his mouth, but I think he is certainly
confirming what is my sense, that no matter what Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals says, no matter what the Deferred
Action on Parents, no matter what those memoranda, those
Executive Actions say, it is what is the reality. And the
reality is if you are a parent or a child in Central America
and you send your child or you come up and you get into
America, the bottom line is you are staying. That is what the
coyotes are telling them; even though we have a counter-
communications strategy to say, no, this does not apply to you,
the reality is it does apply.
I have to admit, as I have delved into this problem--and I
know you are Custom and Border Protection--the conclusion I am
really coming to is you could almost be renamed ``Custom and
Border Processing,'' because that is certainly what I saw in
McAllen, Texas. And as long as we continue to apprehend these
individuals, as long as we have these incentives for people to
come into this country--because they realize if they get here,
they are going to be able to stay. As long as we detect them,
apprehend them, and then process them with a notice to appear,
and then disperse from around America into the shadows, we are
going to continue to have that problem.
So we need to recognize that reality, and we need to start
addressing it. I guess this is pretty good staff work here.
They have given me my chart, which pretty well shows the
reality of the situation. So this is far more than a
statistical anomaly. This is something that our immigration
laws, Executive actions, actually caused. And until we are
actually willing to admit that reality, we are not going to
stop it. We are going to continue to have this human crisis
occurring--maybe it is only 60-or 70-percent level, but it is
still a humanitarian crisis from my standpoint.
Do you want to respond to that at all? Tell me if I am
wrong.
Mr. Fisher. Well, Senator, I do want to thank you for
complimenting the men and women in Rio Grande Valley and
Greater South Texas. I, too, have been down there and am very
proud of the work that they do each and every day to protect
this country. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Johnson. OK. I do want to really get back to the
Northern Border and the drug trafficking there because, again,
if you really take a look at the root cause of so much of our
border insecurity, it is the insatiable demand for drugs in
this country and what that has spawned over the last 50, 60
years. Really, our demand has caused so much of this problem,
so much of this crisis.
So I want to get some kind of sense of what is happening on
the Northern Border, where it is flowing. Listen, I go every
year up fishing to Canada. I have gone through those ports of
entry. Pretty calm, a bunch of folks with fishing boats. But I
also understand how porous that border is as well; just hop in
a canoe and all of a sudden you are a camper, and who knows
what you are transporting.
So understanding we do not have the statistics--which is
part of the problem, by the way, in evaluating how to provide
greater security of the border. We do not have the information,
and there is a real disparity in information, whether Customs
and Border Protection is talking about a 70-, 75-percent
apprehension rate versus agents on the ground saying it is only
30 or 40 percent.
I want to get, again, some sense of what is happening on
the Northern Border specifically, as best as people can tell.
And I realize you do not have exact information, but is the
drug smuggling, is the human trafficking--would the potential
terrorists that we are concerned about, are they going to come
through the ports of entry? Or are they going to be coming
through the areas in between the ports of entry? Can anybody
address that basic question? Mr. Spero.
Mr. Spero. Yes, Senator, thank you. From our
investigations--and, again, we get a lot of referrals. A lot of
our casework does come from referrals from either the ports of
entry, the OFO, or between the ports from the Border Patrol.
But not all of our investigations are referrals. Some of them
are from our own confidential informants or from other Federal,
State, and local partners.
We understand that one day the vulnerability could be at
the port. One of the ways that we look at national security is
that it is our job to make sure that we are investigating
criminal fraud cases when it comes to people either pretending
or appearing, making themselves appear that they are eligible
for an entry visa to come into the country, whether that is a
student who is coming in under a different name or does not
intend to go to school; or whether it is a worker who claims
that they are going to be working at a particular job in a
particular industry and purchased that visa; or whether it is
in the interior where the fraudsters are trying to go to one of
our other sister agencies, Citizenship and Immigration
Services, to obtain a permanent residence or maybe even
eventual U.S. citizenship by any kind of fraud.
So through our Document and Benefit Fraud Task Forces,
through our participation on the Joint Terrorism Task Forces,
HSI can bring our Title 8 civil immigration authority, our
abilities to investigate fraud, or our Title 19 customs fraud.
We are looking at all types of vulnerabilities. We are not just
focusing on one. So whether that is people who are flying
directly into the country, right into the interior, but maybe
on a fraudulent visa, or applied for asylum with some sort of
fraudulent application, that is a big vulnerability, and that
is something that we take seriously.
But also some of our other national security strategies are
to make sure that sensitive technologies are not--we use our
export enforcement and our counterproliferation program to make
sure the sensitive technologies are not getting outside of the
country.
Chairman Johnson. OK. Again, I think what I am not getting,
what I am not hearing is some sense for how much of the
problems are coming through our ports of entry and, whether we
have to beef up personnel or improve--fund them in a deficit-
neutral fashion, or whether they are coming in between the
ports of entry. And how do we ever get that information? I
realize it is not the volume, so we are not, I guess,
calculating percent apprehensions or anything else.
Chief Fisher, would it make sense to utilize what drone
flights we have, would it make sense to have what detection
capabilities we do have, would it make sense based on the
anecdotal arrest and apprehension rate to do some level of
statistical sampling, some kind of measurement to get some kind
of information so that policymakers, who are going to be tasked
with allocating those scarce resources, have some sense of
where the problem does lie on the Northern Border? Do you
understand the issue, the information I am looking for here in
terms of where the problem lies and what we need to do to
really assess the extent of it and direct proper solutions?
Mr. Fisher. I believe I do, Senator, and one of the things
that--and certainly for the sake of time, I would offer up a
briefing to you or your staff. As was mentioned earlier, it is
not as simplistic just to say, well, it is just happening at
the ports, or it is just happening at--the metrics that we use
in terms of between the ports of entry, there are 12, and we
take a look at trends, not just on the Southern Border; we take
a look on the Northern Border, and we get, for instance, with
John's folks and try to figure out--say, for instance, in a
place like Swanton, what is the dynamic there in Swanton? What
is the business model of the illicit networks that operate in
Canada that are exploited on the U.S. border?
That scenario in terms of that threat is likely to be
different than Blaine, Washington, or in Detroit. And so for us
to just--at least for me, to simplistically say, well, it is
just at the ports of entry or between the ports of entry, it
really depends on the area of the border, and we do have
methods to be able to inform our judgments on where those
redeployments should go. And we would be happy to sit down and
explain----
Chairman Johnson. First of all, I am not asking for
simplicity here, because I realize it does not exist.
Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir.
Chairman Johnson. This is incredibly complex, and it is
sector by sector, and it is area by area and State by State,
and even beyond that. Again, I realize the Montana border is
completely different than the boundary water canoe area up in
Minnesota and Lake Superior and Detroit. I mean, this is a vast
border and all kinds of differences.
So I guess what I will ask you, yes, let us do a briefing.
I want to understand the complexity. I want to understand
exactly what you do know about anecdotally where have we--I
mean, have people loaded up canoes? Are they flying in in small
planes? Are they catapulting drugs across the border like they
do on the Southern Border, with cannon, I mean, it is just
unbelievable, as I have delved into this situation, the number
of methods, the ability to avoid detection, the use of the drug
cartels, blocking off the bridges to these kids so that they
can funnel them and put pressure, overload the system over here
so they can divert Customs and Border Patrol so they can
smuggle the drugs over someplace else. Trust me, I understand
the enormous complexity of the situation. But I do not have the
information. OK? I know it is complex, but I really do not know
how complex. I am not sure anybody does. But if we are going to
start crafting solutions to provide better border security, we
need to better understand the complexity of it.
So, again, I would look forward to a briefing.
Mr. Fisher. I agree. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. I was kind of hoping--Senator Ayotte
wanted to come here and ask some questions. If she does not get
here in time, let me first offer all of you the opportunity to
make a final point. This is something Senator Carper has done.
I learned from it. Certainly if I was a witness, I would be
sitting here going, ``I want to make this point.'' So here is
your opportunity to make that final point. If Senator Ayotte
gets here, we will let her question. Otherwise, we will close
the hearing.
Chief Fisher, we will start with you.
Mr. Fisher. Senator, thank you for the consideration and
obviously the opportunity to be here today. It was brought up a
couple of times this morning alluding to some of the
effectiveness of reporting in terms of what my office reports
versus what may have been in the recent past articulated
specifically by Mr. Cabrera. I know there have been a lot of
questions, and for the sake of brevity, let me just say this:
One, I have seen what Mr. Cabrera mentioned in terms of a
host of things: the effectiveness rate, what he is hearing,
what the policy is based on presumably what I have directed to
the workforce in the field, among other things. Let me state
for the record that none of that is based on truth. It is true,
however, that Mr. Cabrera is entitled to his opinion. He is
not, however, entitled to his own set of facts. And I would--
not now, but with your staff--be able to clear that and tell
you, in fact, what the policy is by my handwriting, what the
transition has been over the last couple of years, and what I
expect from each and every Border Patrol agent in uniform as it
relates to data integrity and reporting, if, in fact, there are
any allegations of misconduct. But thank you again for the
opportunity, Senator.
Chairman Johnson. I appreciate that. Again, I have a keen
understanding of how difficult it is to get this information.
This is not like a manufacturing setting where you can study
it, and it is all right there. This is enormously difficult and
enormously complex. So we are just trying to wade through that
and trying as best as possible to describe the reality and
trying to ascertain the truth here, knowing that you are never
going to get the full reality or the full truth.
So, again, we certainly do appreciate your service to the
Nation and doing what you can to grapple with a very difficult
situation. Deputy Commissioner Wagner.
Mr. Wagner. Thank you. It is really just a recognition of
some of the economic activity that crosses that Northern
Border, what it means to the economy of the United States and
to Canada, looking at--within the Office of Field Operations,
we have a huge workload of not necessarily just enforcement
work. There is the regulatory functions. There is the
processing, like you mentioned, of the commercial vehicles that
cross the border, welcome our citizens home, welcoming
visitors, tourists, business travelers into the United States,
ensuring their compliance with all the laws and regulations.
But, the majority of the transactions we do conduct,
remember, every truck, every piece of cargo, every person,
every train, every boat, everything has to be seen by a CBP
officer and admitted and released by a CBP officer. The great
majority of those transactions are good, law-abiding companies
and good, law-abiding citizens and visitors. And it is layering
our enforcement processes on top of that without stopping or
hindering that movement back and forth and really ferreting out
those bad actors and bad things from coming in. And that is
where we try to apply a really dedicated and targeted effort
based on intelligence, based on our analysis, based on our
cooperation with our foreign partners and our partners within
the governments at the Federal, State, and local levels to be
able to best do that so we do not stop that commerce, because
that will be just as devastating as an attack.
Chairman Johnson. I agree. Thank you, and thank you for
your service. Special Agent Spero.
Mr. Spero. Thank you, Senator. I guess for my final point I
would just like to add that I understand your frustration with
our ability to necessarily pin down exactly or identify exactly
where the threats are, because from an Immigration and Customs
Enforcement or a Homeland Security Investigations point of
view, we are aware our focus is to attack transnational
criminal organizations, no matter what they are doing, because
what we are finding at HSI is these organizations are smuggling
guns, drugs, people, weapons. It is the roots that we are
trying to identify and attack, and the organizations. That is
why we feel like our illicit path attack strategy puts us on
the right path.
We are not focusing on the individual committing the crime.
When we stop that seize, we make that big seizure, or we get a
referral, that is the beginning of the investigation for us.
That is not the end. It does not stop there. And what our
strategy is is to attempt to identify the whole scope of these
global organizations, whether it is terrorist organizations or
other criminal organizations. So that is, reaching back and
using our international footprint to identify the bad actors or
members of the organization in the source countries, in those
transit countries, here in the United States if the United
States is the ultimate destination country, but also working
with our Canadian partners.
So, we are kind of changing the way that we measure
success. I understand that the old methods of straight
indictments, convictions, and arrests and seizures and
comparing them to the previous years or matching up with what
the resources are is not necessarily the best way to determine
success. So we are moving toward a model, we have implemented a
model where we are looking at, what are the cases that we are
doing that are having the biggest impact on border security,
public safety, and national security.
So I absolutely want to thank you for holding this hearing
and bringing attention to the Northern Border and certainly for
giving me the opportunity to represent the men and women of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Homeland Security
Investigations. I know that they are out there every day trying
to do the best they can to enforce the immigration and customs
laws of the United States.
Chairman Johnson. We thank them, and we thank you for your
service. Mr. Rodriguez.
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Senator. I just wanted to make a
couple of notes from an operational perspective. Again, when we
talked about additional resources for the Northern Border, I
want to make sure we do not overlook our intelligence
capabilities and the challenges that we face. And to that
aspect, I think our most critical support that we provide our
partners is with intel analyst support. And so I know we talked
about agents, investigators, but I do not want to leave that
component out as far as the need for intelligence analysts.
They play a critical role in our investigations.
Second, I just want to point out a few gaps that my
partners wanted to make sure I mentioned, and that was radio
interoperability along the border. It still continues to be a
problem, especially in those remote areas that you are familiar
with, as well as our radar coverage, especially over the
Cascades where we have these deep canyons and we cannot get
radar to look down in there. And so that also is one of the
gaps we still need to address.
And, finally, as far as looking at specifically drug-
trafficking organizations, we measure our success with the
numbers that we dismantle and disrupt, and, again, a third of
our numbers are multinational polydrug organizations that are
impacting not only our Southern Border but also the Northern
Border, because we are seeing more and more of our Southern
Border DTOs coming up and, again, as I mentioned, trafficking
more meth and cocaine through the United States into Canada.
Chairman Johnson. They are businesses, and they are looking
for additional product lines, and they are looking for
additional markets, and they are finding them, and they are
growing them, and they are metastasizing. It is an enormous
problem.
I also want to comment on the radio interoperability, what
we hope is complete interoperability. It is consistently
mentioned to us as a problem. It is probably not the sexiest
technology here, but it is an incredibly important one. So we
have definitely heard that message as well. Mr. Hartunian.
Mr. Hartunian. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would agree we
face all the threats that you have described, and it can be
frustrating--threats from potential terrorists, drug smugglers,
alien smugglers, human traffickers, you name it, and those are
the threats that we face. I think we should think about it in
terms of how we address those threats, and we do it in a couple
of ways.
First, we have to have really robust prosecution regimes,
and I think our U.S. Attorney's Offices along the Northern
Border, I know them all, I know their offices. They work hard.
They bring good cases. And now that we are staffing back up
after some of the lean budget years that we experienced, I
think that things are looking up and the future is bright for
us. Robust enforcement is certainly very important.
The second thing that we need is close collaboration
between our law enforcement agencies and with our Canadian
counterparts. And we could use some assistance perhaps with
some of our DOJ law enforcement agencies having resources to
work within some of these task force formats, ATF and DEA in
particular. But we have to work toward integration, I think,
with our Canadian counterparts, and we are taking steps to get
there.
And then, finally, as you described--and this was a very
important point--we have to address some root causes, and I
think we have to take a comprehensive approach to the drug
problem that we have and to the crime problem that we have. And
that means to do other things other than just prosecute and
incarcerate people. We cannot just do that. We have to take a
more well-rounded approach. We have to spend effort on reentry
and on prevention. And I think the Attorney General's Smart on
Crime Program is well designed to take a comprehensive approach
toward our crime problem.
So thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I
appreciate it.
Chairman Johnson. Well, thank you. We are actually working
on right now a field hearing on high levels of incarceration
rates--we will probably do that in Milwaukee--somewhat talking
about the issue you raised there.
I did want to ask you a question because coming as a
district attorney in the Northern Border sector, when we were
down in McAllen, we just did a Sunday drive, just driving
around with people during off-hours, and local law enforcement
was telling me that the fight over prosecutorial jurisdiction
is not the fight that I would have expected. Normally I am
hearing people, they want the collar; they want to be able to
prosecute that criminal. That is not the case on the Southern
Border because it is so expensive to prosecute and people's
budgets are strained. Basically they are fighting over not
having to prosecute individuals, and as a result, anecdotally
we were told that unless, for example, there is at least 500
pounds of marijuana, they just do not even bother with
prosecution. Now, that is on the Southern Border. As long as
you are district attorney on the Northern Border, what are the
jurisdictional battles? What are the types of prosecution
thresholds, the discretion that you use?
Mr. Hartunian. We do have thresholds, and, typically the
larger drug quantities are prosecuted in Federal court
primarily. We work very closely with our local district
attorneys, particularly along the Northern Border, the four-
county border area in the Northern District of New York. And
when we have a case that perhaps does not rise to the level of
a Federal prosecution, we will consult with our State
counterparts, and the case may end up being prosecuted in State
court.
I think we work collaboratively with them. I would not say
that there is a competition or a desire to hand cases off. My
experience is that we work very well, that we have particular
interests and needs and priorities, and I think we can meld
those together quite well.
Chairman Johnson. I have got 4 minutes left to vote. You
have already voted, so will you close out the hearing? Is that
okey-dokey? I am kind of a rookie here. OK.
Let me just say again thank you all for the time you took.
I read the testimony. It is all very thoughtful. I know there
is a lot of work and detail that goes into it, so thank you for
taking that time and taking your time here to come and testify,
your very thoughtful answers to our questions, and I want to
thank all my colleagues. This was a very well attended hearing
which I think indicates really how importantly we view this
problem. But it also speaks to the complexity. There is an
awful lot of questions that need at least some answers, and I
know those answers are very difficult to get to.
So, again, I want to thank you, and I will turn it over to
our Ranking Member, Senator Carper. Thank you.
Senator Carper [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you all for
hanging in here with us. At this point in time, the Finance
Committee has been in a markup--we call it a ``business
meeting''--on the trade legislation, Trans-Pacific Partnership,
Trade Promotion Authority, so I am trying to be in two places
at once and not doing it too well. And we are voting, so it is
a full morning.
I want to ask a question that goes back to something that--
I do not know, Chief, if you said it or Mr. Wagner said it, but
somebody said it, and you mentioned--maybe, Mr. Hartunian, it
was you. But the matter of Native American lands was mentioned
that is actually on the border between our country and Canada.
And we have a similar situation along the border with Mexico.
And at times I have heard from the Mexican border that
sometimes drug smugglers, human traffickers--use that land as a
conduit to get through and try to get the cooperation of the
folks who own that and live on that land.
Whoever raised this, would you and others just chime in
about how this is of interest to us on the northern as well as
on the Southern Border? Mr. Spero.
Mr. Spero. Yes, Senator, thank you. That is true; there
certainly are some complexities when conducting investigations
of crime on the Native American reservations. One of the
complexities certainly on the Northern Border in the area of
the Akwesasne Mohawk Indian Reservation that Mr. Hartunian and
I share jurisdiction with is just plain the geography, sir. It
is tough terrain up there, and it is ripe for smugglers to
exploit in all seasons. And then certainly you have that
added--the winter months----
Senator Carper. I am sure you said this. Which country is
it in?
Mr. Spero. The Akwesasne Indian Reservation actually has
territory both on the Canadian side and on the United States
side, and the geography itself poses a lot of challenges toward
law enforcement.
On top of the geography, in addition to the geography,
there is some political sensitivities with the Native
population wanting to maintain as much sovereignty as they can,
so sometimes it is difficult for us to conduct--we have to
overcome that challenge of gaining their trust. In some cases,
it is a very close knit, small population, and that again poses
some issues or challenges for us that are somewhat unique.
But, on the other hand, one of the things that is getting
better from our standpoint and we are making a lot more
progress is our Massena BEST up there.
Senator Carper. I am sorry?
Mr. Spero. Our Massena Border Enforcement Security Task
Force. We actually have the Akwesasne Mohawk Police Service
representatives on that--participate on the task force, as well
as the St. Regis police officers on our task force. There are
members that have been cross-designated with Title 19
authority, so essentially they are deputized customs agents,
and they are working those cases with us to help reduce those
vulnerabilities.
In reality, we know all of the challenges I met. The
smuggling organizations know what they are, too, and they try
and do their best to exploit everything. So we are trying to do
a better job with our outreach on the Indian reservation, our
close coordination and collaboration with the Native American
police force on that reservation, and working together to do
everything we can to mitigate that threat, sir.
Senator Carper. All right. Others on this point, please.
Anybody?
[No response.]
Chief, Mr. Wagner, let us go down to the Southern Border
with Mexico. Do we have a similar situation in some areas along
the Southern Border? And how do we figure out how to work with
the Native Americans to be able to secure that portion of the
border?
Mr. Fisher. Yes, Senator. As described in the Akwesasne, on
the Tohono O'odham Reservation on the southwest border, which
the geography takes on the western portion in Arizona, both in
Tucson and what we call the ``West Desert,'' that tribe does
extend in the United States and into Mexico, and so part of
their--when we look at the border in terms of trying to
identify likely routes of entry, over the years as we have
built both primary pedestrian fence and vehicle barricades, it
is always challenging to try to work with the tribe, work with
the leadership in the tribe, and letting them know, if they
will allow us to put some impediments along the border, or
bring infrastructure or technology to help increase our
situational awareness, early in those discussions years ago it
was very difficult to make the case, until the infrastructure
and technology started to manifest around the reservation,
which obviously the path of least resistance came through the
Tohono O'odham Nation.
As a matter of fact, up until the middle of 2013, the vast
majority of trafficking across the Southern Border came through
Arizona, and the vast majority of that traffic came through the
West Desert through the Nation. They realize the vulnerability,
and we are working a lot better with them.
As a matter of fact, we are currently in the process of
developing integrated fixed towers. The first phase of that, as
you well know, was in Nogales. In late summer, we are in the
process going to transition into Phase 2, and we currently have
authorization from the tribe to be able to move into deployment
of integrated fixed towers to cover a vast region of that
reservation. So that will be for us something that has been a
long time in coming, sir.
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks. Thanks very much.
The last question I will present to all of you here today
goes back to something I oftentimes say. I like to say: ``Find
out what works, do more of that. Find out what does not work,
and do less of that.'' And the advice was actually presented to
the Finance Committee a couple years ago when I was serving on
it at a hearing by Alan Blinder. Alan Blinder, when he was
asked what should we do on deficit reduction, what should we do
on deficit reduction with respect to health care, reining in
health care costs, he said, ``I am not an expert on this stuff.
I am not a health economist. But here is what I would do: Find
out what works, do more of that.'' And I said, ``Do you mean
find out what does not work and do less of that?'' He said,
``Yep.''
So with that spirit and with that thought in mind, could
you all just take maybe a minute or so apiece and just talk to
us again about what is working on the Northern Border, that
appears to be working, that is replicable particularly along
our Southern Border? Maybe you could each just pick one point,
something that is working along the Northern Border that is
worth replicating and can be exported to the Southern Border,
and maybe some of the best practices from your experience, your
observations on the Northern Border that we would be smart to
try on the Southern Border.
Mr. Hartunian, do you want to go first?
Mr. Hartunian. Yes, thank you, Senator. Great question.
What is working? Robust enforcement. And that is not to say
that is not happening on the Southern Border. I think our U.S.
Attorney's Offices all along the border are working very hard.
Their people, their AUSAs, are really working hard to get the
job done. But it is certainly a critical component.
I think what works on the Northern Border is close
collaboration with the Canadians, and while that might be a bit
more challenging in Mexico, I think it can be done, and close
collaboration between the prosecutors of both nations, and that
is something that we are seeing happen more and more. We are
working to improve that, make that happen more frequently, and
I think that that is certainly an important approach that we
can take. So I would highlight those two things.
Senator Carper. Good. Thank you. Is one of the reasons why
maybe we work better with the Canadians in terms of sharing
information is we have less concerns about that information
finding itself in the wrong hands in Canada?
Mr. Hartunian. Well, I think that there is cooperation with
the Mexican authorities. I think in all cases we have to be
careful how we share law enforcement information. That is
certainly not a barrier that cannot be overcome.
Senator Carper. OK. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Rodriguez, please.
Mr. Rodriguez. All right. From my----
Senator Carper. You were in DEA for a while, weren't you,
for a number of years?
Mr. Rodriguez. For 27 years, Senator.
Senator Carper. That is great. Thank you for that as well.
Mr. Rodriguez. From my perspective, it is just not the one
meeting, the one event, the one policy discussion. We have a
number of conversations both with our Federal partners on the
border as well as with Canadians year-round. It could be case
specific. It could be program specific. And if we have to, we
then follow up on these discussions where we will put a working
group together to work on maybe some Shiprider issues or some
intel issues that we need to look at specifically MDMA, or
Ecstasy.
And so I think those are the best practices that work well
for us on the Northern Border and that makes us unique, and
that we need to keep going and hopefully we can eventually have
those types of processes in place on the Southern Border to
help there.
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks.
Mr. Spero, same question, please.
Mr. Spero. Senator Carper, I appreciate the question. I
actually had a little bit of extra time to formulate my answer,
and I guess the best way for me to describe it or the way I
look at it is that it is not necessarily how do we take what is
working on the Northern Border and bring it down to the
Southern Border. But it is an exchange of best practices across
both borders as well as the interior of the United States. And
I use the Border Enforcement Security Task Forces, as an
example. The BEST was originally created in Laredo in 2005 to
combat the violence associated with the transnational criminal
organizations that were affecting specifically the Southern
Border.
That model, the success of that model, with the
collaboration and cooperation and working together on the cases
was then brought up to the Northern Border, and now we have
four Northern Border BEST task forces. I happen to oversee two
in my AOR of Buffalo, the Port of Buffalo BEST as well as the
Massena BEST.
But at the same time, it does not just stop there. We do
not bring what we have learned from the southwest border and
bring it up to the Northern Border. We had a framework, a great
framework to start with, but then we take that to the next
level, so our abilities to expand those BESTs, we actually have
over 40--just about 43 members now of our BEST team in Massena.
So our abilities to incorporate our Canadian law enforcement
counterparts at all levels, whether it is the RCMP or the CBSA,
but the Surete du Quebec or the regional police offices, and
having as much--not just information sharing, because, of
course, information sharing is extremely important, but we are
able to actually take the information in those collaboration
sessions and put them to use in our investigations. And that is
how we complete that last piece of identifying, disrupting, and
dismantling the transnational criminal organizations that are
the biggest threats to the homeland.
Senator Carper. Good. Thank you. Mr. Wagner.
Mr. Wagner. Senator, at the ports of entry, really we focus
on the risk segmentation of the workload and looking at ways to
better utilize the physical infrastructure that is there and
getting the most efficiencies we can out of it.
Now, how we define something as lower risk or higher risk
is all dependent on what access to what systems we have, the
analysis and the targeting capabilities. That is also enhanced
by what our foreign partners are sharing with us. We have very
good data exchange, information exchange with the Canadian
Government and the Mexican Government. They have different
capacities as to what access they can get, what information
they collect, and then within their own privacy constraints
what they can share with us. But it is a little different
within both countries, but we do a very robust information
exchange with the Mexican Government as well as the Canadian
Government that helps us make that risk segmentation
determination.
Senator Carper. Good. Chief, my time has expired, and my
colleagues are back. Would you answer that question for me for
the record, please?
Mr. Fisher. Yes, Senator. You mentioned it briefly. I think
it is the institutionalization of what we see on the Northern
Border in terms of shared information, integrated percentage
and execution, which then you have a degree of sustainability
in that effort. We can do a lot better on the Southern Border
in that regard.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Carper. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Great
job.
Chairman Johnson [presiding]. Thanks for holding down the
fort. I found somebody on the Senate floor there. Senator
Ayotte.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE
Senator Ayotte. He just runs around the Senate floor
picking up Senators.
Thank you all for being here. I appreciate it. And,
representing New Hampshire, the Northern Border is pretty
important to us. And I am not sure if you have been asked this
question yet, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI),
James Clapper, has identified drug trafficking obviously as a
major transnational threat. In my State we are seeing a heroin
epidemic, and I know a lot of that is coming over the Southern
Border.
So what are the biggest issues that we are facing on the
Northern Border? And can you help me understand how is the
information sharing with Canadian authorities? Because that is
where my local law enforcement and my State police and even the
Federal officials that work in New Hampshire would be working
with on the Canadian side. Whoever is best to take that
question.
Mr. Spero. Thank you, Senator. Well, with specifics to
heroin, you are right, we are seeing heroin that is coming up
through Mexico, and the intelligence that we are developing
from our ongoing criminal investigations and our closed
investigations is that, we are seeing either precursor
chemicals or heroin coming from China. It is being imported
into Mexico under the control of the cartels. The cartels are
using the existing smuggling networks to get them into the
United States through the southwest border, and whether the
smuggling networks are used to smuggle anything, so whether it
is people or whether it is drugs, the cartels have control of
the networks and the pathways, and they are using that to get
heroin into the country for either ultimate consumption here in
the United States or in some cases on into Canada as well.
One of the things that we were talking about was our
ability and our need to make sure that we do everything that we
can across all levels of law enforcement, whether it is
Federal, State, or local law enforcement, or in my particular
neck of the wood, even travel law enforcement, and
international law enforcement as well, particularly with our
Canadian counterparts on the Canadian side of the border.
Where we have the biggest issues in my particular AOR, the
Massena or Rouses Point area, we use our Border Enforcement
Security Task Forces as a mechanism to share information back
and forth with our Canadian counterparts.
So we actually have cross-designated--we have given
essentially Title 19 or customs authority basically making
State and local law enforcement designated customs officials,
but also we are able to do that with Canadian local law
enforcement officials as well. And then they can come and work
the networks on this side of the border.
So the idea here is to open up information sharing, work
the cases together, instead of--not only trying to remove the
U.S.-Canadian border as a potential barrier to law enforcement,
or in some cases we are even actually able to use it to our
advantage. So we understand that it is a problem. Heroin seems
to be on the rise. But one of the things that we think is the
best way to identify, disrupt, or dismantle these transnational
criminal organizations, no matter what commodity they smuggle,
whether it is heroin, whether it is cocaine, or whether it is
marijuana--or firearms, for that matter--is to identify the
scope of the organization in the source countries, the transit
countries, the destinations countries, and work together with
law enforcement at all levels to share the information and work
the cases.
Senator Ayotte. So I get all that, just thinking about how
do we drive up the price of heroin? Because one of the problems
we have right now with heroin is it is so cheap. Obviously, the
more we can make it tougher for them to transport this stuff
over--it is so cheap that some people are addicted to
prescription drugs. They go over to heroin, and it is really
fueling this huge public health epidemic, not just in New
Hampshire. It is across this country. Do we need to give you
bigger tools? What do we need to give you to help you to drive
up the price to really come down on the people transporting
heroin?
Mr. Spero. One of the things that we look at in any of the
drug trade, whether it is heroin, and I should have also
mentioned before that, the newer trends that we are seeing with
respect to heroin is the heroin laced with fentanyl, which is
really the deadliest----
Senator Ayotte. Yes, and it is like heroin on steroids,
basically.
Mr. Spero. Absolutely, ma'am. As with any business model, I
think that, if we can be more effective at reducing the supply,
then that would be one way to drive up the price.
Another thing that we are trying to do is with almost every
enforcement program that we have at Homeland Security
Investigations, there is also a public outreach or a public
service announcement message that goes along with it. So if we
do have a particularly big search warrant, where there is a big
seizure or a big arrest or a big sentence, we try and get out
to the public that, hey, if it is the kids that are using the
heroin laced with fentanyl, to get out there and say, look,
there are some--you do not know what you are using or what the
impacts are on you. So not only did we just conduct this
investigation and make this arrest, but, parents, kids, this is
why it is important that you do not use it because you do not--
--
Senator Ayotte. Yes, we have to do a better job overall
with that.
I have a question about in terms of Canada, as I understand
it right now--and I am not sure, whoever the best person to
answer the question, I will just field it. Right now, as I
understand it, Canada does not have a system in place to screen
inbound airplane passengers against the terrorist watchlist,
and so they are moving toward the capability. Is this true? And
if so, those on the terrorist watchlist can presumably enter
Canada on an airplane? Is that true? Who knows about that, and
can you help me understand that? Because I am really worried
about, we have these foreign fighters that have gone to
obviously Syria, Iraq, Yemen. Some of them are Canadians. We
have had some Americans, too. But, Canada is fairly--we have a
great relationship with Canada, and so if you can get to
Canada, it is really not that hard to get to the United States
of America. So what are your thoughts on this problem?
Mr. Wagner. I do not know if they have direct access to the
U.S. Government watchlist and that they screen against that
directly. But they have a similar system that we do of
screening airline passengers against the airline reservation
systems and the airline manifests before that person comes into
that country. We work very closely with them, and we identify
similar approaches to how we screen that. We call them
``rules,'' and we set rules against how we scrub that data and
how we identify national security or any other types of
concerns. We do joint rule creation. We do rules exchanges, and
we have certain protocols in place that when certain rules
fire, we will exchange information and ask each other country
about additional information.
Senator Ayotte. Do you know if they have the equivalent of
our terrorist watchlist? What are they checking their passenger
list against? Do you know the answer to that?
Mr. Wagner. It is against their own systems and their own
list, so they do, I believe, have a national security list.
They have customs records. They have immigration lookouts. They
have access to the Interpol lost and stolen database.
Senator Ayotte. So can I ask you a question? Just when you
are thinking about a friendly neighbor like Canada, why
couldn't we join forces on some of that in terms of terrorist
watchlist information? I know we do information sharing, but it
seems to me that if we cannot trust the Canadians, we are in
trouble. Any thoughts on that?
Mr. Wagner. We do not own that information, so it really
would not be ours to exchange with them. But as consumers and
users of it, we would certainly welcome access to any
additional sources of information.
Senator Ayotte. Maybe I am asking that of the wrong person,
but I am the Chair of the Aviation Committee, and I think this
is perhaps a question I should direct to TSA.
Mr. Wagner. Just one final point. If somebody does fly into
Canada and drive across the border, we run the same database
checks and the same watchlist checks at the land border as we
do in commercial aviation. They are the same systems and the
same databases we are checking.
Senator Ayotte. Good. So you would catch it there.
Mr. Wagner. Correct.
Senator Ayotte. Catch an individual there if they
presumably were on our list, even if Canada did not catch it.
Mr. Wagner. Correct.
Senator Ayotte. OK. Great. Thanks.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. That is a
really good point. My understanding is the same as yours, that
they are not using our watchlist, and that is something I think
we need to press to see what we can do to cooperate between two
governments.
Senator Ayotte. Especially since it is between two
governments that have a friendly relationship.
Chairman Johnson. Correct. So, again, thank you for coming.
Again, thank you all for your time, your efforts, and your
testimony.
This hearing record will remain open for 15 days until May
7 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions for
the record.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
SECURING THE BORDER: FENCING
INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY FORCE MULTIPLIERS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:22 p.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, Lankford, Sasse, Carper, Tester,
Booker, and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON
Chairman Johnson. This hearing will come to order. Our
Ranking Member is still a few minutes out, so we will get
underway here. When he gets here, I will express again the fact
that we are very glad that Senator Carper's stop was in
Wilmington. He was actually on the train that derailed, and, of
course, our thoughts and prayers are with the families and
victims of that tragedy. And our thoughts and prayers are also
with all of our law enforcement officials that step out on
their doorstep every day and risk their lives for our public
safety. And rather than me say it, I cannot say it better than
what Secretary Jeh Johnson said in a letter, and I would just
like to read this.
``Dear Colleagues: This is National Police Week. This week,
we honor the sacrifice and commitment of men and women in our
law enforcement. We pay special tribute to those in law
enforcement who have given their lives in the line of duty, and
we offer our support to their families.''
``Last year, our Department lost two Border Patrol agents
in the line of duty: Alexander Giannini and Tyler Robledo. This
week, Agents Giannini and Robledo's names will be added to the
National Law Enforcement Officers (NLEO) Memorial in
Washington, DC.''
``I am also mindful of Border Patrol Agent Javier Vega,
Jr., who last August was killed during a robbery while fishing
with his family in Texas.''
``Wherever you are this week, I encourage you to honor
those who have chosen the law enforcement profession.''
I guess I would just ask everybody here in the hearing
room, in light of and in honor of those individuals that
Secretary Johnson was commending, as well as all of our law
enforcement officials that have given their last full measure,
just if we recognize a moment of silence.
[Moment of silence.]
Thank you. I can actually ask consent to have my opening
statement read into the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Chairman Johnson appears in the
Appendix on page 1129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess what I would like to do is get right down to
testimony. It is the tradition of this Committee that we swear
in witnesses, so if everybody would rise and raise your right
hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Alles. I do.
Mr. Borkowski. I do.
Mr. Vitiello. I do.
Ms. Duong. I do.
Ms. Gambler. I do.
Mr. Garcia. I do.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you. Please be seated.
Our first witness is Assistant Commissioner Randolph Alles.
Randolph Alles is the Assistant Commissioner for the Office of
Air and Marine (OAM) with the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
OAM is the world's largest aviation and maritime law
enforcement organization. Before joining OAM, Mr. Alles served
in the U.S. Marine Corps for 35 years, retiring in 2011 as a
Major General. Assistant Commissioner Alles.
TESTIMONY OF RANDOLPH D. ALLES,\2\ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF AIR AND MARINE, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Alles. Thank you, sir, and good afternoon. It is good
to see you again. You may recall we last visited our P-3 and
the unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) site in Corpus Christi in
January, so thank you for coming down to see that. And I would
always just encourage any Members of the Committee to come
visit our sites. I think that is very beneficial in
understanding what we do better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The joint prepared statement of Mr. Alles appears in the
Appendix on page 1131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you noted, CBP's Office of Air and Marine is a critical
component of our layered border strategy. OAM's 1,272 law
enforcement personnel operate 257 aircraft, 283 vessels, and a
sophisticated domain awareness network across the United
States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. OAM's critical
aerial and maritime missions fall into four core competencies:
domain awareness, investigation, interdiction, and contingency
operations/national taskings.
We not only contribute to the security of our land border
but facilitate efforts, along with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG),
to secure the Nation's 95,000 miles of coastal shoreline
through the coordinated use of integrated air and marine
forces.
Since the consolidation of air and marine assets within OAM
11 years ago, we have transformed a border air wing composed
primarily of light observation aircraft into a modern air and
maritime fleet with sophisticated surveillance sensors and
communications systems.
We are working to increase the connectivity and networking
among all our air and marine assets. We are also continuing the
effort to reduce the number of our aircraft types and position
our assets for highest utilization, which will increase both
the efficiency and effectiveness of our operations.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a few of
our key assets and describe how technology is a viable force
multiplier that furthers CBP's efforts to identify, monitor,
and appropriately respond to threats to our Nation's borders.
First is our MQ9 Predator UAS. It continues to play a
critical role in advancing CBP's comprehensive border strategy
and management by increasing situational awareness of the air,
land, and maritime environments. It just returned from a
deployment in El Salvador where it contributed to seizures of
$362 million of contraband, so a very effective deployment
force.
Second is our Multi-Role Enforcement Aircraft, which is a
highly capable aircraft with sophisticated technology systems
that enable it to be effective over both land and water. These
are replacing several of our older aircraft, single-mission
aircraft inside CBP, so it will be a very beneficial force.
Beyond that, we use our CBP--beyond our borders, we use our
P-3 Long-Range Tracking and Airborne Early Warning Aircraft,
which have been central in countering narcotic operations in
the transit zone and also against transnational criminal
organizations that are moving drugs out of the source zone
through the transit zone and in toward the United States.
We work in conjunction with aviation assets, interceptor
vessels to operate in coastal waters to combat smuggling, and
protect U.S. ports from acts of terrorism. And then, finally,
we have our Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC), which is a
national task force that focuses on criminal use of non-
commercial air and maritime conveyances approaching, crossing,
or operating inside the borders of the United States and Puerto
Rico.
So, Chairman Johnson and the Ranking Member when he comes
and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss OAM's capabilities and our efforts in
securing our borders. I look forward to taking your questions
and, of course, look forward if you can come out to our sites.
Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you.
Our next witness is Assistant Commissioner Mark Borkowski.
He is the Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Technology
Innovation and Acquisition (OTIA) with the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security. He is
responsible for ensuring technology efforts are properly
focused on mission and well integrated across CBP. Mr.
Borkowski also serves as CBP's Component Acquisition Executive.
Prior to his appointment, Mr. Borkowski served as Executive
Director of the Secure Border Initiative Program Executive
Office. Mr. Borkowski.
TESTIMONY OF MARK BORKOWSKI,\1\ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE
OF TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ACQUISITION, U.S. CUSTOMS AND
BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Borkowski. Thank you, Chairman Johnson and Senator
Booker. I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here
today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The joint prepared statement of Mr. Borkowski appears in the
Appendix on page 1131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I represent the acquisition community, and our
responsibility is to deliver the stuff that the operators need.
We buy it. I know there is some question about the distinction
between us and, for example, DHS Science and Technology (S&T),
so let me highlight that a little bit to start.
DHS S&T makes sure there is stuff there, because it is not
always ready. We do not always have systems, technologies,
software that we need. So it first has to be there. Once it is
there, we have to figure out how best to get it, and that means
we have to know what the options are. We have to do the
business case analysis. We have to figure out how many to buy.
And we have to understand why we are buying it. And for that,
of course, we ask the people in uniform, the green, or the tan,
or the blue uniforms, the folks sitting to either side. They
are the ones who describe what we need. It is our job then in
Acquisition to somehow put that in practice and actually
deliver capability that those operators can use to produce
mission outcomes.
Our focus, the thing we have gotten the most attention on
recently, has been the technology for surveillance between the
ports of entry. As you know, there is a past program called the
Secure Border Initiative-network (SBInet), which was a very
challenging program, and although it eventually delivered very
effective capability, we concluded it was not the right system
to go across the entire border, and it was much too expensive.
So we scaled down our ambitions somewhat and selected a
much more modest portfolio of systems that the Border Patrol
selected and tailored to each area of the border. We focused
that on Arizona because that is where the action was at the
time. We are in the throes of completing that plan, which we
call the ``Arizona Technology Plan,'' and it consists of
everything from small--you can imagine handheld, long-range,
binocular-like sensors, to more complex systems on high towers
with radars and cameras that are connected in a command and
control center. And the purpose of those systems is to give the
Border Patrol better information about what is on the ground,
what the threat of that activity is, whether it is a migrant or
it is somebody carrying a weapon, and more options for how to
respond.
Outside of Arizona, obviously, the Border Patrol has
indicated to us that there is activity, that there is
migration. As we have done things in Arizona, traffic has
migrated or for a variety of other reasons. South Texas, as you
know, is an area.
What we have done is because we were successful in the
Arizona Technology Plan, at least in saving money, we have been
able to divert resources to South Texas, and largely that has
been based on the Department of Defense (DOD) reuse. Congress
has been a strong advocate of us partnering with the Department
of Defense to use what was already taxpayer investments, to
leverage those for our capacity, and we have been very
successful with that in South Texas. For example, we are flying
aerostats now, and we now have surveillance that we probably
would not have had until 2018 or 2019 with budget realities.
So that is a quick summary of our progress and what
Acquisition does, and I very much look forward to answering
your questions as we go forward.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you.
Our next witness is Deputy Chief Ronald Vitiello. He is the
Deputy Chief of the Border Patrol. Deputy Vitiello has served
as an agent and in supervisory roles at the Laredo Sector,
Tucson Sector, and as Chief Patrol Agent of the Rio Grande
Valley Sector. Deputy Chief Vitiello.
TESTIMONY OF RONALD VITIELLO,\1\ DEPUTY CHIEF, OFFICE OF BORDER
PATROL, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Vitiello. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Senator Booker.
It is a pleasure for me to be here to appear before you to
discuss how technology and tactical infrastructure act as force
multipliers toward the U.S. Border Patrol's border security
enforcement efforts between the ports of entry (POE). I am
pleased to represent for Border Patrol agents the crucial
contribution they make to CBP and the Homeland Security
Enterprise (HSE) in DHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The joint prepared statement of Mr. Vitiello appears in the
Appendix on page 1131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a special week in Washington, culminating in the
National Police Officers Memorial on Friday on the South
Capitol Lawn.
Earlier today, we observed Chief Fisher, the Commissioner,
the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Secretary, and the
Secretary commemorate the valor of CBP's fallen, specifically
in the unveiling of two new names on the CBP Valor Memorial,
Border Patrol Agents Giannini and Robledo. We honor them and
the 115 other guardians of the Nation's lost in 2014.
While the basic Border Patrol mission to secure the
Nation's borders from illegal entry of persons and goods has
not changed in the past 90 years, the operational environment
in which we work and the threats we face have changed
dramatically.
Today our mission includes deterring acts of terrorism,
detecting and intercepting human and drug and weapons smuggling
and trafficking, and preventing and responding to other
criminal activity. The effective deployment of fixed and mobile
technology and tactical infrastructure is critical to Border
Patrol operations. With these resources, our front line is more
informed, more effective, and safer.
The Border Patrol works closely with our operational
intelligence, technology development, and acquisitions
colleagues within CBP and DHS to develop requirements to test,
evaluate, and ultimately deploy technology and infrastructure.
The deployment of tactical infrastructure, including
fencing, roads, and lighting, is a critical component of our
security efforts. It denies, deters, and slows down illegal
entrants, providing more time for agents to respond. Detection
technology supplements physical barriers by extending the
visual range and awareness of agents. Ground sensors alert
agents to movements and activity while mounted cameras and
sensors on aircraft, fixed towers, and on Border Patrol
vehicles can be controlled remotely to verify targets.
All of this technology and infrastructure works together
and ultimately enables the Border Patrol to gain situational
awareness, direct a response team to the interdiction location,
and forewarn of any danger otherwise unknown along the way.
The Border Patrol continually evaluates our situational
awareness posture and adjusts our capabilities to secure our
borders. We work closely with OTIA and CBP and DHS' Science and
Technology Directorate to identify and develop technology such
as tunnel detection and monitoring technologies, small unmanned
aircraft systems, tactical communication upgrades, and border
surveillance tools tailored for the southwest and northern
borders.
There is no doubt that technology is a critical factor in
the Border Patrol's Strategic Plan, which implements a security
approach based on risk. The strategy going forward will
emphasize joint planning and execution, advancing
counternetwork approach, and a DHS-wide unity of effort.
Thanks again for the opportunity to testify how technology
and tactical infrastructure help us secure the border.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you.
Our next witness is Director Anh Duong. Director Duong is
the Director of Borders and Maritime Security Division in the
Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of
Homeland Security, where she focuses on developing technologies
to put into operational use along our sea, land, and air
borders and ports of entry. Ms. Duong came to the United States
as a refugee of war from Vietnam and spent 25 years working in
Naval Science and Technology, directing all of U.S. Navy
explosives research and development. Ms. Duong.
TESTIMONY OF ANH DUONG,\1\ DIRECTOR, BORDERS AND MARITIME
SECURITY DIVISION, DIRECTORATE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Ms. Duong. Good afternoon, Chairman Johnson and Senator
Booker. Thank you for this opportunity to testify along with my
colleagues from Customs and Border Protection with whom we work
closely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Duong appears in the Appendix on
page 1147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Science & Technology Directorate's, mission is to
deliver effective and innovative insight, methods, and
solutions for the critical needs of the Homeland Security
Enterprise.
Under the leadership of Under Secretary Brothers, S&T has
refined our strategic direction and defined our visionary goals
which are driven by the 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security
Review (QHSR), White House policy, congressional guidance, and
Secretary Johnson's Unity of Effort Initiative. These goals
are:
Screening at Speed: Security that Matches the Pace of Life;
A Trusted Cyber Future: Protecting Privacy, Commerce, and
Community;
Enable the Decision Maker: Actionable Information at the
Speed of Thought;
Responder of the Future: Protected, Connected, and Fully
Aware;
And Resilient Communities: Disaster-Proofing Society.
Three of these goals are directly relevant to border
security: Screening at Speed, Enable the Decision Maker, and
Responder of the Future. All three require a common enabler--
namely, situational awareness--in order to screen people and
goods with minimum disruption to the pace of life, enable
decisionmakers at various levels, and arm responders with
information to keep them safe and fully aware.
From an operational standpoint, given our broad border
against a multitude of ever changing threats, the need for
total situational awareness is paramount. S&T employs
technology as a powerful force multiplier to improve
situational awareness, which in turn enables risk-based
security, a key DHS strategy.
Considering both S&T visionary goals and today's
operational needs, we are pursuing an enterprise capability to
provide improved situational awareness across the Homeland
Security Enterprise called the ``Border and Coastal Information
System,'' (BACIS). This work includes integrating and
federating existing stand-alone data sources, developing new
sensor systems to create new data, developing and integrating
decision support tools and analytics to translate data into
actionable information, and sharing information with partners.
Development for the BACIS is ongoing for the maritime
environment. Work for our land borders started in fiscal year
(FY) 2015, and work for our ports of entry is planned for
fiscal year 2017. Toward blocking gaps in border situational
awareness and providing new data sources, numerous S&T-
developed systems are undergoing operational assessment while
providing interim capability. Examples include a buried
tripwire system in Arizona to detect illegal border crossers, a
tunnel activity monitoring system in Texas, a Canada-U.S.
sensor sharing pilot, and a prototype system for detecting and
tracking small dark aircraft in Washington. In operational use
in Texas is a scanner that scans small aircraft for contraband.
Technology is an essential ingredient of effective border
security. S&T will continue to collaborate with our components
and partners to bring technology to operational use and help
enhance border security.
I thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity to
testify on this very important subject.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you.
Our next witness is Rebecca Gambler. Ms. Gambler is the
Director of the U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO)
Homeland Security and Justice Team where she leads GAO's work
on border security, immigration, and DHS management. Prior to
joining GAO, Ms. Gambler worked at the National Endowment for
Democracy's International Forum for Democratic Studies.
Director Gambler.
TESTIMONY OF REBECCA GAMBLER,\1\ DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY
AND JUSTICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Gambler. Good afternoon, Chairman Johnson and Members
of the Committee I appreciate the opportunity to testify at
today's hearing to discuss GAO's work reviewing DHS efforts to
acquire and deploy various technologies and other assets along
U.S. borders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Gambler appears in the Appendix
on page 1153.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS has employed a variety of assets in its efforts to
secure the southwest border, including various land-based
surveillance technologies, tactical infrastructure, which
includes fencing, roads, and lighting, and air and marine
craft. GAO has reported on DHS' management and oversight of
these assets and programs, including numerous reports on
surveillance technologies under the former Secure Border
Initiative and the current Arizona Border Surveillance
Technology Plan. GAO has also reported on fencing and other
tactical infrastructure with about 652 miles of pedestrian
vehicle fencing currently in place along the southwest border.
My remarks today will reflect our findings in three areas
related to DHS' efforts to secure the border: one, DHS' efforts
to implement the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan;
two, CBP and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
efforts to modernize radio systems; and, three, CBP Office of
Air and Marine's mix and placement of assets.
First, CBP has made progress toward deploying programs
under the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan,
including fixed and mobile surveillance systems, agent portable
devices, and ground sensors, and these technologies have aided
CBP's border security efforts. However, we have also reported
that CBP could do more to strengthen its management of the plan
and technology programs and better assess the contributions of
surveillance technologies to apprehensions and seizures along
the southwest border.
For example, CBP has experienced delays in some of its
surveillance technology programs, and CBP's planned dates for
initial and full operational capabilities for the integrated
fixed towers, for instance, have slipped by several years.
We have also previously reviewed CBP's schedules and life-
cycle cost estimates for its highest-cost programs under the
plan and compared them against best practices. Overall, the
schedules and estimates for the plan's programs reflected some
but not all best practices, and we found that CBP could take
further action to better ensure the reliability of its
schedules and cost estimates by more fully applying best
practices.
Further, CBP has identified the mission benefits of its
surveillance technologies such as improved situational
awareness and agent safety. CBP has also begun requiring Border
Patrol to record data within its database on whether or not an
asset such as a camera assisted in an apprehension or seizure.
These are positive steps; however, CBP needs to develop and
implement performance measures and analyze data it is now
collecting to be able to fully assess the contributions of its
technologies to border security.
Second, with regard to radio systems, earlier this year we
reported that CBP and ICE had taken action to upgrade their
tactical communications infrastructure. For example, CBP and
ICE completed various modernization programs for their tactical
communications such as upgrading outdated equipment and
expanding coverage in some areas. However, agents and officers
who use the radio systems reported experiencing challenges such
as coverage gaps and interoperability issues which affected
their operations. We also found that CBP and ICE could take
further steps to strengthen and record training on upgraded
radio systems provided to officers and agents.
Third, with regard to air and marine assets, in 2012 we
reported that the Office of Air and Marine could better ensure
that its mix and placement of assets were effective and
efficient by, for example, more clearly linking deployment
decisions to mission needs and threats, documenting analyses
used to support decisions on the mix and placement of assets,
and considering how deployments of border technology affect
requirements for air and marine assets. We found that these
steps were needed to help CBP better determine the extent to
which its allocation decisions were effective in addressing
customer needs and threats.
In closing, we have made recommendations to DHS in all of
these areas and others to help the Department in its efforts to
manage and implement technologies, infrastructure, and other
assets to secure the border. DHS has agreed with some of these
recommendations and has actions planned or underway to address
some of them. We will continue to monitor DHS' efforts in
response to our recommendations.
Thank you again for inviting me to testify, and I would be
pleased to answer any questions at the appropriate time.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you.
Our next witness is Michael Garcia. He is a Legislative
Attorney for the Congressional Research Service (CRS) where he
has worked since 2003. In this capacity, Mr. Garcia has focused
on issues related to immigration, border security,
international law, and national security. Mr. Garcia.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL JOHN GARCIA,\1\ LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY,
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, U.S. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member
Carper, and Members of the Committee. I am honored to be
testifying before you today regarding the legal authorities and
requirements related to the deployment of fencing and other
barriers along the U.S. borders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Garcia appears in the Appendix on
page 1175.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary statute governing barrier deployment is Section
102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, which I will refer to as
``the 1996 act.'' Section 102 was amended in 2005, 2006, and
2007. These revisions, coupled with increasing funding for
border projects, resulted in hundreds of miles of fencing being
deployed along the southwest border. However, it appears
additional fence deployment largely halted after 2011.
Section 102 has three key features: Section 102(a)
expressly authorizes DHS to deploy barriers and roads along the
borders to deter illegal crossings. Section 102(b) provides
that fencing shall be installed along not less than 700 miles
of the southwest border, but fencing is not required at any
particular location when DHS determines that other means are
better suited to obtain control. And Section 102(c) allows the
DHS Secretary to waive any legal requirement that impedes the
expeditious construction of border barriers and roads.
In recent years, attention has primarily focused on Section
102(b) and 102(c), so I will focus my comments on those
provisions.
Prior to the most recent amendments to the 1996 act,
Section 102(b) required DHS to construct double-layered fencing
along five specific stretches of the southwest border. The
current version of Section 102(b) no longer requires fencing to
be double-layered and provides DHS with discretion regarding
where fencing should be installed.
Although Section 102(b) is sometimes characterized as
requiring 700 miles of fencing, the provision actually states
that fencing shall be deployed ``along not less than 700 miles
of the southwest border.'' In other words, the requirement
prioritizes the amount of the border covered by fencing as
opposed to the amount of fencing used by DHS. Last year, DHS
stated that fencing had been deployed along roughly 652 miles
of the southwest border.
There may be questions regarding the firmness of the 700-
mile language. Section 102(b) states that, notwithstanding its
requirements, DHS is not required to construct fencing at any
particular location where it deems fencing inappropriate. This
clause could be interpreted to mean that while DHS must deploy
fencing along 700 miles of the border, it is not required to
deploy fencing at any discrete point.
A broader reading of this clause might permit DHS to
construct fencing along less than 700 miles of the southwest
border if the agency believes fencing is only appropriate along
a lesser mileage. However, there are a number of challenges to
such a reading. As an initial matter, the notwithstanding
clause does not say that DHS may construct fencing along a
lesser mileage of the border. It says that fencing is not
required at any particular location. If DHS may construct only
the amount of fencing it deems appropriate, it is unclear why
Section 102(b) would state that fencing shall be deployed along
not less than 700 miles of the southwest border.
The legislative history of Section 102(b) along with
several courts' description of the provision also seem to give
greater support for understanding the 700-mile requirement as a
firm one. DHS officials have seemingly taken differing
interpretations of Section 102(b) over the years. A court's
consideration of this issue may depend upon whether the meaning
of Section 102(b) is seen as ambiguous and DHS' construction is
deemed reasonable.
In any event, there is no statutory deadline for when the
required fencing must be completed, and it is also unclear who
would have standing to bring a legal challenge against DHS'
fencing strategy.
Turning to Section 102(c), this provision grants the DHS
Secretary the power to waive legal requirements that may impede
the construction of border roads and barriers. Waiver authority
has been used to facilitate both the construction and the
upkeep of border projects. But this authority could not be used
to waive constitutional requirements. Thus, for example, just
compensation needs to be given to private property owners whose
land is condemned for purposes of barrier installation.
This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to
answer any questions you have.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
I am kind of interpreting your testimony that Congress
might have passed a law that was not crystal clear? I guess I
would be shocked.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOOKER
Senator Booker, I guess you are going to have to leave
here, so I am happy to turn it over to you for the time being.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
giving me this opportunity. I really just want to direct one
question. I just want to say I will be leaving here and then
preparing some remarks for the floor in regards to the train
accident we had. I know Senator Carper was on that train and
got off early, and I am very happy to see that he is here and
well, and I just want to express my sympathies for the loss of
life and the more than 100 people who are in the hospital right
now recovering from their injuries.
I just want to ask just one question before I have to run.
Ms. Gambler, from the notes that I have, Customs and Border
Protection spent about $2.4 billion to complete roughly 670
miles of border fence. The vast majority of it was a single
layer of fence, one line of fence designed to keep pedestrians,
vehicles, and such from crossing.
If Congress were to implement the double layer of fence,
that would require more land acquisition, more supplies, more
labor to build, and manned by Border Patrol. I am trying to
understand the payoff and the cost-benefit analysis in your
estimation.
According to the GAO, undocumented entries into the United
States during this time of erecting this fence actually fell 69
percent between 2006 and 2011, which is pretty impressive. But
the drug and contraband seizures nearly doubled.
So you are an expert looking at costs and benefits and
challenges associated with border fencing and technology. If
Congress eventually approves another 700 miles of double-
layered barrier fence as a part of the border bill, do you
share my concern in sort of understanding the cost-benefit
analysis and what, in your opinion, would it be as that 700
miles is put into place?
Ms. Gambler. So I think that is a very important question,
Senator, and it goes to something that GAO has reported on both
as it relates to fencing but also as it relates to other assets
as well to include technology, which you mentioned, which is
really being able to assess what we are getting out of
different investments that we are putting in place along the
border, whether it is fencing or technology. And what we have
found and reported on is that DHS could do a better job of
collecting data and developing measures and metrics to assess
what contributions they are getting out of different
investments, whether that is fencing or whether that is
technology or other assets.
And so what we have recommended is that DHS take steps to
better collect the data, and better develop performance
measures and metrics, so that we can be able to answer the
question you just asked, which is: What are the contributions
that we are getting out of the different infrastructure and
technologies that we are putting in place?
Senator Booker. So it is a radical proposition. In other
words, before we throw a whole bunch of money at the problem,
try to figure out what is going to get us the best results for
the money that we spend, given the ultimate array of decisions
we have between assets like technology, drones, or fencing.
Ms. Gambler. And DHS certainly has some data now that would
allow them to assess, particularly on the technologies front,
what contributions they are getting out of the technologies
they have deployed to seizures and apprehensions, for example,
for the towers that have already been deployed, they are
starting to collect that data now, and what they need to do is
start using that to actually analyze and assess the performance
and progress they are making.
Senator Booker. And so before politicians make decisions,
you really think that this should be a data-driven decision
through thorough analysis. Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Gambler. We certainly think it is important for them to
assess the performance of the systems and how that is
contributing to their efforts to secure the border, both as it
relates to fencing technology and other assets they might put
in place.
Senator Booker. Ms. Gambler, thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Booker.
We would like to turn it over to our Ranking Member. Again,
we are all very pleased on the Committee that you got off in
time. So if you would like to say a few words and give us your
opening statement?
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Thank you, and I want to thank the folks on
our Committee and, frankly, a lot of my colleagues and people
around the country who have expressed just personal feelings
about what those of us who were riding that train last night
from Washington up to New York are feeling and thinking. I ride
the train a lot, and I get to know the people, like the crew on
the trains, and, frankly, I ride with a lot of the same people
and never imagined when I got off the train last night that six
people from that train would be dead this morning. We pray for
all of them, and particularly for the--and also just a real
prayer of thanksgiving for the first responders who turned out
late at night in difficult circumstances. A lot of folks were
heroes and heroines last night. They were not just the first
responders or just the crew or just the Amtrak employees, but a
lot of passengers who just did extraordinarily heroic things
with their lives. So let us keep them in our thoughts and in
our prayers.
I used to be an Amtrak board member. When I was Governor of
Delaware, I was an Amtrak board member, so I have been involved
in train accidents as a board member, and sometimes with loss
of life and sometimes just a lot of damage. And it is never
easy, and this one is especially hard, as you know, but I
appreciate all the feelings that people have expressed very
much.
I want to also express to all of you our heartfelt thanks
to you for being here and for what you do with your lives and
trying to make our lives in many instances a lot safer and a
better quality of life. So we are grateful for that.
I want to express my thanks to the Chairman for holding
this hearing and letting us participate in its preparation and
putting together, I think, just a really good panel of
witnesses.
The Chairman and I and Senator Ben Sasse went down to the
border not too many months ago, Chris will recall, and we had
the opportunity to meet with people from all walks of life in
South Texas. And one of the questions we asked them is: What do
we need to do more of or less off in order to better secure our
borders? And we heard a lot of things, but one of the phrases
we heard over and over again is, ``Technology is the key to
securing the border.'' We heard that a lot. ``Technology is the
key to securing the border.''
I could not agree more. And I look forward to hearing more
from our panel today about the technologies and other tools
that can serve as what I call ``force multipliers'' for our
agents on the ground. I am sure my colleagues and our witnesses
would agree that we need smart, targeted border security
investments, and to me, this means placing a priority on
acquiring advanced cameras, sensors, and radars so our agents
have real-time situational awareness along our borders. For
example, I have been very impressed with the Vehicle and
Dismount Exploitation Radar (VADER) technology on our drones
and the mobile surveillance towers that I have seen along our
borders.
It also means working with the Department of Defense to
reuse equipment that is no longer needed in theater in places
like Afghanistan, such as the aerostats, tethered aerostats,
that now we use along the Rio Grande Valley. Finally, it means
making sure the assets we do have are being used effectively.
If we have an airplane, a helicopter, or a drone in the sky, we
need to equip those assets with the right kinds of cameras and
surveillance equipment to ensure that we are not just flying
blind. I am an old P-3 guy, old Navy guy for many years, a
retired Navy captain, and I remember many a day we used to
chase Soviet nuclear submarines when we were not in Southeast
Asia all over the world. And the idea of fighting nuclear
submarines using binoculars, not so effective. Frankly, the
idea of looking for people in a search-and-rescue mission using
binoculars from a P-3 aircraft, not so effective. And when we
send aircraft along the borders without the right kind of
surveillance technology, we are wasting a lot of fuel and,
frankly, I think the time of a lot of people if we are not
careful.
One of the things I would like to really hear from our
panel today is about what technology is working along the
border, what is working, so we can deploy more of that. Find
out what works, do more of that; find out what does not work
and do less of that. I would also welcome hearing from each of
you today what is not working so that we can reduce our
expenditure on those activities. I know DHS has struggled in
the past with some technology deployments, so we hope to talk
about some of those lessons learned.
From what I understand, DHS--with the help from our friends
at GAO--has already made many improvements to its acquisition
policies, and we look forward to hearing more about that today
as well. We applaud that. One lesson that I have learned over
the years is that you cannot manage what you cannot measure. We
talked a little bit about this here a minute ago. That is why
it is vital that DHS continues to develop better metrics to
measure its progress in securing our borders.
Another lesson from the trips I have taken to the Mexican
border is that things do change. Things do change, and we have
seen that as they move away from California, away to some
extent from Arizona, all the way down to the South Texas area
over the last couple of years, and this last 2 years with a
whole lot more young people coming up looking for a place to
just find refuge.
That may explain why, I think, our agencies have to be
nimble. I am not a real big one for us being prescriptive, and
I do not know that we have all the answers up here, but maybe
together, working together, we can figure that out and be good
listeners.
We also need to listen to the many experts who have told us
that border security cannot be won only at the border, and I do
not think it can be won only at the border. We have to take
some other steps to address some of the factors that bring so
many people to our borders. To me, that means passing
comprehensive immigration reform. It also means trying to make
sure that we identify what are the factors that are causing
tens of thousands of people every year to try to get out of
Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. What are they fleeing? I
have said many times we are contributing to their misery by our
addiction to methamphetamine and heroin and crack cocaine and
so forth. So we have an obligation to help address their lack
of hope, lack of economic opportunity. The President has
proposed, I think, a good plan there, and the Vice President is
sort of honchoing that, and it deserves our support.
The other thing is I think we need comprehensive
immigration reform. We made a good stab at that a couple of
years ago. I hope we will come back and finish the job before
long.
So that would pretty much sum up what I want to say, Mr.
Chairman. I will close with this: I think almost everybody on
this Committee would probably be described as a fiscal
conservative. And if you look at the size of our budget
deficit, go back about 6 years, the budget deficit peaked out
at $1.4 trillion, and it has been coming down, and it is down
by about two-thirds. But we still have a big deficit by
historical standards, and we need to continue to work on that.
There are three things I think we need to do:
We need tax reform that lowers the rates, broadens the
base, and helps raise a little bit of money for deficit
reduction.
We need entitlement reform that serves old people, poor
people, does not savage old people or poor people, but,
frankly, saves these programs for our kids, find ways to save
money in those entitlement programs so they will be around for
our children and our grandchildren.
The last thing we need to do is look at everything we do,
and just ask this question: How do we get a better result for
less money? Everything we do, including how do we secure our
border in a cost-effective way.
So this is going to be a good hearing. I am delighted that
you are here. Thanks very much.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper. You will enjoy
our hearing next week talking about the 30-year deficit and
those projections, and we will certainly address those issues
you were just raising.
As I was speaking to the witnesses--and, again, thank you
for coming here, and I appreciate your thoughtful testimony and
all the time you have put into it. If you are going to solve
any problem, you really do need the information. That is really
the basis of all these hearings, is to just lay out that
record, lay out the reality. A number of times in testimony we
have already talked about having the data. We have had a number
of Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports. We had one on
OAM, and we will get into that a little bit later. We just had
one issued today on the lack of data driving decisions based on
prosecutorial discretion and Deferred Action on Childhood
Arrivals (DACA).
Those are serious issues in terms of not having the
information. I would say one of the things that is frustrating
to me as this Committee has really delved into the whole issue
of immigration reform and border security is just, especially
as an accountant, as a guy from a manufacturing background,
just not having good, solid information and data--recognizing,
though, it is pretty difficult to obtain that. But we try and
do it through testimony, from getting good opinions.
Chief Vitiello, I do have to start out with a little
housekeeping because we were made aware I think earlier today
that one of our witnesses, Border Agent Chris Cabrera, received
a notice to appear before CBP Internal Affairs for this
Thursday. They want to talk to him about his congressional
testimony. Now, my Lutheran catechism tells me to put the best
construction on it, so I am hoping the reason Internal Affairs
wants to talk to Agent Cabrera is that they are a little
concerned about some of his testimony that might vary with some
of the information we get from DHS in general, potentially
talking about the fact that, he testified to us on the
``gotaways,'' that there is a certain level of, I guess,
informal, potential intimidation if they report more than 20
people coming through and they only apprehend 10 and all of a
sudden a supervisor is there and providing a lot of scrutiny.
So, again, I am highly concerned about that. We bring
people before this Committee. We swear them in. We swear them
in to tell the truth, and I do hope that this is an effort to
understand what his testimony was and try and determine whether
there are some real distortions in terms of the information and
the data that we are going to need to solve this problem. So I
hope I have your commitment and the commitment of Customs and
Border Protection's management that this is not any kind of
intimidation or retribution.
Mr. Vitiello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that
observation. The question, it is, in fact--your impression is
correct. We were very concerned about Chris' testimony. We are
very concerned about the numbers. We want you, we need
ourselves to have the data to be as accurate as possible. And
Chris, we work with him very well. We work with the National
Border Patrol Council to the extent that we need to and have
to. They are good partners. They have been for us, and we want
their testimony to reflect accurately what happens in the
field. And he left the suggestion and impression that there was
intimidation or misconduct going on in regards to how the data
is collected. That is not my impression. I am quite sure that
the agents and their supervisors and the management of the area
where Chris was discussing in McAllen are focused on doing the
right thing for the right reasons. And so we did, in fact,
refer the remarks to the Office of Internal Affairs for getting
to the bottom of whether or not there was misconduct in that
area.
Again, it is my impression that that is not what our
leadership and our managers do down there, but it helps for us
to verify.
Chairman Johnson. Good. That is very good news, and we will
be watching that.
We were talking about all the technologies as a force
multiplier. When we were down on the border in McAllen,
certainly we heard the stats of Aerostats. They are only up 60
percent of the time, which means they are down 40 percent of
the time. The same with the UAS. I will certainly give you a
chance to respond to the Office of Inspector General report,
but do we have any information in terms of what percent of
individuals we are actually detecting? Or let me state it
another way: What percent situational awareness do we have? We
had Secretary Johnson here, I think it was 2 weeks ago, and he
just made the blanket statement--and I appreciated the
honesty--that, by the end of this administration we will not
have achieved 100 percent situational awareness. I understand
that. What percent are we at right now? Is there any estimate
of that? Can anybody speak to that?
Mr. Vitiello. I cannot be precise as it relates to the
situational awareness across the 2,000 miles of the southwest
border. It is very well understood what activity levels are,
where the hot spots for activities are, and how our deployments
support that. And so, as appropriate for this hearing, the
technology is very important. The data that we collect as it
relates to that activity and our observations and the recording
of the outcomes of those individual interdictions feeds
information where the assets and the agents give us that real-
time information. So in a place like downtown McAllen, where
you visited, in downtown Brownsville, where we do have
surveillance technology, a very robust deployment of agents in
the downtown environment. So in real time, you can collect
information about activity and the results of the activity, the
results of our interdictions, which includes the people who
were arrested, the people who ran back, and what we call
``gotaways.''
In other locations, we use other methods to try and do
that. There is lots of space along that 2,000 miles where we do
not have that kind of deployment, so we use things like change
detection technology to help inform overall.
There is also a piece of situational awareness that is
having to understand what the capabilities of the criminal
network are, how we interact with our fellow law enforcement
agencies, our international partners, to understand what is
happening on the other side of the border, and putting those
pieces together along with the observations of people who live
along the border that tell us this is out of the ordinary, this
is not.
If you start to put all of those things together, it gives
you an idea of what is happening across the entire border.
Chairman Johnson. OK. But, again, we are always looking for
some kind of metric, and, certainly laws that we have passed
call for a metric, call for a goal of 100 percent ``situational
awareness,'' or ``operational control.'' So the question I
have, since is certainly the idea behind some of these laws to
specify that, are we not calculating that, are we not trying to
track that metric now in anticipation of having potentially to
comply with the requirement for 100 percent situational
awareness?
Mr. Vitiello. So we look at a suite of data that says
``these are the arrests'', we look at things like recidivism,
there are other elements that we are trying to bring in the
Secretary is focused on in the Southern Border and the
Approaches Campaign, in the Unity of Effort, to tying the data
together and giving us all a metric. We have struggled with the
idea of defining situational awareness. I mean, I think it is
one of those phrases or title that we seem to all understand,
but when you get right down to it, how do you measure something
that has a different connotation for different environments?
Chairman Johnson. So would the position of the Department
of Homeland Security be they would just really reject or
certainly resist having a piece of legislation where you have
got that metric, 100 percent situational awareness?
Mr. Vitiello. I think we would all enjoy having a defined
set of circumstances that says if you have these four criteria
met, then you do have situational awareness. We think it is
broader. Obviously, if you have technology, a piece of
machinery that surveils the border in real time, 24/7, that is
an element of situational awareness. There are other pieces to
that. It becomes difficult to decide exactly where you are at
and what the actual definition is.
Chairman Johnson. While we are on this topic, before I turn
it over to the Ranking Member, does anybody else want to
comment on this? Ms. Gambler.
Ms. Gambler. We have, as I mentioned, reported on the need
for CBP to put in place measures to assess progress made in
securing the border. You were asking questions about sort of
estimating flow and things like that. Our understanding--and
certainly Deputy Chief Vitiello can speak to this perhaps
better than I can, but those are estimates when you are talking
about things--like the Border Patrol does record apprehensions,
but the other data points that go into estimating flow,
turnbacks, and gotaways, as we discussed are estimated by the
Border Patrol.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Senator Tester is on
a little tighter timeline than I am. I have all the time in the
world, so I am just going to yield my time to him for a while,
and maybe I could pick up in a little bit. Thanks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER
Senator Tester. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Following up on the Chairman's questions, do any of you
have a concise definition for ``situational awareness''?
[No response.]
OK. That is good enough. I would just say I think before we
can even talk about situational awareness and how important
situational awareness is, we ought to know what the hell we are
talking about.
So the next question is: Is situational awareness a
prerequisite to having a secure border? Chief.
Mr. Vitiello. I believe if we can come to terms on the
definition for ``situational awareness,'' then you can
constructively then go from there, recognizing what the data
is, and say whether you have situational awareness or not, and
then based on the activity levels, the capability that CBP and
others bring to the border security environment, then you can
leap from there or jump from there or work out from there to a
secure border definition.
Senator Tester. All right. So moving forward here, I think
we all want to have a secure border, but, look, if we want to
get hung up on terminology, we can get hung up on terminology.
Basically what we want to know is how many people are getting
through and how many people are being apprehended and how
secure is it, how safe is it. And are we spending the money in
ways that make sense, whether it is on drones or radar or
ground sensors of fences?
And so the next question I have--and most of these are
going to be to you, Chief, but, Mr. Borkowski, feel free to
jump in if you feel a necessity to. Can you tell me, are drones
used on the Northern Border?
Mr. Alles. I will answer that. Yes, sir, they are used on
the Northern Border.
Senator Tester. Are they used in concert with the
Canadians?
Mr. Alles. No. They are used in conjunction with the Border
Patrol, sir.
Senator Tester. And so it is not a joint effort. It is you
guys----
Mr. Alles. No, sir, it is not on the Northern Border.
Senator Tester. How about radar on the Northern Border?
Mr. Alles. We do pull in all FAA radar feeds, DOD feeds.
Senator Tester. How about radar under 5,000 feet on the
Northern Border?
Mr. Alles. The coverage is limited.
Senator Tester. OK. What about ground sensors?
Mr. Vitiello. Yes, on the Northern Border, and those feeds
are directly shared across the international boundary.
Senator Tester. OK, that is good. How many miles would you
say on the Northern Border ground sensors are utilized?
Mr. Vitiello. I could be precise to the record with some
data to each of the sectors along the Northern Border.
Senator Tester. That would be fine.
So when we are talking about technology, like drones and
ground sensors in particular--less on radar, but on ground
sensors and drones in particular--is there some reduction in
manpower when they are utilized? Or is that not the case?
Mr. Vitiello. In making us more efficient? Is that how you
mean?
Senator Tester. Yes. What I am saying is if you are using
drones, do you need as many people on the ground? Or can you
get by with less people on the ground and still have a safe
border?
Mr. Vitiello. Correct. Both the sensors and the aircraft
allow for us to do more with fewer people.
Senator Tester. With fewer people, OK. That is good to
know.
Can you tell me, other than sharing the ground sensor
information--Canada is a pretty good ally of ours. Is there
anything else you guys do, besides border crossings, in a joint
way?
Mr. Vitiello. Yes. Under several frameworks signed by both
leadership in the Department and at higher levels, we work with
Canada in almost every area as it relates to border security,
homeland security, and defense.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Vitiello. There are a lot of programs, a lot of
interaction day to day. We have people assigned in Canada that
work out of my office.
Senator Tester. OK. There is private land, there is public
land, north and south, private land, public land, there are
national parks, there are Indian reservations. Do your people
go across private land without permission?
Mr. Vitiello. Typically we are on the border everywhere,
both private and public land.
Senator Tester. Right.
Mr. Vitiello. In places where we know that land is private,
there is a recognition from the landowner and that within 25
miles, as the job demands, we enter private land.
Senator Tester. Thank you for that. I mean, that is better
than what I think I got for information last week, so I
appreciate that.
I want to talk about partnerships for a second. When I
first got in this job, I think the Border Patrol did a pretty
poor job as far as building partnerships with--and this has
been 8, 9 years ago, so you have improved--with Highway Patrol,
with local police folks, with ranchers, with farmers, hopefully
with other agencies, too. I am talking about Federal agencies.
How do you feel those partnerships are working? And is there
anything we can do to make those partnerships work better?
Mr. Vitiello. I believe that we have recognized that that
is part of how we are going to be successful in the
environments that we work, having partnerships, leveraging each
other's authority, exchanging information so that people are
recognizing where threats are. That is always going to be part
of the future. We have adopted that as a way forward.
We interact quite a bit with leadership in law enforcement,
and the Stonegarden program that Congress gave us several years
back after the Department was created is a very useful tool for
us, and is very well thought of by State and local.
Senator Tester. Could you give me your assessment--you went
where I was going. Can you give me your assessment of border
security in the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, for example--I do
not want to single those out, but if I said a reservation that
bordered the Canadian border in Montana, that would be the
one--compared to other areas on the northern border? Would you
say it is equivalent, better, worse?
Mr. Vitiello. I am not aware of any deficiencies that we
have specifically with Blackfeet.
Senator Tester. How about with the park, Glacier National
Park?
Mr. Vitiello. Same. We have an ongoing working relationship
to be present and understand their concerns as well as being
present on the border and patrolling.
Senator Tester. So the need for additional tools--and I do
not want to put words in your mouth. The need for additional
tools when it comes to those lands--I mean, you have got it
with Operation Stonegarden. You have it with your Park Service
relationships, memorandums of understanding (MOU), whatever you
might have.
Mr. Vitiello. Correct, we do.
Senator Tester. OK. That is good.
Well, I just want to say thank you for your work, all of
you. Most of the questions were to Ron because I like him.
Mr. Vitiello. Thanks. [Laughter.]
Senator Tester. But the truth is I appreciate all your
work, and you have got some people behind you that also work
very hard, and I appreciate them, too.
I think the key is that, we have limited money here; at
least I think that is across the board, but I am not sure it is
across the board. So we have to make sure it is spent correctly
and appropriately. And I know we might want a knee-jerk
reaction to things when they happen, but the truth is that if
we listen to you folks, I think we make better decisions. Thank
you for your service.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just ask: How many of you have testified on this
subject before, before either a House or Senate Committee or
Subcommittee? Just raise your hand. OK. Mr. Garcia, where have
you been during your day job?
Mr. Garcia. Testifying on other things.
Senator Carper. OK. Good enough.
If you have been before this Committee, one of us has
probably asked you to help us figure out what works so we can
do more of that. What I am going to do is flip that question
and ask each of you to give us an idea or two about some things
that do not work and that we really should not do. What are
some things you think that do not work? What are some things
that we just ought not to do, you do not think they work, they
are not worth the money? Mr. Alles.
Mr. Alles. Good question, sir.
Senator Carper. I am full of them.
Mr. Alles. What is that, sir?
Senator Carper. That is my best one today.
Mr. Alles. I am struggling with that one. Because most of
the stuff, as I think through it, that does not work is stuff
that we actually stopped doing. One of the things we went
through in our own office was to analyze across all our offices
which ones were most effective, most efficient, and then
reorganize our structure based on that. So we actually look at
that pretty regularly, year over year, to see what is not
working and then try to adjust our organization and our assets
to rid ourselves of those things. So we are in the process of
downsizing aircraft. We are getting rid of about 40 or 50
aircraft. They are older aircraft, not good utility. We are
organizing our offices along the north and the south so that we
have our agents in the right places and getting----
Senator Carper. I am going to have to--just hold it right
there. I want you to take a couple minutes and think about that
question. Think about some things that do not work that we
should not be doing.
Go ahead, Mr. Borkowski.
Mr. Borkowski. Yes, sir, thank you for that question. There
are, I think, a lot of lessons that we have learned about
things we should not do. For example, we should not treat
technology or any other capital asset as an end. It is a means
to an end, and we often get attracted by the bright shiny
thing, and we do not think about why or how it will help us do
our jobs.
Sometimes that is difficult because we do not always have
metrics. That is because we do not have history. We are doing
things that are new to us, and we have to understand that as
well. We have to learn how to do things that are new to us and
collect data and iterate on that. So that is one thing.
Technology is a means to an end; it is not an end unto itself.
We cannot impose technologies on people who use it. We have
to involve them, and they have to invite us to bring
technologies. That is a classic mistake.
We cannot aspire to immature technologies before they are
ready for us really to start to use them, and we do that very
often.
So those are all sort of acquisition lessons learned that I
would say that we have done in the past that we need to
remember not to do in the future.
Senator Carper. Those are good ones.
Mr. Vitiello. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Hold on just one sec.
My phone just went off, and it says ``Rahm Emanuel,'' who
used to be the President's Chief of Staff. But he is now the
mayor of Chicago. I do not think it is him calling. But whoever
has his old job over there is probably calling, so we will
figure out who that is.
Mr. Vitiello. I agree with my colleagues Assistant
Commissioners Borkowski and Alles that this is a challenging
question, and then I think we have learned----
Senator Carper. Excuse me. I have got a phone call from the
Chief of Staff boss, so I am going to ask you to excuse me just
for a second. I will come back and try to reclaim my time.
Chairman Johnson. I will take over.
Senator Carper. OK. Thanks. I apologize. I am still going
to ask that question. Excuse me.
Chairman Johnson. Let us talk about fencing. When we were
preparing for this meeting, we got a chart\1\ up here showing
the different types of fencing. But one of the charts I wanted
to produce was I wanted to lay out the border, and I wanted to
specify here are the different types of fencing along the
lines, and I found out, well, I cannot show that because it is
law enforcement sensitive. So I will first ask you, Chief
Vitiello, why would the fencing and the quality of the fence
and the type of fencing along the border be law enforcement
sensitive? I mean, that is a secret that is not exactly a
secret.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
on page 1190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Vitiello. I really do not understand that as well. I
think that the documents that we sent over, that we were
trading back and forth, that we were trying to approve late in
preparing for today's testimony were marked. I am not sure of
the origination of those markings.
I agree with you. If you live in a community that has the
benefit of fencing as----
Chairman Johnson. You kind of know where it is.
Mr. Vitiello. That people know where it is.
Chairman Johnson. Plus if you are a drug smuggler, you
definitely know where it is. You have got that all mapped out.
Mr. Vitiello. As you start to aggregate data like that or
images like that, you start to show a picture across the
southwest border, and it is easier to pick out some of the
vulnerabilities. So that may be the origination of the
markings. But we will certainly provide what we can.
Chairman Johnson. Which is, of course, what I wanted,
because I want to see where we have our strengths and where we
have our weaknesses.
Talk to me--and maybe--I am trying to think who would be
best here. How effective can fencing be? And what has been the
real problem in constructing it? We have environmental laws. We
have eminent domain issues. We have lawsuits. We have passed
laws that exempt ourselves from those. But what has been the
real reality? Because, we have built close to 700 miles of
fencing, but you can tell by the different types of fencing,
there is some that works pretty good and some that, obviously
might stop a truck, but certainly is not going to stop a human
being. So just who is the best to just kind of walk about the
history of, the multiple laws we have passed to build fencing,
and then we relax them, set them up for discretion, they are
not crystal clear, there is no time horizon on it. What has
happened? We will start with Mr. Garcia, and then----
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman, if I understand, the first
question you had was about possible impediments, legal
impediments to fence construction.
Chairman Johnson. Correct.
Mr. Garcia. When Congress first expressly authorized
barrier deployment in 1996, although there was barrier
deployment before that, it provided a waiver--DHS or I guess at
that time the Immigration and Naturalization Service could
waive two laws: NEPA, which concerns doing an environmental
assessment, and the Endangered Species Act. Those two waivers--
that waiver authority in many observers' minds was
insufficient. The INS was required to deploy--essentially
complete a triple-layered fencing project in San Diego, and
over the course of 9 years, that project was not completed
because of impediments caused by other environmental laws.
Congress responded to that pursuant to the REAL ID Act by
providing DHS with very broad waiver authority to waive all
legal requirements that may impede the expeditious construction
of barriers and roads along the border, not simply in a
specified place like San Diego, but anywhere along the U.S.
border.
Chairman Johnson. Did it work?
Mr. Garcia. That waiver authority was exercised in five
instances, I believe between 2005 and 2008, and that certainly
assisted Border Patrol in expeditiously constructing hundreds
of miles of fence along the southwest border. There were legal
challenges brought to halt certain border projects, but when
DHS exercised waiver authority, courts would dismiss those
challenges.
In terms of that waiver authority, I will note that it is
not absolute. Besides the constitutional limitations--you
cannot waive the Constitution. Another thing is that it refers
specifically to the construction of barriers and roads. There
is certainly some question as to whether it would apply to
tactical infrastructure that is not a barrier or a road, like
sensors or cameras.
DHS, when it has exercised waiver authority to border
projects, it has often mentioned things like radio towers and
cameras in addition to the fence. But whether waiver authority
could be used exclusively for, say, a project to install towers
or sensors along a particular stretch of the border, DHS has
never done that, and that would raise a question: Is that a
barrier?
Chairman Johnson. OK. Chief Vitiello, why don't you finish
out? Then I will turn it back over to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Vitiello. So I think we have used fencing and it has
been part of border deployments for my entire career, and the
images that you are showing here in the top left, the landing
mat, that was designed, procured, and developed mostly by
Border Patrol agents, a lot of the National Guard deployments
were used over the years along the southwest border to build
that fencing. Effective for short-term, surge operations when
you are adding other things, technology, et cetera, it did us
very well.
The fencing that was brought to us by the changes in the
act and the mandate to do 700 miles are more the other images
that you show there.
And then the vehicle barrier, as also represented there, is
strategically placed in locations where it is very difficult to
get to the border afoot, and so it is not necessary to have a
pedestrian fence in places where the infrastructure does not
support people walking toward the border.
And so all of them have contributed to higher levels of
security. I think on the other side of the equation, it is a
lot more expensive than we expected when we started, and it was
much more difficult. I was in Texas as the Chief of the Rio
Grande Valley in 2007 through 2010, and so when I arrived on
duty there in 2007, we helped validate and set a requirement
for fencing--as I recall, about 75 miles. Most of that fencing
was built, and it has made a difference. But it was not without
lots of--excuse me? Most of it is in place, yes. It absolutely
has made a difference. Yes, it has. But it was not without lots
of challenges, difficulty with hydrology and flood control, et
cetera, in South Texas, and lots of concerns about people who
own that land, and we are still in cases in court about takings
and condemnation, et cetera. That is part of the history. That
is part of the lessons learned as we went through that whole
project.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks very much.
Senator Lankford, I had to leave the room for a moment
right in the middle of asking a question. I was asking a really
good question, and I asked them, rather than talk about what is
working so we could do more of that, I asked them to tell us
what is not working so that we can do less of that. And Mr.
Alles is still thinking about it. He is coming up with some
ideas, and Mr. Borkowski gave us, I thought, some great
insights. And Ron here was, I think, about to get into it, and
I had to slip out of the room. So do you want to pick up where
we left off?
Mr. Vitiello. So as I was saying, I was agreeing with both
my colleagues. I think some of the lessons that we have learned
with trying to fit technology in without the proper kind of
awareness of all of its capabilities or lack of capabilities, I
think one of the lessons we have learned is that as we move
into this new version of the technology laydown, we have and
are using field input for all of the installations.
Senator Carper. Give us some examples of that.
Mr. Vitiello. So we have this process, it is called
``capability gap analysis,'' and those in business are familiar
with gap analysis. As a Border Patrol agent, it is something
that is well known in this environment. It allows us to go to
the field and do surveys and walk the ground and understand
what threats are faced at a station level, so the agents on the
ground who are challenged day to day and patrolling the border,
where are their biggest problems? And what kinds of
technologies that they either have or think that are available
will help them solve those problems? And so we do that, a
station-by-station look, that is rolled up into a sector
picture, and then that is rolled up into the headquarters.
We are in the process now of baselining the data. We have
got about three-fourths of the workforce in the station-level
data coming to us, and we will use that to help inform the
plans that we have already made with OTIA, and then for unmet
needs that we know are in the inventory, the things that work
now that are being installed in places like Arizona will give
us a hint of where to go next, what might be coming available
that we can help do research on the DHS side.
Senator Carper. Ms. Duong, what country was your family
from?
Ms. Duong. Vietnam, sir.
Senator Carper. I knew it. North or South? Whereabouts?
Ms. Duong. South.
Senator Carper. Good. Great to see you.
Ms. Duong. Thank you.
Senator Carper. I served a little time over there.
Ms. Duong. Thank you for serving.
Senator Carper. Loved doing it. It was an honor.
Ms. Duong. Thank you for keeping me safe and free all those
years.
Senator Carper. Thank you. You are welcome.
Same question: Give us an example or two of just what does
not make sense and what we ought to be doing less of.
Ms. Duong. Yes, sir. From an S&T standpoint, I would say
that the biggest challenge always has been how do we transition
from a research and development (R&D) effort into acquisition.
And it is a challenge that is not unique to just DHS. DOD has
the same challenge, and it has been in existence a lot longer
than DHS as well.
Senator Carper. Have you seen some instances where folks
have overcome that challenge? Is there anything we can learn
from that?
Ms. Duong. Yes, sir. When I say it is a challenge, it does
not mean that nothing transitions. Of course, we have
transition in a lot of things in DHS as well as elsewhere. What
I am trying to say is it is a challenge in the sense that the
way the budget is structured--for example, I will give you a
very specific example. Mr. Mark Borkowski and my Division have
been working very closely hand in hand, and we even co-fund a
lot of technologies that I have just talked about in my opening
remarks. These are undergoing operational assessment right now.
So for the resource allocation plan cycle, which is for
fiscal year 2017 to 2021, our two organizations sat down and
tried to put in the budget on my side the technology cost to
complete the development of technologies that we think would be
ready for acquisition within that timeframe and delivered that
in time. And OTIA's cost is the acquisition and maintenance of
that. But we both do it because we know that it is the right
thing to do, but I frankly doubt that the budget request that
Mr. Borkowski put in will get approved just because of the way
the budget is structured.
Being an operational department, CBP has many urgent needs,
and if OTIA comes up and asks for a budget for a possible
technology that might or might not be successful 3 years from
now, it does not come as a very strong argument against other
very urgent needs.
So the problem of what we call ``wedging the budget,'' if
we do not do that, then, of course, there is no smooth
transition. Even if I am successful, let us say, to deliver
technology in fiscal year 2018, by that time, when we get to
that point and we pass all the operational assessment, and let
us say OBP asks Mark, yes, we want the technology, we want the
technology, and if Mark does not have it in his plan, at that
time then he would have to scrounge for money because we cannot
wedge the budget. So that is the problem that does impact most
of us who are trying to bring very innovative technology into
acquisition.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Gambler, where do you work? You do not work at GAO, do
you?
Ms. Gambler. I am.
Senator Carper. You probably never thought about the idea
of what does not work, have you?
Ms. Gambler. So I think two points, Senator, coming from
GAO's work on border security and acquisitions more broadly.
One is determining what the user needs are up front before
moving forward with deploying technology, and it is important--
and we have reported on this as it relates to the surveillance
technologies in Arizona--for CBP to better document the
underlying analysis and justification for what it is deploying,
where it is deploying it, and in what quantities. So we think
that is important.
And then the second piece of that is to conduct robust
testing of what is being deployed to ensure that you are
identifying any risks as early on in the process as possible so
that CBP is best positioned to be able to address those risks
before moving toward full procurement and full deployment.
So I think those are two key themes emerging from our work.
Senator Carper. OK, good. Thanks.
Mr. Garcia, do you have any ideas? I bet you do.
Mr. Garcia. Well, I should begin by saying that I am an
attorney, not a policy analyst, so I would certainly defer to
my co-panelists on that issue. And I would also be happy to put
you in touch, if necessary, with any of the CRS border security
experts.
I could make an observation, though, and this is more in
terms of the legislative role, and that is simply that a
central issue for Congress has always been what is the
appropriate level of discretion and what is the appropriate
level of guidance that should be proffered to DHS through
legislation. On issues of border security, sometimes Congress
has been very specific; sometimes it has been very general.
Sometimes it has re-evaluated things over times where it has
provided a general authority and it later imposed a specific
requirement; or other times it has had specific requirements
that it has later deemed to be too onerous and provided a more
general framework for DHS to operate with.
So the two observations would be, No. 1, the appropriate
level of discretion and guidance may be different in Congress'
view depending on the particular issue related to border
security. And, No. 2, it is not necessarily guaranteed that
just because Congress believes at a particular moment a certain
level of discretion should be given or a specific amount of
guidance should be given that they cannot change it at a later
date.
Senator Carper. OK. That was good. That was very helpful. I
will just close with this thought: I usually get a better
result in the end if I am trying to figure out how to do
something by asking a lot of other people, ``Well, what do you
think?'' And at the end of the day, we usually come up with a
better idea, and we also, even if we do not use their idea, I
think people just feel good about having been asked.
Mr. Alles, did I ever give you a chance to briefly comment?
I know you tried to at the beginning, and you swung and missed.
Mr. Alles. Second chance, sir.
Senator Carper. Just real briefly, please.
Mr. Alles. One thing I think that we have struggled with in
the past is when we procure new assets, it is making sure they
are provisioned properly. So that has been an issue for us in
the past, and it is one thing we do not want to continue in the
future. So we want to make sure--that affects our readiness so
that is key.
Senator Carper. Good. That makes a lot of sense. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Lankford.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD
Senator Lankford. Let me ask a couple general questions.
Then I am going to drive down into some specifics as well. Mr.
Vitiello, let me ask you, do you need more people or do you
need more technology? And I understand it is a little bit of
both, but if you are going to weigh up between the two, what
are you needing more than others?
Mr. Vitiello. So you absolutely have to have the right mix,
depending on the terrain, depending on the activity, the
threats, et cetera. Right now I think our challenge is
finishing what we started on the technology piece. I think that
would do more for us. If you are just looking at the border
environment, at the immediate border, the technology would be
my priority, would be our priority for the agency.
Senator Lankford. OK. So let me ask this: The type of
technology, as is most of our agencies--we met with an agency
yesterday, and they have 207 different computer systems within
their agency, and they do not all talk to each other. It has
just kind of grown up organically over the years. At some point
you realize it costs more to maintain all these different
systems than it is to be able to just centralize to one system
that we know that works.
How many different systems do you have? And I want to give
you a for instance. Helicopters, how many different types of
helicopters are we using?
Mr. Alles. So that would be my area, sir. Goodness, I have
to count the numbers: Hueys, A-Stars, Black Hawks, AC-120's.
About five.
Senator Lankford. OK. Would it help us, are there one or
two of those platforms that are more effective than others,
that as we determine efficiency, effectiveness for what we are
trying to accomplish with it? Maintaining the parts,
maintaining the maintenance of five different types of aircraft
on that has its own unique dynamic and cost on it.
Mr. Alles. So the direction would be to go to two aircraft,
a light enforcement helicopter, and a medium-lift helicopter.
Senator Lankford. OK. What would it take to get there?
Mr. Alles. Basically procurements of new helicopters to
replace the ones that are the odd types.
Senator Lankford. OK. Is that something that we need to
help with? Or is that something you all are in process with
right now?
Mr. Alles. Part of it we are in process. With some of them
we cannot entirely do with the budgets we have.
Senator Lankford. OK. You mean you cannot retire the old
ones or you cannot replace those that need to be replaced
with----
Mr. Alles. I cannot replace all the ones that need
replacing on current budgets. Some of it we can, some of it we
cannot.
Senator Lankford. OK. So other technologies that are out
there that we have multiple platforms of. Is there a need to be
able to shrink down to one or two types that are more
effective, that have been tried and tested? We have had five
different types that are tried and tested. Now we need to zero
in to a couple. Are there any efficiencies of scale that we can
gather from that?
Mr. Borkowski. Yes, actually we sort of went the other way
with the ground-based technology, because what we had was this
very large, very expensive system, which was overkill for a lot
of areas. So it made sense to us to have a multiple number of
these technologies from small to large.
The way that we are handling that is we are designing a
strategy where we can centralize our workforce that does
maintenance on those so that we can take advantage of the
economy of scale of the workforce. That is a work in progress.
It does continue, though, to be a concern. If we have
multiple kinds of radars, multiple kinds of cameras, downstream
we may want to make the cameras the same on different systems.
But that will be a plan going forward.
Senator Lankford. OK. So tell me a time period on that. We
have tried to make those decisions because--again, I am in the
same spot. The more people that we have on maintenance, the
fewer people that we actually have on patrol, lack of a better
term.
Mr. Borkowski. Well, we do not use Border Patrol agents to
do the maintenance, first of all.
Senator Lankford. Well, dollars.
Mr. Borkowski. Dollars, that is correct. And, by the way, I
know this is counterintuitive, but the actual cost of
sustaining the systems the way we are doing now has actually
gone down because we are sustaining lower-cost systems. That
does not mean we cannot drive efficiencies as we go forward and
drive those costs even further down. But so far this has
actually been a good trend.
I think the way we would deal with more combination is in
what we call ``technology refresh.'' As systems age in 3, 5, 7
years, what you replace those with, you would look for
commonality. So that would be the timeline we would be talking
about.
Senator Lankford. OK. Currently, what are we detecting that
we cannot address, that our technology, whether it be infrared,
ground systems, aerial systems, that we are detecting what
percentage that we cannot address then, actually get someone to
them in a manner to actually interdict?
Mr. Vitiello. So the fixed and mobile technology does
really well on ground targets, people crossing the border afoot
or vehicles. Assets brought by VADER on the UAS has been very
good at that. I think our biggest challenge collectively with
Air and Marine and Mark's shop trying to procure is this slow
radar detection for small--what they call ``ultra-light
aircraft.'' That has been a challenge for us. We have tried a
couple of different systems, had some success, but not as far
along as we would like to be.
The other big challenge based on terrain and kind of
conditions is tunnel detection.
Senator Lankford. That is actually heading into my next
question. So where are we technology-wise being able to pick
that up?
Mr. Vitiello. So we have a system that we have borrowed
from DOD, and we have done some testing with and had some
success with. But the terrain varies so much along the
southwest border that it has been very difficult to find a box
or a machine, if you will, that will give us the kind of
fidelity that you would like to see, the kinds of things we get
with aircraft or fixed towers, mobile scopes, et cetera.
Senator Lankford. OK. What kind of interchange with ideas
do we have with DOD and other folks to be able to swap what we
have learned, what we have gained? How is that working? Are
there impediments to that that we can help correct as far as
communication? Are you finding any walls of separation?
Mr. Borkowski. I think we have a great and very extensive
and actually increasing relationship with DOD at all levels,
from the Secretary level down to the colonel and lieutenant
colonel running the program. I have an office that does that,
Chief Vitiello has an office that does, and Ms. Duong has an
office that does that. So we are very much plugged in with the
technology they do. We have all kinds of programs to bring that
into our environment and check it out and test it, and in some
cases actually use it to support operations. Very extensive.
Senator Lankford. OK.
Mr. Alles. One thing I would comment on, though, is we do
have extensive collaboration. DOD has taken lately to wanting
us to buy the systems from them, so before, excess military
systems were passed over to us for use in homeland security.
Now we are having to purchase those.
Senator Lankford. OK. Are you getting Walmart prices or are
you getting Saks Fifth Avenue prices from them?
Mr. Alles. It is not Saks Fifth Avenue. They do what they
can, but there has been a big press to charge us for everything
on the DOD side.
Senator Lankford. OK. Let me ask you one more thing on
aircraft, the aerostat and how that is working, our blimp. Am I
using the right term on that?
Mr. Alles. So first I have to specify there are two
aerostat systems. The system I work with is the Tethered
Aerostat Radar System (TARS), high altitude 15,000 feet
aircraft that works very well. It needs to be recapitalized. It
is an older system. And then there is also--I will let Mark
talk about the lower-altitude systems.
Mr. Borkowski. Right, so the lower-altitude systems, the
ones that we borrowed from DOD that they have used in Iraq and
Afghanistan, those we call ``tactical aerostats'' that
distinguish from TARS. We have five of them flying in Texas.
They are relatively expensive. We are leasing them from DOD.
But they have been extraordinarily effective there. So now we
are in the process of deciding at that cost how often should we
use them. That is where that is----
Senator Lankford. Is the cost actually the item itself or
sustaining it?
Mr. Borkowski. It is the operations and maintenance and
sustainment of it. So we are basically leasing the DOD crews
that operate those. We have been able to get DOD to transfer us
four of the small ones as well as some towers. So we have
gotten transfers of them. But right now we are leasing systems,
and we are paying for the operations and support.
Senator Lankford. OK. And then one more thing just to wrap
up, if I may, just this. I want to come back to a percentage
that I talked about before, percentage of people--and just a
guess--that we can detect but we are not actually interdicting.
Mr. Vitiello. So one of the suite of measures that we
collect is called ``effectiveness,'' and effectiveness is
designed to get at how many people crossed the border last
night and how many of them were apprehended. And so the data
that we collect, again, as Anh talked about--this is an
estimate, but the data for last year shows that we are in the
75-to 78-percent range on effectiveness across the southwest
border.
Senator Lankford. Those are individuals that we saw, that
we were able to actually pick up?
Mr. Vitiello. Individuals and indications of people who
crossed, either through a camera observation, an aircraft, an
individual agent, or what we call ``sign,'' footprints in the
desert, if you will.
Senator Lankford. All right.
Mr. Vitiello. You wrap those all up, and we try to do a 24-
by-7 estimate of that activity across the southwest border. And
then also that effectiveness ratio counts for the people who
came in, the people who were apprehended, as well as the ones
that ran back, what we call ``turnbacks.''
Senator Lankford. OK. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
Let me pick it up there, because that is, in terms of
testimony before the Committee, there is a discrepancy there.
Maybe that is the discrepancy. If you are looking at detections
and measuring versus--how many people you detected versus how
many you apprehended, it is 75 percent. But you are not
detecting everybody, which is one of the reasons I asked the
question about some level of understanding of what situational
awareness is. So is there any sense of what percent you are not
detecting?
Mr. Vitiello. At the departmental level, they are also
attempting to look at the probability of apprehension, which
would start to estimate the actual flow that will give you a
scientific estimate, but still an estimate about the number of
people who are crossing. When the technology and the deployment
supports real-time information, you can be very confident in
specific zones where there is enough agents and there is enough
technology to show you what is happening in real time and
record the responses in real time and the effect. So the
effectiveness in those locations is very well documented.
Again, not scientific because sometimes you do not see the
people cross in real time. But you can use that camera data,
you can use the agent data, and you can wrap those shift by
shift, day by day, and you can start to look at trends across.
In the places where we do not have that kind of deployment,
we are using this change detection technology, for instance,
something that hangs off of the UAS that can fly the border,
take a digital snapshot, if you will, and then an interval
later, maybe an hour, maybe a shift, maybe a day, and look at
that land again, and you can start to recognize change based on
the way the pixels look in the picture. And that can tell you
and verify when you do not have threat or when you do not have
crossings, and then it will give you a lead to find out if
there is change in those specific areas to go and investigate
what it is.
So that has been very useful for us in these locations
where we believe, based on the people who live there or based
on our own activity levels, that there is not a lot of traffic,
and we have been able to validate that, in fact, some of those
locations do not see cross-border illicit traffic.
Chairman Johnson. And, again, I will definitely acknowledge
this is very difficult to wrap your arms around in terms of
what the data is, what the information is, what the truth is.
But, we started this series of hearings on border security, and
certainly DHS is pointing to the number of apprehensions being
down, which is, a quasi-metric for how effective we are
securing our border. At the same time, we started our first
panel, people on the border themselves, and to a person, they
were very emphatic making the point that the border is not
secure. And another pretty interesting metric, I think
depressing metric, when we had General McCaffrey here, in his
testimony before us, he said they were only interdicting 5 to
10 percent of illegal drugs. So, I mean, there is a pretty big
discrepancy, 75-percent apprehension rate of people coming into
this country illegally, only 5 to 10 percent interdiction rate
of drugs. As I grapple with that--plus Border Patrol agents
talking somewhere between, people on the ground, say we have a
30 to 40 percent apprehension rate.
So, again, I realize this is very difficult to grapple
with, but I really take a look at that interdiction rate of
drugs as pretty indicative of how really not secure our border
is. Can you just comment on that in terms of how that all
relates?
Mr. Vitiello. I think as we get better with these
deployments, as we start to fill out the Arizona Technology
Plan, as we start to move into the other locations--the next
for us is South Texas--we will get better in all categories. We
will get more effective at the immediate encounters on the
border, and we will get more effective at the drug
interdictions.
Looking at the worldwide estimate of production, which is
an estimate, and looking at our seizure data, yes, there is a
wide discrepancy. But if it is out there and our agents get
wind of it, if they can follow it and track it down and make an
interdiction, they are going to do that. Same for Air and
Marine, same for the State and locals. There is a lot of help
out there.
Chairman Johnson. But do you dispute that estimate in the
5-to 10-percent range? Do you think it is higher?
Mr. Vitiello. I cannot dispute it. I am not familiar with
how they do worldwide production, the aggregate of all the
drugs that are produced. I assume we are in a small percentage
of interdictions that are actually made.
Chairman Johnson. The reason I really point that out is,
again, as we really explore this problem--I am from a
manufacturing background, and our Ranking Member always talks
about root cause as well. If I were really to put a finger on
the root cause of our insecure border, it is really our
insatiable appetite for drugs, and the drug cartels that have
spawned, the destruction of public institutions in Central
America that that has been created, this is a huge problem. And
the drug cartels aligning themselves with international
criminal organizations, potentially aligning themselves with
terrorists, this is an enormous problem, which is why we are
spending so much time on it.
Commissioner Alles, I really do owe you the ability to just
respond to the Office of Inspector General's report on the
drone program. I know when we were down there in McAllen, I
think you were pretty emphatic that you did not agree with
that. So I just want to give you the opportunity to give us
your perspective on that Inspector General report.
Mr. Alles. So part of what our discussion has been this
afternoon has been on the whole issue of situational awareness
or what we will call ``domain awareness.'' And I think that was
one of the key things missing from the Inspector General's
report. The Predator UAS system that helps with domain
awareness, it has sensors on it I never had before, we have
never had in CBP before, that work over land and over water to
detect movements of craft and also personnel, and they seem to
have missed that for some reason. We had 18,000 VADER
detections in the Tucson Sector alone in the year they did that
report, 2013. So that is a pretty substantial detection rate
for the technology.
I think the other part of it is they did not consider the
actual value of the system in terms of seizing contraband. I
would just mention we just finished a deployment in El Salvador
that netted us $370 million in contraband. I mean, that is
pretty impressive considering for this half of a year that we
have just completed with the system, it has got $370 million of
seizures. For the year they did the report, we had a 444-
percent return on investment versus their flight hour
calculation, the cost per hour, versus what we returned in
contraband. So I think it has been a very successful system for
us overall, and I look forward to better performance out of it
in the future.
Chairman Johnson. I think one of the biggest problems cited
in the Inspector General's report really was just hours of
operation and just the inability to get it up as often as
possible to drive that cost per operational hour down. Can you
speak to that at all?
Mr. Alles. So I do think this is an area we need to still
work in. It is not achieving the number of hours I want it to
achieve per year. Part of that had to do with the weather. But
that is not all of it. There are other factors in there, too.
We need to build that in the system in terms of personnel,
maintenance, satellites, those kinds of things that we are
working on. So we want to hit 6,000 hours every year. I would
like to get it up more toward 9,000. I am not looking for the
numbers they put out, 23,000 hours. Frankly, as I had mentioned
to you guys down at Corpus, the systems would wear out in a few
years flying at those kinds of rates and not be available.
Chairman Johnson. So, Chief Vitiello, very quickly,
because, again, this is detection, and then you are in charge
of apprehension, so you speak a little bit to the UAS program
and how useful that is going to be and what are the drawbacks,
what are the advantages.
Mr. Vitiello. So I take the general description about
VADER. This is something that we had never tried before, and
there were people projecting on to it something that we were
not even sure it was capable of doing. It turned out to be a
very useful system, and we now are on our way to procure more
of them. And so we think it is going to be part of the future.
It is obviously something that makes the UAS much more capable,
already a robust system with the Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR), et cetera. But having the VADER and
being able to see moving targets in real time is going to help
us, and has. We have learned a lot with it in Tucson. We are
starting to experiment, if you will, and use operational tests
in South Texas, and we look forward to its success there as
well.
Chairman Johnson. OK. Thank you. And, again, we saw a
pretty amazing demonstration of that, too, when we were down
there. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. That was good to hear. Very encouraging.
Maybe we could talk a little bit about effective budget
cuts, and, Ron, if you and Mr. Alles and Mr. Borkowski would
respond to this. It is my understanding that the House
appropriators set discretionary spending levels for the
Department of Homeland Security somewhere around $39 billion,
maybe a shade over that. This amount is, I think, $350 million
below this year's appropriation, almost $2 billion below what
the President requested for 2016.
Let me just ask each of you if you can take a moment and
talk to us about how these potential budget cuts will impact
your work and the folks that you work with to secure our
borders. Mr. Alles, do you want to go first?
Mr. Alles. Yes, sir. I think that is going to--it is
obviously potential. I do not know exactly where they will fall
out, but the first area that would be of concern is in the
flight hours area. We would like to maintain ourselves flying
the 95,000 to 100,000 hour area, which is what we are
projecting here in the coming years. If we are cut back,
obviously then that is going to suboptimize our force. We are
really situated aircraft and people-wise to operate at those
levels. If we do not, we are not really being as efficient or
effective as we can be.
A second part is I have very limited procurements. The only
current procurement we are buying is a multi-role enforcement
aircraft at two per year. If that actually----
Senator Carper. I am sorry. What kind of aircraft?
Mr. Alles. Multi-role enforcement aircraft. It is built up
here at Gaithersburg--I am sorry, not in Gaithersburg. In
Hagerstown.
Senator Carper. You are talking King Air?
Mr. Alles. It is a King Air. It is a Beech King Air. That
is our only procurement. If that would for some reason stop
because of money, then more than likely that line would close.
Senator Carper. OK. Mr. Borkowski.
Mr. Borkowski. Obviously--and I will leave it to the Chief
and General Alles to talk about the operational impact, but in
the acquisition system there is also a huge impact. First of
all, obviously we cannot buy as much. Oftentimes that means we
cut back on contracts. For example, what that can mean is I
have an arrangement with industry. The arrangement is an up to
but not necessarily all the way up to, and you can imagine what
industry does. They project based on that, and they take some
chances on the early part of it. Well, if I then cut some of
that downstream effort out, they do not get the return on
investment. Now I have got a tough relationship with them.
The other thing that happens is all the competitions become
winner takes all. They get very down and dirty and nasty. They
increase protests. It delays the process. That also has a huge
effect. It also affects their ability and their interest in
investing in what they call ``independent research and
development,'' which is investment that we all need to provide
for the future.
And then going to Ms. Duong's point, it makes it all that
much more difficult to do this long-term kind of wedge planning
for the next system that allows us to have a smooth transition,
including with industry, from the S&T arena into the
acquisition arena.
Senator Carper. OK. Chief?
Mr. Vitiello. Senator, it remains to be seen where those
cuts are. We are obviously very concerned. This gives us a
chance--gives me a chance, anyway, to amend my answer about
what not to do. One of the challenges we have in----
Senator Carper. We do not get a lot of second chances in
life, do we?
Mr. Vitiello. I appreciate that.
Senator Carper. It is good to get one.
Mr. Vitiello. So one of the challenges we have in CBP is
that, corporately, CBP as a component, we have over 70 percent
of the budget is applied to salaries. That is people. That is
people in the field, almost everybody that is employed in CBP,
the 65,000-plus, they are front-line people, a big mission
support group here and smaller numbers in each of the field
locations. But within the Border Patrol specifically, an
enormous amount of money provided by you all and the taxpayer,
but 93 percent of it goes to salary. So it becomes very
difficult to decide what things you need to make that workforce
capable that you cannot do with specific levels of cuts. That
is our challenge, 93 percent labor, 7 percent that do
everything else we have to do, all the cars and all the radios
and all the phones and all the equipment that agents need to be
capable, and that becomes a very difficult challenge for us.
Senator Carper. OK. Thanks.
A different subject, life-cycle costs, and this would be
for you, Ms. Gambler, Ms. Duong, and if we have time, for some
of these guys as well. But I think Congress--well, not just
Congress but others as well, but we are often better about
buying new technologies than we are at paying to get the full
value of those investments. It does not make a lot of sense--
for example, we talked a little bit about this already--to buy
advanced surveillance technologies if we are not prepared to
pay for their ongoing operation and the maintenance and
replacement costs to keep those assets running well and at full
capacity, make sure we have the right people trained to do that
stuff.
Could each of you comment, starting with you, Ms. Gambler,
on whether this is a challenge for the Department in terms of
border security investments? And what advice do you have for
us, for Congress, on how to improve matters?
Ms. Gambler. With regard to the Arizona Technology Plan,
when we did our report last year on that plan, we did assess
the cost estimates that CBP had in place for the plan and some
of the highest-cost programs under the plan and found that CBP
could take some additional actions to ensure that those life-
cycle cost estimates better meet best practices. A key area
that we reported on what the need for CBP to verify and
validate its cost estimates against independent estimates to
make sure that those estimates would be fully reliable and
credible, and we made recommendations to CBP in that area to
ensure that their life-cycle cost estimates more fully meet
best practices. And we understand that--and Mr. Borkowski may
be able to speak to this more--they are in the process of
updating the life-cycle cost estimates for some of the
technology programs under the plan going forward.
Senator Carper. OK. Thank you. Ms. Duong.
Ms. Duong. From the standpoint of technology that we in S&T
are developing, we make sure that we do a good job at
estimating the life-cycle costs before we submit that
information to Mr. Borkowski, for example, for potential
acquisition. And it is a process that we keep improving.
As you know, before we start a project, we already consult
with our operating component in estimating the return on
investment, and when I say ``return on investment,'' it is on
their investment, not my R&D investment. So we estimate that
let us say if we pursue this particular technology, let us say
we could find 10 more tunnels per year. Then what does that
mean in terms--and we estimate throughout that it would cost X
dollars to buy a new tunnel detection system that we are
developing, then does that mean it would break even in 2 years,
5 years, 10 years?
So first it is just an estimate, and as we move further
into the development of the solution, then we try to come up
with a better and better estimate. And in the end, when we get
to operational assessment, that is when we try to come up with
a much better return on investment estimate to help CBP make
the decision. So it is not just about, oh, look what great
things this capability could do for you, but if you were to buy
one or three or five systems and we estimate it would help you
find five or 10 more tunnels, just be conservative, per year,
then what does that mean in terms of cost saving? So we try to
do that from an S&T standpoint to help them make the right
decision.
The other part is about acquisition programs, and as you
know, S&T does not--it is not in our responsibility to do
acquisition. That is OTIA's responsibility. However, the
Department does employ us as an adviser, and we try to make
investments to help acquisition programs better understand the
implication of the maintenance costs, the tail of anything.
Just like you pointed out, Senator, a lot of times the
acquisition cost is actually the lowest cost. It is the easiest
one that everybody looks at.
So S&T always says that we want to be able to spend
millions in order to save billions or hundreds of millions. So
it is always a goal that we strive to achieve, and the
Department has become more and more--in recognition of our
role, and I am glad to say that S&T has become a trusted
adviser for the Department along that line.
Senator Carper. Good. Well, my time has expired. Mr.
Chairman, are we going to have one more round so I can let
these guys answer that question?
Chairman Johnson. I have got a couple more questions
myself, also.
Senator Carper. Great.
Chairman Johnson. Chief Vitiello, I have got a couple
questions. I do want to go over this Office of Inspector
General report that just came out today about the lack of the
Department collecting data on prosecutorial discretion in
Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals. In the report it says
that as of September 30, 2014, CBP's Office of Border Patrol
reported it had released 650 DACA-eligible individuals. So you
are keeping track of that? In what organized fashion are you
tracking that?
Mr. Vitiello. So in CBP specifically and the Border Patrol,
when we process someone who is encountered by an agent and then
we refer them either to deportation proceedings or in the case
of unaccompanied children (UAC) to the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Service (HHS) system, and then all of the
encounters that we make are documented in a system, the
enforcement system, so if it is appropriate, fingerprints,
biographical data, photos, et cetera.
Chairman Johnson. But if you are apprehending somebody
illegally crossing the border, how could they qualify under
DACA?
Mr. Vitiello. They would not.
Chairman Johnson. But you released 650 under that.
Mr. Vitiello. I do not know that that is a CBP number. I
have not seen the report. We have had very few encounters with
DACA-eligible individuals in our context.
Chairman Johnson. Well, yes, I mean, according to this
report, you have released 650, ICE released about 12,750. So, I
mean, your percentage obviously is quite low, but I was just
questioning why--how could anybody qualify under DACA coming
into this country illegally?
Mr. Vitiello. So we do have environments that we operate in
such as checkpoints or people that are at the border that have
not crossed the border and they are encountered by our agents,
and they have eligibility under the standard. Not everybody we
come in contact with obviously has crossed the border.
Chairman Johnson. I believe the Department has basically
agreed with the recommendations of the Office of Inspector
General to collect more data. Have you already been contacted
in terms of the kind of data they are looking for as it relates
to prosecutorial discretion?
Mr. Vitiello. Specifically to that, I have not seen that.
We are always looking for ways to identify where there are gaps
in the system, and so the issue with the unaccompanied children
last year, we struggled mightily with understanding how our
data connected with the data that ICE keeps as it relates to
the detention and then further on to removal proceedings within
the Justice Department. That has been a struggle for us for a
couple of years.
Chairman Johnson. So do you deal much with just the
prioritization of who we are going to try and remove the aliens
that pose a danger to national security, those that violated
immigration control, aliens, fugitives, otherwise? I mean, is
that something you deal with, or are you just basically--you
apprehend them and somebody else deals with those criteria?
Mr. Vitiello. So all the agents--there is a training
regimen for everyone to understand what the priorities are as
it relates to the memorandum, but obviously most of the work
that we do--of the over 190,000-some arrests or apprehensions
that were made so far this year, those are all recent border
entrants, so they fall well within the priorities for action.
Chairman Johnson. So those priorities really do not affect
you as much as they obviously affect ICE or other----
Mr. Vitiello. Correct.
Chairman Johnson. The Department of Justice or HHS. OK. You
did mention Border Patrol agents, the numbers. I just want to
get your assessment. I know the Texas Department of Public
Safety engaged in Operation Strong Safety, and they surged a
lot of manpower to the border. I just want to get your
evaluation, how effective that was, because we have talked
about technology, different detection systems, fencing, that
type of thing. In the end, we need manpower. And so just give
me your assessment of how Operation Strong Safety worked, and I
believe it was in McAllen, Texas. Or was that all of the Texas
border? Or where was that centered?
Mr. Vitiello. It is mostly South Texas. I have actually
seen directly the deployments in the Rio Grande Valley. And
obviously as an operator, I am going to tell you that more
boots on the ground is always better. Is it the most efficient
way and those kinds of things? That really would be for the
State to tell you how effective their deployments have been.
But I know that we have worked very closely with them, so most
of our deployments, especially in South Texas, are near the
river, and having the Department of Public Safety--they have
some capabilities in rural enforcement and on the river, et
cetera, but most of that deployment is related to hardtop, on
the highways, and they have been an asset for us with regard to
helping chase smugglers, et cetera.
Chairman Johnson. So Operation Strong Safety, is that
continuing?
Mr. Vitiello. As far as I know, it is.
Chairman Johnson. Again, have you measured at all--I mean,
do you have kind of a before and after?
Mr. Vitiello. I can look at all of the data that we have
developed. I am not sure--obviously, locally we are aware of,
their contributions directly. But, again, it is a situation
where there are more boots on the ground, et cetera, in that
particular location, and in their deployments they help us in
the areas where we know traffic is going to eventually try to
make it, if it has made it past us.
Chairman Johnson. We were down there, particularly the
Sunday, the extra day I stayed down there. I mean, you see
their presence. I would never try speeding around the Rio
Grande Valley.
I would really be interested in any kind of analysis your
agency or your Department can do in terms of what was the
apprehension rate, what was the detection rate prior to the
Operation Strong Safety, and what is it now, because I think it
is just a really good test case of additional manpower, and we
can kind of measure how much we have increased the manpower
because of that.
Mr. Vitiello. Yes. So we have seen--obviously, the prior
testimony that you mentioned, we have seen lower levels of
activity across the southwest border. That does include where
Strong Safety is deployed. What is their contribution? What is
the contribution of the other assets that we have been able to
procure and send to the agents for their use and that
capability there? That is the part that we struggle with. That
is what you hear about data. That is what you want us to do
better at.
Chairman Johnson. Yes. So, again, please look at that,
because we also found out with aerostats, for example, when we
talked to the people where those things were deployed, it shut
down illegal crossings, but they just went someplace else. So--
go ahead.
Mr. Vitiello. That is often the case. I mean, I think what
I have heard from the agents on the ground that are the benefit
of that capability, they went from not having, high-altitude
persistent surveillance, situational awareness, if you will, to
having, a very capable system. We are advantaged in the sense
that we do not have to use agents to monitor those sensors and
run those systems. That is a contract. The other side of that
coin is it is very expensive to do.
Chairman Johnson. And the other side, too, is when the wind
is blowing, they are down, and let us face it, I would cross
when the wind is blowing.
Mr. Vitiello. Correct. That is why, we are very in favor of
the Integrated Fixed Tower (IFT) deployments, the Refresh, and
the additional Remote Video Surveillance System (RVSS), the
cameras and sensors on the fixed and the mobile technology. We
know those capabilities work. We have got a long history with
some of it. We know that that is part of the future, and you
will not be subject to the vagaries of the weather.
Chairman Johnson. OK. Thank you. I was actually trying to
be shorter, but I have got so many questions. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. So many questions, so little time.
I would like to ask, Chief, if you and Mr. Borkowski and
Mr. Alles would just go back to my last question about life
cycle. Just do it in a minute, no more than a minute apiece.
But could you just comment on whether this is a challenge for
the Department in terms of border security investments and what
advice, if any, you have for us on how to improve on this?
Mr. Vitiello. Yes, I think we have--this is the data
question. This is refining the assets that are available and
recognizing the life-cycle costs.
As an operator, what we try to do is say this is the
requirement, this is the problem we are trying to solve, and we
leave it to the acquisition professionals to understand, what
is out there, how much does it cost. And I think we have gotten
really good at learning from the acquisition folks how to
establish requirements and then recognizing that life cycle,
what we call operations and maintenance (O&M), is crucial for
us to understand before we make the final decisions on
deployments.
Senator Carper. OK. Thanks. Mr. Borkowski.
Mr. Borkowski. Senator, we have got some pretty good
processes that have grown in the Department that put some
discipline to check the affordability, which includes whether
or not we can pay for O&M. But there is a continuing problem,
and I will just be frank, that when I challenge people, they
blame it on Congress. So let me tell you what that is.
Senator Carper. No.
Mr. Borkowski. They do. I am not sure that is true, but I
will tell you what they say. What happens, as we buy more
technology, you would expect that the operation and maintenance
costs would go up. So what our budget plan is, let us suppose I
have $100 and I start with, $80 to buy it and $20 to operate
it. Over time, as I spend that $80, after I have built all of
my technology, maybe I am down to zero, and I have moved all of
that money from buying to operating and maintaining. What
happens is that the budget people do not look at that as a
total of $100. They look at it as money to buy and money to
operate. OK? They see the money to buy going down, and they
say, ``That is great. We love you. You have saved money.'' That
is not really true, but that is what they say. ``But we hate
you for operation and maintenance because that has gone up, and
you need to make it flat.''
That is the real problem that we tend to have with
operation and maintenance, is getting people to understand that
if you buy more stuff, you need to operate and maintain it. And
we have to look at the totality of the budget, not the
individual pieces.
Senator Carper. OK. Thank you. Mr. Alles.
Mr. Alles. Sir, Senator Lankford asked kind of a key
question here about numbers of different types of airplanes. We
compute life cycles across each year's platforms, but as you
think about kind of the big picture, five different kinds of
airplanes, that means five different pilot training programs,
five different maintenance and supply chains, five different
maintenance training programs, those kinds of things. So one
efficiency we need to keep working on on life cycles is these
numbers of different platforms.
Senator Carper. Good. Excellent.
A question, if I could, for Chief Vitiello. It is my
understanding that CBP is doing an extensive gap analysis for
border security that involves identifying what else is needed
to better secure our southwestern border with Mexico. Could you
just take a minute and give us a preview of what might be in
that gap analysis? And do you think it might be done? And how
could it be used?
Mr. Vitiello. So describing the process, what we have tried
to do with the capability gap analysis is going to the field,
ask them what their challenges are, where they have specific
things that they would like to solve with technology, with
additional kinds of deployments, or other innovative ways to
solve problems at the immediate border and, in specific zones,
specific stations, specific sectors. And so what we have done
is we have gone to the workforce. I explained to them what the
process is, then gone out and taken surveys and gotten from the
agents who walk the ground, who patrol the border, who are
there, and gotten their ideas about what is required.
Then what we try to do is we take that data, that
information at the station level, roll it up to the sector, the
20 sectors that are out there, then that will be fed up to us
at the headquarters. Right now we are in a situation where the
training is out for the bulk of the workforce, like 95, 98
percent of it. And then we have got about 70 percent of their
ideas and their innovations about how to go forward with--
specifically on the technology side. We have got about 70
percent of the data in.
Once we get all of the data, we will have a baseline. We
will start to have conversations both with OTIA and S&T to find
out, is there technology available? Is technology the best
available resource for solving the problem as stated? And then
we will be able to iterate that process as we learned about new
things that are coming onboard, what the future looks like,
using the success we know we have with other things, and try to
fit a program together that says, ``this is how many of these
things that you need,'' and then you could go down specifically
into the locations and say, for instance, the agents at Carrizo
Springs need the brush cleared or they need additional RVSS.
That is the kind of capability we look to have once the C-gap,
the first iteration is in as we move forward.
Senator Carper. Thank you for that.
The last thing I want to just touch on briefly is--and when
we think of force multipliers, we think of a lot of stuff we
talked about here today, and it is important. Sometimes I think
in terms of our being able to better ensure that our borders
are not so porous is to--I use the ``needle in the haystack''
analogy, and say the needles are the folks that are trying to
get into our country--it could be human traffickers; it could
be drug traffickers; it could just be people trying to flee a
hellacious situation at home. But I would say there are a
couple different ways to better find those needles in a
haystack, and one of those ways is to make the haystack
smaller. Another way is to have better equipment to detect the
needles. And maybe another way would be to make the needle
bigger.
I think to some extent, if we do immigration reform, do it
smart, we can actually make some progress on this front. If we
do a better job with intelligence--I think one of the reasons
we do pretty well up on the Northern Border is the great
relationship we have with the Canadians and a lot of sharing of
intelligence and really doing a lot of joint operations.
The other thing I keep coming back to--and the Chairman and
I have talked about this a fair amount; we have talked with
General Kelly at SOUTHCOM about it, and that is to figure out
how to convince a lot of people who live in Honduras,
Guatemala, and El Salvador that they ought to just live there
and somehow figure out how we can make them less likely to want
to flee their country to come up here.
Do you all have any thoughts on any of this before we
close? I would welcome that. Mr. Garcia, just very briefly any
thoughts, please. Just very briefly. You may not have. That is
fine.
Mr. Garcia. I do not have any thoughts on that matter.
Senator Carper. OK. That is OK. Ms. Gambler.
Ms. Gambler. I would just add on the unaccompanied alien
children issue, which I think we have touched on a little bit
today, GAO has a body of work looking at the unaccompanied
alien children issues and have a couple of reports that will be
issued this summer, including looking at U.S. programs in
Central American countries to address some of those issues, as
well as a report looking at screening, care, and custody for
the children when they come to the United States.
Senator Carper. Good.
Ms. Gambler. And so we will have some work on that this
summer. That will help inform some of those points.
Senator Carper. Good. We will welcome that. Thanks. Ms.
Duong.
Ms. Duong. Senator, I know the focus of this hearing is not
about cargo----
Senator Carper. I am going to ask you to be very brief.
Ms. Duong [continuing]. Or POE, but I would point out that
when we talk about needle in the haystack, that problem is
exacerbated at the ports of entry because we know that trade
and travel is increasing by 5 percent at least per year. So the
strategy of reducing the size of the haystack is indeed one of
the main strategies that S&T is pursuing technology for.
Senator Carper. Excellent. Thanks.
Chief, just very briefly.
Mr. Vitiello. I would just echo your comments as it relates
to our partners in Canada. I think that relationship is a very
good one. The local law enforcement and the Federal law
enforcement as well as our partners in Canada, that makes a big
difference. We are increasingly having those kinds of
conversations in Mexico, and as we get smarter about how the
Unity of Effort and the Joint Task Forces roll out, it will
give us another opportunity to use the whole of government
approach at the southwest border; and as our relationship with
Mexico matures, it will be a benefit to all of us.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Mr. Borkowski, very, brief comments, please, before we
close.
Mr. Borkowski. Just I like the needle in the haystack.
Technology attempts to make the needle glow, and if it deters,
then it can reduce the haystack, so we agree with you. But we
also agree with you that technology is not the only or not
necessarily the best way to get there.
Senator Carper. Thanks. Mr. Alles.
Mr. Alles. Briefly, Joint Task Forces help, intelligence,
investigations, coordination is key, and then I think working
with Mexico better is going to help us.
Senator Carper. Great. Thanks so much. Thank you all very
much. A great panel. I appreciate it.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper.
One of the advantages of me not making long opening
statements, I will make a closing one, because I have got a
comment. If you want to reduce the haystack, what you should do
is try and reduce, maybe even eliminate the incentives for
illegal immigration. One chart we have been putting up here is
a history of unaccompanied children coming from Central
America, and prior to Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals, we
were somewhere around 3,000 to 4,000 per year. And then, we
issued those memoranda in 2012, and that number jumped to
10,000 the next year 20,000, the following year 51,000. I know
it has come down a little bit, but it is still way above
historic levels.
So I think we have to, again, looking at the reality of the
situation, what causes these things, and we need to reduce
those incentives. That is why I have always been very
supportive of a functioning guest worker program. 8.1 million
of those individuals here in this country illegally are
working. It is a rational decision. When you have wages that
are so much lower in Central America and Mexico than they are
here in the United States, it is a rational economic choice,
particularly when the reality of the situation is, regardless
of what the memorandum says, if you get into America, people
are staying, particularly if you are a minor.
So I think we really need to take a look at our policy, and
I want to solve the problem. I think realistically we are
probably not going to have comprehensive--we do not really do
comprehensive very well, so what I have certainly asked the
Secretary, what I hopefully asked my Ranking Member is work
with me, let us identify those incentives, let us reduce them,
and let us start approaching this in a step-by-step basis. I
come from a manufacturing background. You do not solve problems
just like that. I am perfectly willing to engage in continuous
improvement. Let us take the step-by-step incremental
improvements. Let us identify the things we can do. So if all
of you would be willing to work with this Committee to identify
those incentives, identify those steps, maybe a small piece of
legislation--we reported one out of our Committee last week in
a business meeting, just allowing CBP on Federal lands in
Arizona. I would like to do it across the border. Probably some
resistance there. So how about we just take a look at Arizona
and see if that would actually work.
So I really do hope that the Administration, the
Department, your individual agencies will work with us. Let us
identify those and, take a step-by-step approach and improve
border security.
With that, the hearing record will remain open for 15
days--I forgot to thank all you folks. Again, thank you very
much for your thoughtful testimony, for sitting here and
answering in a very thoughtful manner. We really do appreciate
it. I know how much time and effort goes into this, so thank
you very much.
The hearing record will remain open for 15 days until May
28 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions for
the record.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:24 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
THE 2014 HUMANITARIAN CRISIS AT OUR
BORDER: A REVIEW OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE TO UNACCOMPANIED MINORS ONE YEAR LATER
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, Ayotte, Ernst, Carper, Baldwin,
and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON
Chairman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing will come to
order.
I want to first welcome our witnesses. I appreciate your
testimony, which I have thoroughly read and studied. The
hearing is really called to take a look at a one-year lookback
at the humanitarian crisis that we experienced last year as
unaccompanied children (UAC) streamed across our border in
record numbers. The flow has been reduced, but I would still
say it is at almost humanitarian crisis levels, and rather than
read an opening statement, I will ask for unanimous consent to
enter my written statement in the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
Appendix on page 1241.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to concentrate on a piece of Mr. Greenberg's
testimony. I want to read a little bit of it, as soon as I find
it.
Mr. Greenberg in his written testimony says, ``In recent
years, the number of unaccompanied children referred to the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS') Unaccompanied
Children Program each year was generally in the range of 6,000
to 7,000 until fiscal year (FY) 2012. Those numbers increased
from 2012 through 2014, from 13,625 in fiscal year 2012 to
24,668 in fiscal year 2013 to 57,496 in fiscal year 2014.''
He goes on to say, ``As I will discuss later, the number
has fallen considerably in the last year, though it is still
high relative to caseloads prior to fiscal year 2012.''
Now, we have presented this chart\1\ a number of times that
graphically depicts the dramatic increase in the unaccompanied
children coming in primarily from Honduras, Guatemala, and El
Salvador. And I do this from a standpoint of trying to lay out
pictorially when did it all occur and what happened. And there
is one dramatic event that occurred in 2012. It is called
``Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA).'' It was
implemented by this Administration, and I know there is an
awful lot of state of denial from--saying, ``Oh, that did not
really cause this; it is a push factor.'' There are multiple
factors, there is no doubt about it. But I think it is really
quite clear that that unilateral Executive Action on Deferred
Action on Childhood Arrivals was the primary cause for this
surge. And what I want this hearing today to talk about is the
incentives we create in this country in our laws for people to
come into this country illegally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
on page 1279.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are a nation of immigrants. We need to recognize the
fact that people that come into this country by and large are
coming for the exact same reason our ancestors came here: they
are seeking the opportunity that this country offers people. We
need to understand that and we need to, to a certain extent,
respect that if it is done legally. We cannot tolerate an
uncontrolled border, an unsecured border, and an immigration
process that is out of control that is all based on illegal
immigration.
So we have to really take a look at our laws and take a
look at those incentives for illegal immigration. Again, I
would certainly look at Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals
as one of those incentives that created this crisis. So that
is, from my standpoint, what I want to glean from this hearing
today in the testimony and the questions we will be asking.
It is a serious issue. People's lives are put at risk
because of these incentives, and we need to get to the bottom
of this.
The other point I want to make is the difficulty in getting
the information to actually solve this problem. Part of the
problem there is we have three different departments with five
different component agencies dealing with this, and these
children are passed from one department and agency to the
other, and we do not keep a real flowing record, and each
agency is charged with a certain responsibility in the process,
and there is just no overall coordination of everybody's
effort. And from my standpoint, I do not believe we are really
truly enforcing the laws the way that they were meant to. And
as a result, we continue to incentivize this kind of illegal
immigration. That has got to stop.
So, with that, I will turn it over to our Ranking Member,
Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to one and
all. It is good to see you. Thanks for joining us today and for
your testimony.
One of the things I think most of us here, whether
Democrats or Republicans, agree on is that it is important that
we address not just symptoms of problems, but that we address
root causes, underlying causes that contribute to those
problems. As the Chairman has said, there is no one single
reason why all these people decided to come up to our country
in droves the last couple of years. But I would suggest that
one of the reasons why they want to come up here is because for
a number of years they have lived hellacious lives that we
contribute directly to.
We buy a lot of illegal drugs up here. A lot of it comes
right through Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. We sell
them guns, and those guns are used to arm their gangs. The
gangs make money off of the drugs that are sold here. The
environment for job creation in those three countries is not
very good because of the lack of rule of law. And when we
deport people, we do not always deport, as we know,
unaccompanied minors or maybe families with children, but
adults, particularly adult males that have a criminal record.
We send them right back down there. And what do they do? They
go to work. And the work that they go to work on creates an
even more dangerous, unappetizing, uneconomic environment. So I
always keep that in mind. We contribute directly to the very
difficult lives they have in those countries, and we have some
obligation to do something about that, and I will talk about
that in just a moment.
But as the Chairman says, a year ago we faced a
humanitarian crisis at our Southern Border. Tens of thousands
of women and children were turning themselves in to our Border
Patrol agents and seeking protection after a grueling trip from
Central America. Our border officers were overwhelmed in many
instances. So were our shelters to house these children and
families.
To address this crisis, our government swung into action on
multiple fronts. We sought to comply with the 2007 law signed
by former President George W. Bush dealing with unaccompanied
minors. We set up emergency shelters. We surged agents and
immigration judges to border areas. And we worked to find safe
homes for the children until their cases could be adjudicated.
We also worked with the Governments of Guatemala, Honduras,
and El Salvador to launch what I call the ``truth campaigns,''
letting the people in those countries know about the dangers of
the trip to the north, to the United States. And we
collaborated with the Government of Mexico so that nation might
better strengthen the integrity of its Southern Border. And it
has.
Many others provided support, too, including local
communities and faith leaders.
One year later, we no longer have a crisis, at least not of
the proportion we did a year ago. It is true that many families
and many children are still fleeing these countries, but those
numbers are clearly down, I think by a little more than half.
In fact, while that is an improvement, is that enough
improvement? No, it is not. But even though the crisis appears
to be over, we still have humanitarian responsibilities to
protect the children in our custody, and we have a moral
obligation to treat them fairly under our laws until we change
those laws.
We must do this even as we try to resolve their cases more
expeditiously and return to their own countries those who do
not have grounds to remain here. I look forward to hearing from
our witnesses today about how you work together to effectively
process and care for so many children.
While our border and immigration agencies are better
equipped today than ever to handle another influx of
immigrants, there is still a lot of progress that needs to be
made. One area that I would like to focus on today is our
immigration court system. As we all know, our immigration
courts were badly understaffed even before last summer's border
surge. With tens of thousands of new cases, wait times have
gotten much worse. In fact, some immigrants with pending cases
were informed they might not get a hearing before November
2019. Clearly, this is unacceptable.
That is why I wrote to our colleagues on the Senate
Appropriations Committee earlier this year urging them to fund
the President's request for 55 new immigration judge teams. I
am pleased to say that the request appears to have garnered
support in both chambers. These new judges will not solve the
problem entirely, but they sure will be a big help.
We also know that cases often advance more efficiently when
unaccompanied minors have a lawyer. Not surprisingly, most of
these minors cannot afford one. That is why in Delaware, and in
communities across the country, many lawyers have stepped up to
the plate to offer pro bono legal services. I could not be
prouder of the legal community in my own State. But many minors
all over the country still lack attorneys, so there is work
clearly to be done.
Ensuring an efficient and effective border security and
immigration system is incredibly important. However, I believe
we must also not lose sight of the reasons why, as I said
earlier, so many folks feel the need to flee their country.
If we are to realize the kind of border integrity along our
border with Mexico, we need to work with these three Central
American countries--Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador--but
not just them. We need to work with Mexico, we need to work
with Colombia, with the Inter-American Development Bank, and
others--the church, nonprofits--to help root out the causes of
violence and poverty in the Northern Triangle while we do all
this other stuff that we are trying to do.
Not that many years ago, we encountered a similar challenge
in Colombia. We all recall that. And most people would agree
that our support--along with that of others--helped turn that
country around through the implementation of Plan Colombia. We
also know that Mexican immigration has leveled off in large
part because of the economic advances in that country.
Meanwhile, Central American migration has spiked because of the
intense violence and poverty in that region. Young people are
particularly vulnerable to gang violence.
The Governments of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador
must take the lead on this--and they are. These three countries
have already joined together in an unprecedented regional
effort called the ``Alliance for Prosperity'' to improve the
lives of their citizens. I like to say, as in Home Depot they
advertise, ``You can do it, we can help.'' They can do it, we
can help, and we have an obligation to do that.
Later today, Senate appropriators will take up the
administration's request for a dramatic new infusion of Federal
aid to Central America. I hope the appropriators will heed the
President's call for a new focus and investment there. And by
doing so, we can help sow some new seeds of hope and prosperity
that can benefit generations of children to come.
Needles in haystacks. I think about it in terms of needles
in haystacks. There is a big haystack down on the border. We
are trying to pick out the needles. And the needles are people,
families trying to get through, drug runners trying to get
through, human traffickers trying to get through. And the
haystack is huge. We need to make the haystack smaller, and one
of the things we need to do that is to support the
administration's proposal. It is like a new version of Plan
Colombia. Plan Colombia worked. I think this one will work as
well. In the meantime, we have got to do a whole lot of other
stuff that we will hear about and talk about here today.
Thank you all.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper. As you are
well aware, I am all into root cause analysis, and I will agree
with you. If you take a look at what is causing our unsecured
border, I would say the root cause is our insatiable demand for
drugs. And in testimony before this Committee by General
McCaffrey, if you really want a metric that shows you how
unsecure our border truly is, it is how much of the drugs we
are actually interdicting. It is about 5 to 10 percent, even
though we are spending, with all the agencies spending, about
$25 billion on a war on drugs.
So, again, I agree with you. That is a root cause. But
within that overall root cause of the overall problem, there
are individual situations, and this is, the unaccompanied
children coming in from Central America. I think there is a
root cause there, and I think it is called ``Deferred Action on
Childhood Arrivals.''
It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in
witnesses, so if you will all rise and raise your right hand.
Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Osuna. I do.
Mr. Greenberg. I do.
Mr. Miller. I do.
Mr. Langlois. I do.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you. Our first witness will be Juan
Osuna. Am I pronouncing that correctly?
Mr. Osuna. That is correct.
Chairman Johnson. Good. Mr. Osuna is the Director of the
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) at the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ). Mr. Osuna served as an Associate
Deputy Attorney General at the DOJ from June 2010 to December
2010, where he worked on immigration policy and other issues.
From May 2009 to June 2010, Mr. Osuna was the Deputy Assistant
Attorney General in the Civil Division, Office of Immigration
Litigation. Prior to these positions, he served as Chairman of
the Board of Immigration Appeals. Mr. Osuna.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, could I just interrupt for a
second? If I can just ask a favor. I am not very good at
acronyms. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), I have got
that. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), I have
got that. But in reading your testimony, a couple of you used a
lot of acronyms, and if you persist in doing that, you are
going to lose me. So just try to show some temperance there.
Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF JUAN P. OSUNA,\1\ DIRECTOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR
IMMIGRATION REVIEW, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Osuna. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper, and
Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you today about the mission of the Department's
Executive Office for Immigration Review, our role in response
to last year's border surge, and the work we continue to do
with our Federal partners on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Osuna appears in the Appendix on
page 1245.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our role in the removal process is to hear the cases of
individuals charge with violating our immigration laws and
deciding which of those individuals should be removed from the
United States and which are eligible for some relief from
removal.
We carry out this mission through our corps of immigration
judges in 58 immigration courts around the country and our
appellate tribunal, the Board of Immigration Appeals. All our
cases start when the Department of Homeland Security files a
charging document with one of our immigration courts.
Among the many challenges facing our courts, the largest is
our growing pending caseload, which you referred to earlier,
Senator Carper. There are more than 450,000 cases pending in
immigration courts around the country, by far the most we have
ever had. This backlog grew during recent budget cuts when the
agency was unable to hire immigration judges and staff to
replace those who left. In fact, while our immigration judge
corps was shrinking, we continued to receive new cases,
resulting in a continuously rising backlog.
From last summer's surge alone, the courts received more
than 80,000 cases between July 14, 2014, and June 30 of this
year. We are taking steps to increase our capacity to
adjudicate cases through a vigorous hiring effort, and hiring
judges is our first priority. Overall, with the 18 immigration
judges that we added a few weeks ago, there are now 247
immigration judges around the country, and dozens more are at
various stages of the hiring process.
Like our Federal partners, we took steps to respond to last
year's border surge by adding new priorities to our existing
priority, for all detained cases. Specifically, we added to our
priority list unaccompanied children and those who arrived with
children. We depend on our partners at DHS to identify these
groups upon the filing of the charging document with the
immigration court, and we are processing these cases as quickly
as possible consistent with due process.
As anticipated, when we identified these new priorities,
the focus of our limited resources on these priority case
groups has had a significant impact on the non-detained, non-
priority cases awaiting adjudication. Thousands of these cases
have to be rescheduled far into the future to make room for the
higher priority cases. Overall, 45 percent of case completions
in our immigration courts so far this year have been in
priority categories, meaning individuals detained by ICE and
those who crossed the border since last year.
The numbers provide some insight into the work the
immigration courts are doing. From July 18, 2014, when we
started tracking our new priority case groups, to June 30 of
this year, the immigration courts received approximately 35,000
cases for respondents DHS identified as unaccompanied children.
It is important to note that many of these cases involving such
children may not be currently pending before the court because
the children are pursuing some sort of relief from removal,
which requires work by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, which you will hear from a little later, which has
initial jurisdiction over these cases.
The pending caseload for unaccompanied children is
currently approximately 23,000. With a goal of holding an
initial hearing for unaccompanied children within 21 days after
receiving the case, I can report that more than 27,000 children
have had an initial hearing scheduled by an immigration judge
the date for which has passed, and immigration judges have
issued more than 6,800 orders of removal.
Under the law, orders of removal in absentia result from an
individual's failure to appear for a scheduled and properly
noticed hearing when ICE has established that the person is
removable. With regard to unaccompanied child cases,
immigration judges have issued orders of removal in absentia in
about 5,900 cases.
Children who appear in immigration court proceedings
without an accompanying adult may require special care and
modifications to normal courtroom procedures. We have in place
guidance for adjudicating cases where the respondent is an
unaccompanied child. Further, circumstances in a particular
immigration court may require specialized dockets for
children's cases. Following last summer's surge, all
immigration courts are equipped to handle a juvenile docket,
and 39 courts have current active juvenile dockets. Immigration
judges also receive specialized training, most recently in
April of this year, regarding juvenile cases.
We recognize that the presence of a representative can
increase immigration court efficiencies, especially with
children. We have taken numerous steps to encourage pro bono
counsel to provide representation, and we ensure that
unrepresented children are aware of those resources when they
appear before immigration judges.
To assist in these endeavors, we operate a legal
orientation program for child custodians under which custodians
of unaccompanied children are provided with important
information on pro bono resources, the immigration court
process, and their roles and responsibilities. And a few months
ago, we launched some representation programs that now operate
in 24 immigration courts to provide direct representation to
unaccompanied children.
Last year's border surge posed significant challenges for
all Federal agencies, including ours. We responded by taking
steps to work toward hearing these priority cases as quickly as
due process allows. These steps included making docket
adjustments, reprioritizing certain cases, and refocusing our
immigration court resources. We are in continuous and frequent
contact with our Federal partners at DHS and HHS on how we can
continue to improve our collective handling of these
challenging cases.
Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions you may
have.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Osuna.
Our next witness is Mr. Mark Greenberg. Mr. Greenberg is
the Acting Assistant Secretary for the Administration for
Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. We have got that one, right?
By the way, I like your acronym, EOIR.
He also serves as both the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary and the Acting Commissioner for the Administration
for Children, Youth, and Families. Before joining HHS, Mr.
Greenberg directed the Georgetown University Center on Poverty,
Inequality, and Public Policy. Mr. Greenberg.
TESTIMONY OF MARK H. GREENBERG,\1\ ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Mr. Greenberg. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper,
Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify
today. In my testimony, I will be describing the
responsibilities of the Department of Health and Human Services
in relation to unaccompanied children and will then talk about
a set of key developments relating to those responsibilities
since the Committee's hearing on this topic last summer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Greenberg appears in the Appendix
on page 1252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When unaccompanied children are referred to us by the
Department of Homeland Security, we initially place them in one
of a network of shelters while staff work to determine if they
have an appropriate sponsor with whom they can live while they
are awaiting their immigration proceedings.
When they arrive at a shelter, children are provided with a
complete medical examination within 48 hours. Trained staff at
the shelters conduct screenings to determine if the child may
be a victim of abuse or a crime or human trafficking. Children
in care receive medical, dental, mental health services,
education services, recreational opportunities, a legal rights
presentation, and access to legal services, access to religious
services, case management, and clinical counseling.
While the children are in care at the shelters, we have a
responsibility to place them in the least restrictive setting
that is in the best interest of the child, taking into
consideration the risk of harm to themselves or to the
community or risk of flight.
Initially, we seek to place children with a parent or a
close relative or, if that is not possible, a more distant
relative or a family friend. If we cannot identify an
appropriate sponsor and the child does not get repatriated or
attain immigration relief, the child will remain in HHS case
until he or she turns 18, at which point we will remand the 18-
year-old to the custody of the Department of Homeland Security.
We seek to ensure that sponsorships are safe and
appropriate. We require verification of the sponsor's identity
and relationship to the child. The potential sponsor must
undergo a background check and complete an assessment that
identifies risk factors and other serious concerns. In a set of
cases, caseworkers perform home studies as an additional safety
measure.
As part of the placement process, potential sponsors must
agree that they will ensure that the child appears at court
proceedings and must agree to inform the Department of Justice
and Department of Homeland Security of any change of address.
In addition, when we release the child to the sponsor, we
provide the address information to the Department of Justice
and the Department of Homeland Security.
I now want to highlight some key developments since last
year's hearings. As you noted, last year it was the highest
number of children in the history of the Unaccompanied Children
Program. This year, the numbers are down significantly, though
still high in historic terms.
Last year, we received over 57,000 referrals from the
Department of Homeland Security. In the first 8 months of this
year, we have received fewer than 18,000.
Last year, the President directed the Secretary of Homeland
Security to establish an interagency group, the Unified
Coordination Group (UCG), to ensure unity of effort across the
administration. The UCG continues to operate. It has an ongoing
role to facilitate requests from the Department of Homeland
Security or HHS, if needed, and this can include requests for
additional capability, operational coordination, planning
support, situational assessment, and critical transportation
capabilities.
Operating the Unaccompanied Children Program presents
multiple challenges because of uncertainties about how many
children will arrive and when. Incorporating lessons from last
summer, we developed what we refer to as a ``bed capacity
framework'' to ensure that we have enough year-round standard
beds with the ability to quickly add temporary beds when there
are seasonal fluctuations. This is a model that reduces funding
during periods of low capacity while preserving the ability to
respond to future increases.
Since 2011, we have reduced the amount of time children
stay in shelters from an average 72 days to a little more than
30 days. We have maintained the average this year at 34 days.
While we seek to ensure that all releases are safe and
appropriate, we know that sometimes a child may develop
concerns about his or her placement, and in April, we expanded
our help line in order to receive calls from children who are
in distressed circumstances.
In addition, starting this month, HHS is beginning to offer
post-release services to a child and sponsor in the first 6
months after release if a placement has been disrupted or is at
risk of disruption.
In December of last year, we published our interim final
rule that outlines safeguards that all of our facilities have
to implement to protect children in custody from sexual abuse.
Last September, we provided funds to two grantees to expand
legal representation. On June 15, we issued proposals for
contractors to further expand the provision of legal services.
We welcome working with the Committee and Congress in
efforts to improve the program. Thank you, and I will be happy
to answer any questions.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Greenberg.
Our next witness is Mr. Phil Miller. Mr. Miller is the
Assistant Director of Field Operations, Enforcement and Removal
Operations, for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at
U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
That is ICE, and that is a whole lot easier to say than the
long title.
Mr. Miller has served in a variety of positions----
Senator Carper. ICE is good.
Chairman Johnson. Well, we know that one.
Mr. Miller has served in a variety of positions in the
Department, beginning as an immigration inspector in 1996, and
becoming a deportation officer in 1998, ICE Special Agent in
2001, and Field Officer Director of the New Orleans Field
Office in 2009. Mr. Miller.
TESTIMONY OF PHILIP T. MILLER,\1\ ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FIELD
OPERATIONS, ENFORCEMENT AND REMOVAL OPERATIONS, U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Miller. Thank you, and good morning. Chairman Johnson,
Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
role of ICE in addressing the ongoing challenges surrounding
unaccompanied children arriving in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Miller appears in the Appendix on
page 1267.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I currently serve as the Assistant Director of Field
Operations, for ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, where I
oversee, direct, and coordinate the operational activities
throughout the Nation's 24 field offices and their sub-offices.
This includes the transportation and removal of unaccompanied
children to further agency goals and ensure compliance with
agency policy.
As you know, in 2014, there was an unprecedented influx of
unaccompanied children from Central America to the United
States. Through the whole of government, we continue to address
this humanitarian border security issue in a manner that is
comprehensive, coordinated, and humane.
As part of the unified effort, ICE is responsible for
quickly and safely transporting unaccompanied children from the
custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to the
custody of HHS and, if ordered, the removal of these children
following the conclusion of immigration proceedings. Both of
these functions are critical links in the overall process.
While unaccompanied children are not housed in ICE's
detention facilities, their short-term care and custody
requires the use of agency resources and the time and attention
of ICE's officers. During the time that ICE maintains physical
custody of the unaccompanied children for transportation and
pending their placement with HHS, such minors are separated
from adult detainees. Unaccompanied children are provided with
regular access to snacks, drinks, consular officials,
telephones, and other resources.
ICE transports unaccompanied children via ground,
commercial air, and ICE charter flights. All 24 ICE field
offices have primary and backup juvenile coordinators each of
whom receive annual specialized training with respect to the
unique vulnerabilities of children. These field office juvenile
coordinators, a duty that I personally performed in 1999, serve
as a local subject matter expert on proper processing,
transportation, and placement of unaccompanied children.
Additionally, they monitor operational practices for compliance
with regulations, standards, and policy, and they are on call
24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Currently, due to immigration court backlogs, immigration
processes take months or even years. However, once removal
proceedings have concluded and a final order of removal is
issued, ICE takes appropriate enforcement action based on the
Department's stated priorities.
Accordingly, HHS can transfer custody of an unaccompanied
child to Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and then ERO
will remove the unaccompanied child in cooperation with HHS and
the receiving government.
We have taken a number of steps to prevent further surge
this year.
First, the President and Secretary have reiterated that
recent arrivals and those attempting to cross the border are
priorities for apprehension and removal.
Second, ICE has implemented procedures for efficiently
obtaining travel documents and transferring unaccompanied
children through a streamlined process that allows our ERO
officers to continue to perform their other responsibilities.
Third, Secretary Johnson and Director Saldana have
personally met with high-level officials in El Salvador,
Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala to secure their cooperation in
stemming the flow of their citizens into the United States.
While the humanitarian influx is a seasonal challenge, early
indications are that our efforts are paying off.
While I am confident that we will not see a repeat of last
year's unprecedented numbers, we are better prepared than ever
before to deal with the arrival of unaccompanied children along
the Southern Border. With the Committee's support, we continue
to work closely with our sister agencies to address the care
and processing of unaccompanied children arriving in the United
States in a unified manner.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today, and I welcome your questions.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Our final witness is Mr. Joseph Langlois. Mr. Langlois is
the Associate Director of the Refugee, Asylum, and
International Operations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS), at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Langlois is a career civil servant at USCIS, serving for
more than 35 years in various positions from asylum officer to
the Chief of the Asylum Division. Mr. Langlois.
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH E. LANGLOIS,\1\ ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
REFUGEE, ASYLUM, AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE, U.S.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Langlois. Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper, and other
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify at today's hearing on unaccompanied
children. My name is Joseph Langlois, and I am the Associate
Director of the Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations
Directorate within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
at the Department of Homeland Security. I oversee the asylum
program at USCIS, which plays a critical role in upholding our
Nation's long tradition of providing protection for those who
have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear of
persecution. My testimony today will focus on USCIS' role in
adjudicating asylum applications filed by unaccompanied
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Langlois appears in the Appendix
on page 1273.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of
2008 (TVPRA) changed the track for unaccompanied children
seeking asylum in removal proceedings and introduced a new role
for USCIS. Prior to the TVPRA, only immigration judges had
jurisdiction to adjudicate asylum applications filed by
unaccompanied children in removal proceedings. Under the TVPRA,
unaccompanied children in removal proceedings now have the
ability to file their asylum applications with USCIS. This
arrangement allows unaccompanied children to initially present
their claims in a non-adversarial interview with a USCIS asylum
officer rather than in adversarial proceedings before an
immigration judge. While the forum in which the claim is
initially heard is changed, the eligibility standard for asylum
remains the same.
In addition, if the asylum officer does not grant asylum,
USCIS coordinates with ICE to transfer the case back to
immigration court where unaccompanied children may renew their
asylum claims in adversarial proceedings before an immigration
judge.
Since implementation of TVPRA in 2009, approximately 13,000
unaccompanied children have filed asylum applications after
having been placed in removal proceedings. Since TVPRA became
law 6 years ago, USCIS has granted asylum to approximately
4,000 unaccompanied children. While the number of unaccompanied
children being granted has been low compared to the number of
arrivals and the number of applications, USCIS serves a vital
role in protecting unaccompanied children who have been
persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution by
providing a non-adversarial forum to elicit their claims.
The asylum application process generally begins when a
minor who was determined to be an unaccompanied minor by CBP or
ICE indicates an intention to apply for asylum while in removal
proceedings. ICE then instructs the unaccompanied child to file
the asylum application with USCIS. In the meantime, the
immigration judge grants a continuance of the removal
proceedings or administratively closes proceedings in order for
the unaccompanied child to file the application with USCIS and
for USCIS to adjudicate the asylum application.
During the pendency of the asylum case, asylum officers
communicate with ICE attorneys to provide progress reports on
the case, verify the status of removal proceedings, confirm
court hearing dates, and arrange for the transfer of files
between ICE and USCIS.
After USCIS receives the case, an asylum officer conducts
an in-person, in-depth, non-adversarial interview of the
unaccompanied child to fully explore the asylum claim. In
addition, the asylum officer researches country conditions,
completes a wide range of required biometric and biographic
security checks. The asylum officer then determines whether the
applicant is eligible for asylum and drafts a decision. Before
any decision is finalized, a supervisor reviews the case to
ensure that the decision is supported by the record and
comports with the law.
In conclusion, USCIS plays an important role in
adjudicating asylum applications for the small portion of
unaccompanied children who choose to apply. USCIS continues to
monitor trends of new application filings and stands ready to
meet any future challenges with a firm commitment to quality
and integrity.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be more
than happy to answer your questions. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Langlois.
Let me start with the chart.\1\ As I stated earlier, there
are multiple causes for, obviously, children coming into this
country, but does anybody want to take a look at that chart and
basically dispute my overall conclusion of what the primary
cause of the spike of unaccompanied children coming to this
country was Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals, the message
that we are sending to Central America that if you get to
America, you are pretty well home free? Does anybody want to
volunteer a challenge to that conclusion?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
on page 1279.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[No response.]
OK. Then I will--Mr. Greenberg? You twitched.
Mr. Greenberg. First, I want to make clear that HHS is not
an immigration agency, is not responsible for immigration
policy, and our responsibilities are principally about
providing shelter for the children and getting them to
appropriate sponsors. The work on reasons for why children are
coming is principally the work that has been done by the State
Department and the Department of Homeland Security, and I would
refer to the recent GAO report on this issue.
The GAO report highlights the importance of crime and
violence and economic conditions in the home countries.
Chairman Johnson. Let me just ask, has there been a
dramatic increase in crime or a dramatic reduction in economic
conditions in Central America starting in the year 2012 that
would be kind of a trigger for that, be a catalyst for that
type of enormous spike? I have the murder rates, homicide rates
per 100,000, and quite honestly, in most of these countries,
they have dropped in El Salvador in 2009, 71; 2010, 64; 2011,
70; 2012, 43; 2013, 40. So, again, I realize Central America is
not America, and, you have got a huge wage differential. These
are certainly pull factors. But, again, I am looking at what
caused that spike.
I would say that nobody is really disputing that that is
certainly a real possible cause right there. Let me get into
some numbers here.
Since 2009, from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras,
there have been over 100,000--109,000 unaccompanied children
coming into this country. Of the children coming in 2009, we
returned about 30 percent; in 2010, we returned about 22
percent; in 2011, we returned about 24 percent; in 2012, 12
percent; 2013, 6.2 percent; 2014, 2.7 percent; and as of 2015,
about 3.8 percent.
Now, again, we cannot really relate those returned versus
when they came in, but that is just the returned versus the
children coming into this country.
So, in all, we have returned about 5.7 percent, about 6,248
unaccompanied children, when we have had 109,000 come to this
country illegally.
Now, is that sending a signal to people in Central America
that as an unaccompanied child, if you come into America, you
have a 94.3 percent chance of being able to stay? Is that a
disincentive for making that trip or an incentive for making
that trip? Anybody want to answer that? I would say it is an
incentive.
Mr. Miller, there are currently, I think in your testimony
you said about 6,800 final orders of removal that have been
issued. Those are adjudicated cases, people have been ordered
to be removed; children have been ordered to be removed from
this country. So far in fiscal year 2015 we have removed 569.
Why aren't we removing the 6,800?
Mr. Miller. Well, Senator, first, the data I have shows
that so far this fiscal year, as of mid-June, we had removed
about 1,500 unaccompanied children.
Chairman Johnson. So 1,500 versus 6,800.
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. As a police manager, I have to look
at all of the cases that we have to work, and I can tell you
that if I am going to task my officers with going out after
criminals that are at large in our community or going out after
juveniles who are non-criminals in our community, I think it is
good policing to go after the criminals. We face a very dynamic
environment in a number of jurisdictions that are no longer
honoring ICE detainers, and so rather than my officers being
able to go and pick up criminals, convicted criminals in a
jail, we have to go out with teams and find these people in the
community. That is very resource-intensive, and if we have to
prioritize those two populations, I think we are making
appropriate prioritization, giving our policing
responsibilities.
Chairman Johnson. Well, as long as we are talking about
criminals, on Sunday we learned that 32-year-old Kathryn
Steinle was killed in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant who
had seven prior felony convictions. According to ICE data
provided to Senators Grassley and Flake, from fiscal year 2010
through fiscal year 2014, 121 criminal aliens were released and
have been subsequently charged with a homicide-related offense.
What do you have to say about that lack of enforcement?
Mr. Miller. I do not think that the two are necessarily--
the larger data that we have been talking with your colleagues
on the House side about, that represented a number of different
reasons why those persons could no longer be detained. Many of
those are a function of law. There are both criminal--I am
sorry, circuit court decisions in the Ninth Circuit; there are
also binding Supreme Court----
Chairman Johnson. Tell me specifically what is preventing
us, when we have people in this country illegally and they have
had seven prior felony convictions, why aren't we able to
deport those individuals?
Mr. Miller. In that particular case, our detainer was not
honored.
Chairman Johnson. Who did not honor it?
Mr. Miller. San Francisco Sheriff's Department did not
honor our detainer that we lodged.
Chairman Johnson. So you have no legal authority to detain
that person yourself or apprehend them and deport them?
Mr. Miller. In that particular case, that gentleman has an
outstanding felony narcotics warrant, and we feel strongly that
the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) made the right decision in trying
to resolve that criminal warrant before taking--we are allowed
to take further civil action.
Chairman Johnson. What is BOP?
Mr. Miller. Bureau of Prisons----
Chairman Johnson. Again, that did not make sense to me
right there. So tell me what happened. You seem to know a fair
amount about that case. What happened in that case where that
individual had seven prior felony convictions and he had been
released, repeatedly obviously, and now a young woman is dead?
Why did that happen?
Mr. Miller. In that particular instance, he completed
serving a Federal sentence for illegal re-entry after
deportation by an aggravated felon. When he completed that
sentence----
Chairman Johnson. Let me start over. Why didn't ICE pick
him up immediately upon that and deport him? What is preventing
us from doing just that? We have got him in custody. He serves
his sentence. Why isn't ICE right there at the prison door
escorting that person back to his country of origin?
Mr. Miller. As I said, there was an outstanding narcotics
warrant, felony narcotics warrant, and Bureau of Prisons, as we
would have done the same thing, we would seek to resolve all
criminal warrants before we go forward with removal. That has
been our past practice for a number of years. We actually
operate that within the criminal alien program. As a matter of
agency direction, the officers are to resolve outstanding
felony criminal warrants before proceeding with removal.
Chairman Johnson. So there was another criminal warrant,
but he was released into general society to create a murder--or
to commit a murder. I mean, does that make any sense to you?
Because, I tell you, it does not make any sense to the American
public. And that is the problem. That is what we are trying to
grapple with here. That is the problem we need to solve.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Just go ahead. How do we solve that
problem? Because there is a disconnect here. We have got a guy,
he is up, he has been incarcerated repeatedly, a felon, a
repeat offender. He is in prison where, in jail in San
Francisco? We have got a drug--what is it? A drug charge
against him, a Federal drug charge?
Mr. Miller. There was a State felony warrant for narcotics.
Senator Carper. OK.
Mr. Miller. And I think that the Secretary is taking very
proactive steps through the Priority Enforcement Program to try
to bring a number of locations that are not honoring
immigration detainers. We have established requests for
notification that look to overcome a lot of the concerns that
our State and local partners had in working through Secure
Communities, and by establishment and working through the
Priority Enforcement Program, we hope to have communities like
San Francisco come back and begin working with us proactively.
Senator Carper. Is there something we need to do here at
our end on the legislative side to make sure that something
like this does not happen again?
Mr. Miller. I am not an attorney, Senator. I am a law
enforcement officer, so I cannot really speak to the nuances of
law or policy. I am told by our attorneys that there is limited
ability to force communities to accept immigration detainers.
Also, I think that has not been a historical police practice.
Usually we work collaboratively to resolve outstanding criminal
warrants and then to transfer custody when requests are made. I
think some of the recent court decisions called into question
ICE's ability to request that communities hold, sheriffs hold
their inmates for 48 hours beyond the expiration of their
sentence, and that is one of the reasons why Secretary Johnson
in going forward with the Priority Enforcement Program has
created a new paradigm where we will be communicating with
these jurisdictions before the person is released from custody
and being able to safely and effectively ensure their transfer
of custody.
Senator Carper. Maybe this is one that we could work on
together to do a better job on. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Very good.
Senator Carper. I asked my staff to look to see if it is
only the United States to which folks from Honduras, Guatemala,
and El Salvador are fleeing to ask for asylum. What about these
other countries? How about Mexico? How about Belize? How about
Panama? How about Nicaragua? And they just gave me these
numbers, and I thought it was pretty interesting. They said the
United States is not the only country that is experiencing
significant increases in asylum seekers from those three
Central America countries I alluded to. Together, Mexico,
Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Belize have reported an
increase of almost 1,200 percent from 2008 to 2014. That is
like a 12-fold increase. And it is not just the United States.
I just assumed they just want to come to the United States.
Well, they just want to get out of Honduras, Guatemala, and El
Salvador. And the numbers I think speak volumes.
Having said that, the numbers are down by about half. In
fact, the numbers are down by a little bit more than half from
this year to last year. Let me just ask you why the numbers are
down by so much. Mr. Osuna.
Mr. Osuna. Senator, I think there are a number of reasons.
I do think that the administration feels that a lot of the
measures that we put in place last year, not only here
domestically but also with our partners in Mexico and Central
America, have had an effect. Certainly--and I would defer to my
colleagues at the enforcement agencies here, but the
administration does feel that that has been part of the reason
why the numbers are down, is because of many of the----
Senator Carper. OK. Thanks.
Others, please? Anyone want to share a thought with us?
Please, do not be shy.
Mr. Miller. I would just echo Mr. Osuna in that both
Secretary Johnson and Director Saldana have met personally with
a number of Central American officials. Coupled with the
Department's outreach and coordination with the State
Department, we are trying to overcome the message, the
marketing by smuggling organizations last year that there were
these unreal opportunities that were outside the law. And that
seems to be taking hold. I think as Mr. Greenberg said, our
colleagues from the State Department know a little bit more
about this and the programs that are being operated. But it
seems all indications are that our message is being well
received, and our international partners are working in a high
degree of collaboration to ensure that we do not have the same
kind of humanitarian crisis that we did last year.
Senator Carper. OK. Good, thanks.
Each of you give us one example of something that the
Congress needs to do that will help continue to drive those
numbers down. Each of you give us one good idea. Mr. Langlois.
Mr. Langlois. Well, I think that----
Senator Carper. And do it briefly.
Mr. Langlois. Yes.
Senator Carper. Just one good answer.
Mr. Langlois. I think that cooperating with the nation
states that are on the perimeters of these three countries to
build their asylum adjudication process would assist us in this
endeavor to have sanctuary provided by countries that are in
the surrounding area. We have been working with Mexico for
quite some time on their asylum system, so that would be one
suggestion.
Senator Carper. OK. Thanks.
Mr. Miller, one good example of what we can do.
Mr. Miller. Support the President's request for contingency
funding. As we saw last year, there was an opportunity to work
collaboratively. We are doing that very effectively. Mr.
Greenberg and I have been traveling together to the Southern
Border to make sure that our teams are aware of the need to
work together. But it was very difficult last year. The
Department had to reprogram hundreds of millions of dollars and
take away from other functions to accomplish our mission. I
think with contingency funding in our 2016 budget, we would
have that flexibility to not only deal with unaccompanied
children, but any other unforeseen crises on the border.
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks.
Mr. Greenberg, one good example.
Mr. Greenberg. I need to largely defer to my colleagues on
this one. What I would highlight is that in ensuring the
efficiency of the legal process for arriving unaccompanied
children, the continued efforts to expand legal representation
are essential.
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks. Mr. Osuna.
Mr. Osuna. Support the President's request for fiscal year
2016 for more funding for immigration court resources. That
enables us to----
Senator Carper. 55 judge teams?
Mr. Osuna. 55 judge teams, which I thank you for----
Senator Carper. I think it is in the--I think the
appropriators have picked it up.
Mr. Osuna. It is.
Senator Carper. We are grateful for that.
Mr. Osuna. Those resources are going to be critical for us
to be able to have the capability to move these cases as
quickly as we can.
Senator Carper. All right. Good. Thank you all. You did a
great job on those acronyms, too.
Chairman Johnson. By the way, let me quickly point out, the
message we are sending to children in Central America is 2.7
percent of them are returned from 2014. Even using Mr. Miller's
updated numbers of 1,500, that is about 10 percent. So, in
other words, the message we are sending is if you get to
America, 90 percent or more of you will be able to stay. That
is the message. From what my understanding is, Mexico is doing
a far better job of policing its Southern Border, increasing
their apprehensions by 79 percent. I think that is probably the
No. 1 reason our numbers are down here, and that is a good
thing. Senator Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
panelists for being here today and your testimony.
As I have said on repeated occasions, I believe that
ultimately we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform to
deal with these issues in a comprehensive way, which is why we
need to have comprehensive immigration reform.
At a hearing earlier this year discussing the Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals and the Deferred Action for
Parents of Americans, I spoke about two Michigan students as an
example of the DACA program and what that means in individuals'
lives. One of these individuals was someone who came here very
young, who knows no other life other than being an American,
and came here--not her decision--but came with a parent, did
very well in school, became valedictorian of her high school,
is now at the University of Michigan with dreams of becoming a
physician. Yet without DACA protections, she would be deported,
which makes no sense whatsoever, and to me, is not good public
policy for us either.
I would like to enter, Mr. Chairman, if I may, a report
from the American Immigration Council, and I think it speaks to
some of the concerns that you raised as to whether or not this
DACA program is responsible for some of the surge that was seen
last year. It is the American Immigration Council's (AIC)
Special Report of June 2015, if I may enter that.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The American Immigration Council Report referenced by Senator
Peters appear in the Appendix on page 1280.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Johnson. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Basically, I would just highlight one part of it, where it
says, ``In its 2012 report, the Office of Refugee Resettlement
stated that in a 5-month period between March and July 2012,
the Unaccompanied Minor Program received almost 7,200
referrals, surpassing fiscal year 2011's referrals,
showing,''--and this is a quote, ``showing from the report that
the rise in unaccompanied minors predated the implementation of
the DACA program. Furthermore, individuals who arrived in the
country after January 1, 2007, would not even be eligible for
DACA.''
Also, although I do not have the report, the Cato Institute
did a report on July 29, 2014, and the Cato Institute said:
``First, the surge in UAC began long before the June 15
announcement of DACA. It is true that DACA had been discussed
in late May 2012, but the surge was underway by that time. From
October 2011 through March 2012, there was a 93-percent
increase in UAC apprehensions over the same period in fiscal
year 2011. Texas Governor Rick Perry warned President Obama
about the issues, again, before the DACA announcement.''
And, second, they also raise in this Cato report that
children coming now are not legally able to apply for DACA. So
there are certainly reports from independent groups as wide-
ranging as the American Immigration Council to the Cato
Institute which dispel that notion.
And I think it goes back to what I said at the beginning of
my comments, that ultimately Congress needs to roll up our
sleeves, and we have to work to pass comprehensive immigration
reform. If we do that kind of reform, we are going to provide
clarity and certainty, improve border security, and ensure our
immigration system is fair for all and makes our country
stronger.
I think it is also important to remember that when we are
talking about the unaccompanied children here today, we are
referring to kids who came to the United States to seek a
better life and who are often fleeing violence and
exploitations. Social service organizations in Michigan have
cared for some of these children, including teenagers who have
fled from sexual trafficking and gang violence, which leads
oftentimes to severe depression and attempts at suicide as
well.
The United States has legal obligations to consider these
children's welfare and to allow their asylum claims to have
their day in court. So I think that leads my question to Mr.
Langlois. You talked about your asylum program. If you could
speak to some specific examples of a child that comes forward
who would be granted asylum, what are they facing? Talk
specifically and give us two or three examples.
Mr. Langlois. In order to be eligible for asylum, an
individual needs to establish that they have experienced past
persecution or have a well-founded fear of persecution on one
of the five protected grounds. We call it race, religion,
nationality, social group, and political opinion.
Individual minors are coming forward, the vast majority--it
is over 90 percent that appear in front of us--are represented
by counsel. They appear in front of us, and we have small
numbers. Our approval rate is approximately 40, 42 percent, but
the majority are fleeing severe violence that is connected to
at least one of the protected grounds. So that is the overall
view of what is occurring here.
Senator Peters. Now, these children that come before you,
you say they go into a non-adversarial situation, but it looks
as if the number that actually get into that is a lot smaller
than the number of unaccompanied minors that are coming across.
So does a child, say a 10-year-old, have to say, ``I want to
file an asylum claim, and I would like to''--how do they even
know that that is the avenue that they need to go?
Mr. Langlois. Individuals who are deemed to be
unaccompanied children by CBP or ICE are placed in removal
proceedings in front of an immigration judge. When they are in
front of the judge, they must request to apply for asylum when
they are in front of the immigration judge in the adversarial
hearing.
Senator Peters. How is a 10-year-old going to know that?
Mr. Langlois. The individuals that are in proceedings
sometimes do have counsel; they sometimes do not. I am not
familiar with how it occurs in front of an immigration judge.
Senator Peters. Mr. Osuna.
Mr. Osuna. Senator, I can take that on. It can be
challenging for our judges when they have children in front of
them, as you can imagine, and you pointed out the scenario
perfectly. A 10-year-old in front of a judge, sometimes it is a
challenge for the judge to be able to find out exactly what the
case is all about.
Our judges take the necessary time to get to know what the
child is all about, what the child's case is all about.
Sometimes judges will have children come back a couple of times
in order to get them comfortable, in order to hear what
actually happened to them, and whether they wish to apply for
asylum.
The point of taking the time, the judge taking the time, is
not just also to hear what the child's case is all about, but
also to give the child a chance to find a lawyer. And there are
a lot of organizations out there that are stepping up and
providing lawyers for these kids.
So for the most part, the process in immigration court is
designed to get the child comfortable, to have the judge hear
what the case is about, and to give the child a chance to find
a lawyer or representative that can then assist them with the
application for asylum, or for some other form of immigration
relief.
Senator Peters. If I may just take a brief follow up, the
image is striking to have a 10-year-old child standing in front
of a judge, and then next to them would be a government
attorney, basically, seeking to have them deported. Is there
any other place in our justice system here in America where we
just allow a young child to stand before a judge without any
kind of legal representation and plead their case?
Mr. Osuna. Not to my knowledge. I think we are--immigration
court, because there is no right to appointed to counsel in
immigration court, we have those situations. And when it comes
to children, it is all the more striking, which is why we are
trying to do what we can with our Federal partners to increase
representation programs, to do friend-of-the-court models,
things like that in a lot of our immigration courts to try to
provide as much capacity not just for lawyers but also for
responsible adults to step forward and assist the children that
are coming before our judges.
Senator Peters. Because that has got to be a pretty
frightening experience for a 10-year-old who may be the victim
of violence from where they came, they are fleeing that, and
they may be a victim of sexual trafficking, they are trembling,
they are scared, and we expect them to understand that they
need to start pleading that they have an asylum claim.
Mr. Osuna. It absolutely can be very intimidating for
obvious reasons, which is why we do what we can to try to give
specialized training to our judges as to how to handle children
coming before them. They are not like any adult case. They have
to have specialized training, specialized procedures,
specialized children's dockets, which I referred to earlier.
And certainly the surge from last year provided that much of a
bigger challenge because of the numbers.
Senator Peters. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Baldwin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you and Ranking Member Carper for holding this hearing and
thank our witnesses for your insight and time.
When we held a hearing about a year ago, I was very
interested in the discussions that the Committee and the
witness panel had about root causes of the surge that we
experienced in 2014. And it was clear to me that violence and
instability in a number of Central American countries were key
factors that pushed children to make a very perilous journey to
our border. It is critical that we continue to understand the
causes so that we can ensure that we do not see another surge
as we did last year.
So I wanted to start on that topic, and I recognize we do
not have a State Department witness on our panel today, but,
Mr. Miller, at the beginning of your written testimony, you
talk a little bit about the push and pull factors that led to
the influx. You also mentioned in your testimony and in
response to a question that Secretary Johnson and Director
Saldana have met with officials in Honduras, in Guatemala, and
El Salvador to request their cooperation in stemming the flow
of their citizens to our borders. And I am wondering if you can
outline for us or share with us some of the specific efforts
that came out of those meetings and consultations.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Senator. While I was not present for
those meetings, we were meeting with those officials to try to
figure out an effective communications strategy to kind of
overcome a lot of the marketing that smuggling organizations
were doing to try to encourage children, thinking that they
would be receiving some kind of immigration benefit that was
not actually waiting for them on the other side, and it appears
that those collaborative efforts are yielding results.
And I would say that from my understanding of the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report--and the State
Department has a very robust plan to continue that
communication, and they have pointed to a number of indicators
of economic difficulties, some of them stemming from
agricultural problems, some of them tied to the lack of
opportunities for these children. And I think that as we
continue to work with our Central American partners and work
collaboratively with the Department of State, we hopefully will
be able to continue to address those in a unified U.S.
Government manner.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
Right now, as was noted by our Ranking Member, the
Appropriations Committee in the Senate is looking at the
President's request for foreign assistance to implement a new
strategy for engagement in Central America. The President's
request is at odds with the amount allocated by the House in
their appropriations process.
Mr. Miller, in your opinion, what would the impact be on
these root causes of the migration if Congress did not engage
in a funding level that met the President's request?
Mr. Miller. I would have fear that we would begin to
backslide and lose some of the gains that we have experienced
in the past year. And, we are trying to the best of our ability
to mitigate a very dangerous journey for these children, and I
think the more effective and the more that we can do through
the State Department to meet their needs in their home country
and work collaboratively with our foreign partners, we are
going to mitigate or diminish the humanitarian crisis on our
border, which, from my perspective as a law enforcement
officer, is a good government function.
Senator Baldwin. All right. Mr. Langlois, you did a great
job of sort of outlining the two tracks of asylum proceedings,
adversarial and non-adversarial, as a result of Congress'
passing the TVPRA in 2008. You talked quite a bit about some of
the training required to conduct child-appropriate interviews
to make sure that asylum officers get that type of specialized
knowledge in both asylum cases and dealing with children.
I wonder if you can talk a little bit more in detail about
the training. Was that initiated back in 2009, or was that in
response to last year's surge, or both?
Mr. Langlois. The training to conduct interviews with
children has been a longstanding training, I believe, with the
asylum corps. I believe the first children's guidelines, for
example, came out in 1995 or 1996. So we have had a history of
interviewing children for asylum in the United States, and we
have utilized a lesson plan to teach individuals the
appropriate techniques. We have had a number of outside
professors, consultants, and non governmental organizations
(NGOs) assist us with the lesson plan. So it has been a long
tradition.
The numbers started to increase most recently, which
emphasized, of course, the importance of the training, but we
have been conducting this training I believe since about 1995,
if my recollection is correct.
Senator Baldwin. And in terms of the resources available to
minors who go through your non-adversarial process, tell me
about the translation services that are available to minors.
And, also, it is non-adversarial, but do minors get legal
assistance in negotiating that process?
Mr. Langlois. Unaccompanied children, just like all asylum
applicants, have to provide their own interpretation without
government expense. We have an interpreter on the telephone
that listens in to the interpreting to make sure that it is
correct and fraud is not occurring. But the unaccompanied child
needs to provide his or her own interpreter at no government
expense, as well as an attorney at no government expense.
Now, I did mention that over 90 percent of individual
unaccompanied children are represented by the time they get to
us, but that is coming from the courts, is where they start
before coming to us, and 90 percent is the number that we are
looking at. But it is no expense to the government, I believe.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Ayotte.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE
Senator Ayotte. I want to thank all of you for being here
today. One of the things I wanted to follow up on, when
Secretary Johnson testified in 2014 about the crisis we were
facing from unaccompanied children from Central America, one of
the things he recommended at the time--in fact, when he
testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee--and I
recall hearing him say this--I think it was before this
Committee as well. He talked about the differences in the law
between countries that are contiguous to the United States of
America and countries that are not contiguous to the United
States of America. And he said that in terms of changing the
law, we are asking for the ability to treat unaccompanied kids
from a Central American country the same way as from contiguous
countries, and it would help if the Senate amended the law for
children to treat the children the same from a non-contiguous
country as a contiguous country.
So as I understand it, the law is different if it is a
child from Mexico, for example, that comes to the border in
terms of what rights and legal explanations can be given that
they can voluntarily return, and that that cannot happen with a
Central American country. Is that true? And when you talk about
steps we could take to help this situation, isn't that one of
the steps we could take consistent with what Secretary Johnson
told us at the time of this crisis? Whoever is the best person
to answer that.
Mr. Miller. Senator, that is my understanding of the TVPRA
as well. I know operationally the Border Patrol, when they
encounter either a Mexican national or a Canadian national,
they can work collaboratively through their local repatriation
agreements to assure--for children who wish to withdraw their
application and return voluntarily, they work collaboratively
with those respective governments to ensure the safe return of
those children.
Now, to the Secretary's point that if we had that
flexibility with other countries for those children who, at the
time of encounter by CBP, whether it is Border Patrol or at the
ports of entry, if they wish to withdraw their application and
return to their country, we have outstanding repatriation
agreements with those countries. We have many opportunities to
effect that repatriation in a safe and humane manner. And given
the opportunity, we would be able to exercise a broader
spectrum ability for those children who are not seeking any
kind of protection.
Senator Ayotte. And I understand that this law was put in
place, I believe, when President Bush was in office in which we
were changing treating the contiguous countries differently
than the non-contiguous. But it seems to me that it has
outlived its purpose and that you should be given the same
tools as the Secretary had previously asked us. So is this a
tool that you would still like to have, Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. Yes, ma'am. We support the Secretary's effort
to have broad spectrum ability to do the best thing in the
interest of the children that we encounter.
Senator Ayotte. Very good. Thanks.
I also wanted to point out, when Senator Peters had asked
all of you about the relationship between, for example, the
President's Executive Orders and DACA and the influx of
unaccompanied children, at the time--and I recall this as well
when we were dealing with the real influx--Secretary Johnson
made actually a point of being very clear with the Central
American countries because clearly there was an impression--
regardless of how they got the impression, but there was
clearly an impression at the time that somehow you could
receive a permiso or pass if you made it to the United States.
And I know that he clearly said he wanted them to understand
that the children would not benefit from the President's DACA
order.
So this clearly was some contributing factor in the sense
that there was an impression or a misimpression in Central
America or the children were being given a misimpression by
perhaps the coyotes or other folks that were trying to make
money off of them and bringing them here. So would you agree
with me that that was a piece? Because certainly the Secretary
addressed it at the time and had concerns about it.
Mr. Miller. Yes, ma'am. Our colleagues from CBP and their
post-interdiction interviews, we are well aware that that was a
marketing strategy of the smuggling organizations, and I think
the Secretary worked extensively both, to educate and to inform
that that was not the case, that there were not permisos, and
that persons who were interdicted after January 1, 2014,
throughout the immigration court proceedings, throughout the
life cycle, as we call it, of the immigration process, they
would retain that date of interdiction and, thus, remain a
priority.
Senator Ayotte. Do you think that has been clearly
communicated now so that that is not being conveyed? Or do you
think that is still a concern that that is being misrepresented
in those countries?
Mr. Miller. To the best of my knowledge, from our
colleagues in the State Department, that message has been
received, and it seems to have contributed to the reduction in
the influx this year.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you all.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Ayotte.
Mr. Miller, I am a little confused because earlier--you
just said that according to those memoranda children coming
here now, they do not have the benefits of Deferred Action on
Childhood Arrivals. But you said--so they are a priority. But
in your answer to my questions, you said that the priorities
are really the criminals. So which is it? Are removals of
children coming in here now a priority or not?
Mr. Miller. It is a priority, but most law enforcement
agencies, they prioritize criminal actions or the apprehension
and removal of criminals higher than the apprehension----
Chairman Johnson. So it is not a top priority. Secretary
Johnson in front of our budget hearing, on April 29, 2015,
quote, he said, ``You have to show the population of Central
America that you are sending people back.'' That was the
Secretary of Homeland Security. OK, we have got to show Central
America that you are sending people back.
Mr. Miller, does it send the signal, are we showing people
we are sending them back when we are sending, somewhere between
2.7 and maybe as much as 10 percent back? And, again, let us
really take a look at the number. From 2009, unaccompanied
children, 109,000 have come into this country, according to
some of my figures--and we are not exactly sure what the real
number is, but that is pretty close--we have returned a little
over 6,000, which is about a 5.7-percent rate. So, I mean, I
agree with Senator Peters. Deferred Action on Childhood
Arrivals does not legally apply to these children, but in
reality, isn't that what really children in Central America are
relying on, the fact that the reality of the situation is that
if you get into America, you have got a very low percentage
chance, very low probability of being returned? I mean, isn't
that the reality?
Let me just ask you the question this way: Do you believe
we are, as Secretary Johnson said, showing the population of
Central America that we are sending people back in any
meaningful way?
Mr. Miller. I think across the broad spectrum of all the
persons interdicted on the border, yes, we are. We have worked
very effectively with the adult population. We continue to make
strides with the family units. And we will work collaboratively
with our partners here at the table that, simply put, the
juvenile process takes longer to mature. I do not have the data
with me that shows the persons that have been removed, when
they were interdicted, and when they entered into the court
process. We see across the spectrum that by the time the case
is mature, many of the people who have gone through this
process and been adjudicated fully by the immigration court,
they may have reached the age of majority before their case
matures. That is not something that any one member is at fault
for. That is something that is the nature of the process. These
children, upon interdiction, have due process rights, and we
have to wait for those rights to mature.
I can tell you that, going forward, we will continue to
utilize our efforts appropriately. I mean, I stand by my
previous statement that it makes good sense as police manager,
if I have limited resources and I am faced with the task of
going after criminals or going after non-criminal children, I
think it is the appropriate choice to go after the criminals
first.
Chairman Johnson. Again, from my standpoint, I think we
need to disincentivize children from making that dangerous
journey. I think that is compassion.
Mr. Greenberg, does HHS check the status, the immigration
status, the legal status of sponsors of unaccompanied children
that they turn unaccompanied children over to?
Mr. Greenberg. We do make inquiry of a potential sponsor as
to their immigration status.
Chairman Johnson. A hundred percent of the time?
Mr. Greenberg. We make inquiry in all cases. In addition to
that, for those cases that are subject to fingerprinting, we
will get immigration information in the context of the
fingerprint match.
Chairman Johnson. So if you find somebody who is in this
country illegally, do you still turn those unaccompanied
children over to an illegal immigrant parent?
Mr. Greenberg. In the process of placing a child with a
sponsor, we inquire about immigration status.
Chairman Johnson. It is simply a yes-or-no answer. Do you
turn unaccompanied children over to illegal immigrant parents?
Mr. Greenberg. We will place a child with an undocumented
parent.
Chairman Johnson. That you know is undocumented?
Mr. Greenberg. That is correct, yes.
Chairman Johnson. Do you then notify either ICE or DHS
about that fact?
Mr. Greenberg. We will provide the information about the
location and the address of the sponsor at the time that we
release the child.
Chairman Johnson. Do you notify any agency that that
individual is in this country illegally?
Mr. Greenberg. We will----
Chairman Johnson. Again, a very simple question. Do you
inform DHS or ICE that you have just placed a child with
somebody in this country illegally?
Mr. Greenberg. We will respond to any inquiry we receive--
--
Chairman Johnson. No, really. Just answer the question. Do
you tell DHS or ICE that you have just placed a child with
somebody that you know is in this country illegally? Yes or no:
Do you tell them that?
Mr. Greenberg. We do not affirmatively do so.
Chairman Johnson. That is a no, then. Can you say no? That
is a no, you do not inform ICE or DHS.
Mr. Greenberg. We will provide the information upon their
request.
Chairman Johnson. Do they ever ask you for it?
Mr. Greenberg. In some circumstances, I understand that
they do.
Chairman Johnson. Probably pretty rare.
One question I have for you--and I am not judging whether
this is right or wrong, but in your testimony, you do state
that children have the privilege of representation but at no
expense to the government. But then you are talking about we
are doing requests for proposals on legal services. I mean, can
you square that for me? If current law is that there can be no
expense to the government and yet we are issuing grants for
people to provide legal representation, just how does that--I
mean, how do you get around the law? Which is basically what is
happening, correct?
Mr. Greenberg. We are complying with the law, Senator, and
we have a specific responsibility under the law to help
children in receiving legal representation.
Chairman Johnson. So there is a conflict in the law, is
what you are saying. So, on the one hand, there is a law that
says there can be no government expense utilized to provide
legal representation, but there is another part of the law that
gives you the authority to have legal representation at
government expense. Is that basically what is happening?
Mr. Greenberg. The law makes clear that we should be
maximizing the use of pro bono resources, and we do seek to
maximize the use of pro bono resources, but we need----
Chairman Johnson. But you are also----
Mr. Greenberg [continuing]. To do more of that.
Chairman Johnson. You are also granting money for legal--or
certainly asking for requests and paying for legal
representation, are you not?
Mr. Greenberg. That is correct, and we do have----
Chairman Johnson. So, again, it is your testimony that says
legal representation is supposed to be granted, but at no
expense to the government, and yet you are paying for it.
Mr. Greenberg. We are following----
Chairman Johnson. Again, is that just, again, a conflict in
the law?
Mr. Greenberg. We do not believe it is a conflict in the
law. We are following the requirements of the TVPRA.
Chairman Johnson. OK. I tell you what. It sounds like a
real conflict in the law that we ought to address.
Mr. Greenberg. The law is clear that it says that we should
be using pro bono to the maximum extent possible. That makes
clear that if we are doing that, we should be doing additional
things beyond that.
Chairman Johnson. Well, it looks like the law is clear in
two different--in a conflicting manner: on the one hand, at no
expense to the government, and then it is clear that we should
be spending money. So, again, I think that is a conflict that
we need to address.
Mr. Osuna, real quick, what is the average time to
adjudicate one of these claims? Do you have that stat at all?
Are we talking months? Are we talking years?
Mr. Osuna. You are talking for----
Chairman Johnson. For unaccompanied children.
Mr. Osuna. Our commitment, Senator, is to have the initial
hearing in 21 days, and we are adhering to that timeline.
Chairman Johnson. OK. That is just the initial hearing. I
am talking about adjudication to the----
Mr. Osuna. I do not have that number because these cases,
as my colleagues have mentioned, do take a long time. Some
cases have resulted already in removal orders because the child
probably did not have a claim to----
Chairman Johnson. But a very low percentage of those.
Mr. Osuna. 6,800----
Chairman Johnson. A very low percentage.
Mr. Osuna. So they can take a significant amount of time. I
will say that legal representation does help because, for
obvious reasons, we----
Chairman Johnson. You have got a lawyer making sure that
the person shows up.
Mr. Osuna. Thus, fewer continuances and all that, so that
does help in speeding up the court hearings, at least at the
beginning of the process. But, yes, they can take a long time.
I do not have a number to give you in terms of the latest surge
of children, but it is certainly a matter of months and not
weeks.
Chairman Johnson. Isn't it really more a matter of years?
Mr. Osuna. Well, it depends. If the child does apply for
some sort of relief from removal that requires a transfer to
USCIS, then it can.
Chairman Johnson. Begging the indulgence of my Ranking
Member here, Mr. Langlois is talking about a very low
percentage of these UACs obtaining any kind of asylum, but yet
we have a very low percentage of people with orders to remove.
Again, I do not see how we can--this has got to be a very
lengthy process then. I do not see--when you go back to 2009
and just see what a very low percentage of those people that
have been returned and the very low percentage in total of the
109,000, this has got to be a very lengthy process.
Mr. Osuna. It can be a lengthy process, and it is not just
asylum, Mr. Chairman, but kids can also apply for special
immigrant juvenile status, which is even more complicated
because it involves the State court systems. I mean, that is
the law that we have. That is the law that we work through.
Again, I think that we certainly work through these cases as
quickly as we can consistent with due process, and I know my
colleagues do as well.
Chairman Johnson. I appreciate that. And, again, I
appreciate you trying to comply with the laws, and I think that
is what this Committee is trying to lay bare is the conflict
within the law, the incentives we create for people coming to
this country illegally. We need to address those conflicts and
those incentives. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back to root causes again with a little
different focus. Among the things that our Chairman and I agree
on is the idea that if folks who are citizens of Honduras,
Guatemala, and El Salvador who want to come to this country to
work for a limited period of time and be able to go home, maybe
we ought to change our immigration laws so that that can
happen. And that is one element of the comprehensive
immigration reform legislation that passed the Senate several
years ago.
Give us some advice. If we were to do piecemeal immigration
reform or attempt again to do comprehensive immigration reform,
what advice would each of you have to give us of an element or
two to include in that legislative effort to help address the
issues that we are addressing here today? Mr. Osuna.
Mr. Osuna. Two comments, Senator. First, the administration
does, as you know, support the comprehensive immigration reform
bill that the Senate passed a couple years ago. That rough
framework I think is something that the administration and all
the agencies here are behind. Specifically for my agency, that
bill and other proposals have included significant resources
and other additional tools for the immigration court system,
and we would, of course, ask that any comprehensive immigration
reform bill take into consideration the needs of the court
system and the resource constraints.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Greenberg, same question.
Mr. Greenberg. Given our role in the process, I defer to my
colleague agencies on this question.
Senator Carper. All right. Fair enough. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Senator, I would say that in looking to fix the
broken immigration system, we would favor things--the
opportunity to balance the age of the conviction versus the
statutory requirement that we have today that, regardless of
the age of the conviction, many times our officers are
compelled to take action, and as a result, frequently we
exercise a great deal of resources on the initial encounter
with the individual, only for that to be mitigated thereafter.
I think if we put a temporal element to our enforcement
prioritization in how individuals are charged under the
Immigration Act, that would allow us to even better and more
efficiently deploy our resources across the country.
Senator Carper. Give us a really simple example of what you
just said.
Mr. Miller. A very simple example would be a narcotics
conviction from the 1980s. At times, frequently, when the
person is seeking, for example, to have their green card
renewed, it will be a referral to ICE for an enforcement action
because the person has this narcotics conviction from the
1980s. And as the statutory framework is today, we are asked to
take the appropriate enforcement action, which would be to
arrest and charge the person as an aggravated felon,
notwithstanding any kind of--what the person has done since
that initial conviction.
Senator Carper. OK. I have got it. Thanks. Mr. Langlois.
Mr. Langlois. As we discussed, individuals who are
attempting to enter the United States unauthorized come for a
variety of reasons. One reason, however, is that they are
fleeing persecution. They have a well-founded fear of
persecution or they have been persecuted in the past, and their
claims should be heard. We should design the law to effectively
and efficiently hear those claims.
Senator, you had mentioned a needle in a haystack. To a
great degree, that analogy rings true here where you are trying
to get to that needle efficiently and effectively in order to
grant asylum to individuals who deserve protection but
effectively and efficiently deny those individuals that are not
eligible and return those individuals.
So to the extent that the law can grapple with that
balance, that is what I would encourage, of course.
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks. Thank you all.
Someone, I think, in your testimony today I thought
mentioned that roughly 4,000 unaccompanied minors have been
granted asylum. Was that correct?
Mr. Langlois. That is correct, Senator. That was in my
testimony.
Senator Carper. And----
Mr. Langlois. Since 2009.
Senator Carper. Since 2009. Would you just give us some
idea, since 2009, roughly how many unaccompanied children have
sought asylum? Just roughly.
Mr. Langlois. Yes. Since 2009, I do not have that figure
exactly in front of me.
Senator Carper. Just really roughly.
Mr. Langlois. Actually, I can take it from right here. From
2009, we are dealing with roughly 13,000 individuals have
applied for asylum since 2009 via the court. So they were in
front of an immigration judge; they requested to file for
asylum. They were given a continuance, and then they have
filed. So 13,000 as of the end of the second quarter.
Senator Carper. Is it safe to assume that there are more
than 13,000 that have not filed or have not been before a
court?
Mr. Langlois. As we discussed, the process can take time,
and there is----
Senator Carper. I said earlier during your testimony, I
leaned over and said to our Chairman, I said, ``The process
seems mind-numbing.'' And when I read your testimony coming
down on the train today, I thought--and I told Senator Johnson,
``Maybe I did not have enough coffee.'' You do not drink coffee
on the train, but he said no, it was not the coffee.
Chairman Johnson. There was not enough coffee.
Senator Carper. And I listened to you speak here today. It
is hard to wrap my head around it. I think I speak for the
Chairman as well. It is confusing, and a long and tortured
road. But I do not know if there is something that we can do to
help make it clear, more straightforward, or not. But I would
sure be interested in exploring that.
I do not mean to be critical of your testimony. I thought
you presented it very well. But, boy, it is really a long and
tortured road.
I want to go back to the idea of no attorneys for
unaccompanied minors at no expense to the government or to the
extent that we can avoid that. I am just very proud of what we
have done in our State of Delaware where our Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court and his staff, his office, have really
reached out to law firms all over our State and asked them to
help out. And they have answered the call, and this has enabled
us to provide a lot of legal counsel for young people and,
frankly, at not much cost to the government. We need to do more
of that.
Why is it in our financial interest to try to ensure that
these kids have legal counsel? Is there some association with
whether or not people have legal counsel, these kids are able
to have legal counsel and they actually show up for hearings?
Does it expedite their process or does it slow it down?
Anybody.
Mr. Osuna. Senator, there is no question, based on long
experience from our immigration courts with these cases over
many years, that having counsel at the start of the process,
especially for a child, makes the process more efficient.
Immigration judges have to grant fewer continuances. The legal
issues are clearer. Immigration judges do not have to spend a
lot of time trying to tease out what the case is all about.
So in terms of efficiency, there is little doubt that
counsel at the beginning of the process makes our court process
much more efficient.
Senator Carper. OK. Fine.
Mr. Chairman, if I may have one more quick question, if I
may?
Chairman Johnson. Absolutely.
Senator Carper. Mr. Langlois, I understand that we have
begun to allow a limited group of children from Guatemala,
Honduras, and El Salvador to apply in their home countries to
come to the United States as refugees. I understand this is
limited to those who have parents in this country who are
citizens or legal permanent residents who meet certain
requirements. Could you just describe this new effort and why
it has begun?
Mr. Langlois. Certainly, and it even has an acronym. The
Central American Minors (CAM)----
Senator Carper. I am sure it does. [Laughter.]
Mr. Langlois. The Central American Minors Refugee and
Parole Program, the ``CAM program,'' as we call it--was
designed to give an alternative to individuals that are in
these three countries a safe and legal alternative to taking
the dangerous road to the United States with smugglers. The
program allows individuals who are lawfully present in the
United States to file for their children that remain in--
unmarried children that remain in these three countries. They
file. A deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing is done to make
sure that the relationship is valid. Then we have the State
Department, who is the manager of the program, they arrange for
the child to be preliminarily interviewed in the country. When
the case is ripe to be presented as a refugee or for parole, a
USCIS refugee officer will conduct the extensive interview. We
will do background checks on the interview, fingerprints. We
also do checks on the individual who is petitioning that is in
the United States to make sure that they are in the status that
they claim, also if there is any criminal record of that
individual, and then we arrange through the refugee program, if
they are deemed refugee, for them to come to the United States.
Senator Carper. Good. Thanks for that explanation. It
actually sounds like common sense, and I think it sounds like a
pretty good idea.
Mr. Chairman, thanks. It has been a good hearing, and to
our witnesses, thank you all for your appearance and for your
testimony. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper.
I am going to use Senator Carper's fine example by allowing
each of you to have the opportunity to make one final comment.
But before I do that, I do want to requote Secretary Johnson
before our budget hearing on April 29, 2015: ``You have to show
the population of Central America that you are sending people
back.''
To quote our Ranking Member, he frequently says, ``You have
to find out what works and do more of that.'' Well, we have an
example of what worked. In 2005, we were experiencing a real
surge with Brazilian immigrants, 3 times higher than the
previous year, 31,063. And as a result of that, in 2005, DHS
Secretary Chertoff employed Operation Texas Hold 'Em where they
prioritized existing space, dedicated bed space, and began
detaining and removing all of the illegal Brazilians that were
apprehended using expedited removals. By the following year,
the number of people coming in illegally from Brazil dropped
from 31,063 to 1,460.
So, again, I think, what this hearing--and by the way,
again, I just want to thank you all for your testimony. This
has been very enlightening. A very complex problem, multiple
root causes, I certainly have my opinion in terms of what the
primary root cause is, but what we have found from your
testimony and what we have found from your answers to questions
is so much--and I think somebody here said it, broken
immigration system. It is. That is a very valid acknowledgment.
It is a broken system. It is convoluted. It is obviously within
these three departments and five different agencies trying to
grapple with this thing, it is not fully coordinated. Often
there are conflicting laws.
I am pleased to hear that our Ranking Member used the word
``piecemeal'' reform. I realize this administration does not
want to talk about that, but, listen, we do not do
comprehensive very well, because it is complicated. These
things are not easy to deal with. So certainly what I asked
Secretary Jeh Johnson when he was before this Committee was
work with this Committee, let us identify these problems, these
conflicts, and let us--because, quite honestly, the reality of
the situation is we are not going to do comprehensive reform,
not in the next 18 months. Even by Secretary Johnson's
admission, we are not even going to have situational awareness
of the border in the next 18 months.
So let us take a look at the problems. Let us take a look
at the conflicts. Let us look at the convoluted process. Let us
try and fully coordinate this. Let us start making the
incremental improvements.
I come from a manufacturing background of continuous
improvement, root cause analysis. So let us look at the root
causes of these individual little problems, and working with
you, with your help, with your expertise--again, I truly
appreciate your service, and I understand that you are dealing
with the laws we have got. That is what we have to deal with.
But I think the only thing that is realistic that we can
accomplish, at least in the next 18 months, is a--and let us
not use ``piecemeal'' because that may have the wrong
connotation. How about a step-by-step continuous improvement
process? I think we have that attitude. The Ranking Member is
willing to work with me. Let us prioritize those individual
problems that we can address and start fixing this on a step-
by-step basis.
With that, let us start with Mr. Osuna.
Mr. Osuna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper. I would
just say that the border surge from last year was really
unprecedented. I have been doing this job for a long time, and
I have never seen the level of interagency coordination and
discussion that this engendered really from the start, from
when we first started identifying this issue in late April,
May.
I think that it has been a challenge for all the agencies,
but we have done the best we can. I think it has had an effect,
and we look forward to continuing our discussion with you and
with our fellow partners at the other agencies.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you. And I think I speak for the
Ranking Member, too. When we went down to Rio Grande Valley and
we talked to Customs and Border Protection, I think they did an
extraordinary job grappling with a very difficult problem. And
I think they kind of circumvented some rules, and God bless
them for doing it. I mean, this is--again, we are a very
compassionate society. This was a humanitarian crisis, and the
people in those agencies I think rose to the challenge. So I
think we really want to give them kudos for doing that. Mr.
Greenberg.
Senator Carper. I am Tom Carper, and I approve that
message. [Laughter.]
Chairman Johnson. An act of real bipartisanship here.
Mr. Greenberg. Thank you, Senators. First, I want to
underscore Juan's remarks about how closely the agencies are,
in fact, collaborating and cooperating in these efforts. I
first met Juan last year when we were both in Texas and
visiting facilities at the same time. As Phil Miller indicated,
he, his colleagues, and I went together again to Texas this
year to look at both HHS and DHS facilities. Our staffs talk
every day. We appreciate the importance of coordination and we
are working hard to accomplish that.
Chairman Johnson, I want to follow up on the issue around
legal representation. My understanding is that the statutory
language that you were referring to is language which is
seeking to make clear that there is not a right to paid counsel
at the expense of the government. We are clear that this is not
about a right to paid counsel. I do not believe that there is
an inconsistency in the language, but we would be happy to
follow up with you and your staff and look at this more
closely.
And then, finally, I just want to indicate that, having
been before the Committee a year ago, there has been tremendous
progress over the course of this last year. We look forward to
continuing to build on it, and we look forward to working with
you in doing so.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Greenberg. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Senator. I echo what my colleagues
expressed that never before has there been greater
coordination. While these agencies and different departments
have different statutory requirements, different fiscal
constraints placed upon them, we work at an amazing level of
collaboration and cooperation, making joint decisions, sharing
information in a way that I think is really without precedent.
And as a result of that, we continue to work collaboratively,
not just on issues relating to unaccompanied children, but we
continue to work collaboratively with immigration judges on how
to better streamline these processes, to look at what can we do
more efficiently to reduce the non-detained docket.
One of our initiatives as part of Secretary Johnson's
memoranda is to give opportunities to people who did not want
to continue their non-detained court settings if they do not
meet one of the Department's current priorities, making
opportunities available where people can give us constructive
feedback, and then we can share that information across the one
government, all of the agencies and departments dealing with
these issues.
While there is a lot of work to be done--clearly, I think
we are all in agreement with that--what we learned last summer
is that we do not have to just sit there with our own agency
and grapple with these struggles, grapple with these problems
that we face every day, that by sharing information and coming
to joint decisions, we can more effectively and efficiently
work within the framework that we are given today and hopefully
work with the Committee for a better framework tomorrow.
Chairman Johnson. OK. Thank you. Mr. Miller, we want to
work with you. Mr. Langlois.
Mr. Langlois. Certainly the border surge last year
presented a wide range of challenges for the asylum corps in
its attempt to adjudicate the cases. We experienced an increase
in our caseloads of credible fear, of reasonable fear, and, of
course, unaccompanied children's claims in the affirmative
context.
Individuals that have suffered persecution deserve a just
but very efficient adjudication of their claim. They deserve
protection, and we must effectively give them that and
efficiently give them that.
We have cooperate at unprecedented levels with CBP as well
as ICE, as well as EOIR, to assist us in that endeavor. I think
that, as usual, all procedures or systems can be improved, and
we work very hard in order to do that. I think we have got an
incredibly committed asylum corps that is applying themselves
diligently to this task and cooperating fully with our partners
in this task.
Chairman Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Langlois.
Again, I want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony
and for your thoughtful answers to our questions. I will have
more questions for the record. In particular, we have just got
to get our arms around the information, the data, because you
have to have that kind of data to really highlight where are
the problem areas and what do you need to really address. So I
want to work with all of your agencies to get that information.
This hearing record will remain open for 15 days until July
22 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and those
additional questions for the record.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
SECURING THE BORDER: UNDERSTANDING
THREATS AND STRATEGIES FOR THE MARITIME BORDER
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, McCain, Lankford, Ayotte, Ernst,
Sasse, Carper, McCaskill, and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON
Chairman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing will come to
order. I guess we will start before Senator Carper arrives. He
should be arriving shortly.
I want to welcome the witnesses coming here this morning,
taking the time, for your thoughtful testimony. I am looking
forward to hearing it and giving Committee Members an
opportunity to ask questions.
This is our eighth hearing on basically the security of our
border of the United States, a top priority of the Federal
Government. Following this hearing, and prior to our August
recess, our Committee is planning on issuing a report, an
interim report, laying out all the components of our border,
and the extent that we have it secure and the extent that we
have not secured it. And I think our first hearing it was
pretty clear by the testimony we received that our border is
not secure.
This hearing is going to be centered on our maritime
borders, and to just kind of put things into perspective, a lot
of our hearings have obviously concentrated on what is easily
and readily acknowledged as our No. 1 problem, the southwest
border, which is about 2,000 miles long. And in terms of the
extent of the problem, we have had about 480,000 interdictions
in fiscal year (FY) 2014. That number is down for various
reasons, but 480,000 interdictions.
Our Northern Border is more than twice that length, 5,225
miles long, and we had a little over 3,000 interdictions. And,
of course, our maritime border is enormous in comparison, about
95,000 miles, and we have had about 7,500 interdictions.
So it is an enormous task. We are concerned, obviously,
about drug smuggling, potential international terrorists,
crime, those types of issues that the representatives that are
testifying here today from the Coast Guard and from the Office
of Air and Marine (OAM), which are components of the Homeland
Security Department, as well as another individual from the
Homeland Security Department will be here to discuss.
So, again, this is from my standpoint an important hearing,
kind of wraps up the different components that we wanted to
explore in our eight-hearing series on the border.
I do ask unanimous consent that my written statement be
entered into the record, and Senator Carper is always so kind
as to grant that or not object. And, without objection, so
ordered.
With that, I will turn it over to our Ranking Member,
Senator Tom Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. To our witnesses,
good to see you. Some of you have been here not long ago. We
are going to have to start paying on a per diem basis or
something if you keep coming back like this. But we are
grateful to all of you.
Just in reviewing on the train coming down today, not just
reading your statements but also just reading your backgrounds,
we are just so fortunate to have people with your pedigree,
your record of service. Some of you are pretty smart. They
schooled you. I am impressed. But thank you for all of that and
for being here today. Mr. Chairman, thanks for pulling this
together for this hearing.
Today we take note of an important but often overlooked
aspect of our homeland security: our Nation's maritime borders.
The United States has more than, I think, 95,000 miles of
shoreline. Most of that is not in Delaware. The oceans, rivers,
and lakes bordering the United States are both natural barriers
and super highways. My home State of Delaware has about 350
miles of shoreline. It is also home to the Port of Wilmington,
Delaware, which ranks as the Nation's leading gateway for
imports of fresh fruits, bananas, and juice concentrate. If you
ate a banana this morning, there is a good chance it came
through the Port of Wilmington. So maritime activity is serious
business for us in Delaware, and I know for many others on this
Committee it is a serious matter for our country.
But the same waters that facilitate so much legitimate
travel and trade can also be a pathway, as we know, for many
illegal activities. For example, we know that drug traffickers,
human smugglers, and counterfeiters all take advantage of the
difficulty in securing our maritime borders.
Maintaining ``situational'' or ``domain'' awareness of our
country's vast maritime borders is extremely challenging. I do
not need to tell you that. And trying to actually disrupt or
intercept threats that approach by water can be even more
daunting.
But, thankfully, we have many Federal employees--servants,
if you will--who dedicate their lives to stopping these threats
from entering our country by water. Just last week, I had the
pleasure of meeting several dozen of these fine people at the
Coast Guard station at Indian River Inlet near Rehoboth Beach
in Delaware.
I am so proud of the work there led by Captain Ben Cooper,
and among the troops that he leads is Petty Officer Greenwell
whom I talked about on the Senate floor a couple of weeks ago,
and the rest of men and women at Indian River Inlet are doing
important work, saving a lot of lives, protecting people and
property. Day and night, Captain Cooper and his team patrol our
busy coasts in Delaware and along the Atlantic and are always
ready to provide assistance should there ever be an emergency.
So we thank you for all that you do for the people of our State
and for our country, as well as our guests.
The Department of Homeland Security (dhs) has a unique and
a leading role in maritime border security. It is home to the
U.S. Coast Guard, home of the Office of Air and Marine within
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), which conducts investigations to
disrupt trafficking and other threats. These agencies or their
predecessors have been protecting our shores since the founding
of our Nation. We are fortunate to have leaders from each of
these agencies here today to talk with us about the important
work that they do.
It is my hope that we can learn more about a few key issues
here today. First, we need to understand the current state of
our maritime border security. I would also like for our
witnesses to talk about what a secure maritime border actually
looks like to them. Next, we need to develop a better
understanding of the top threats in the maritime environment
and how they are evolving.
As we have tightened up security on our southern land
border, for example, traffickers and smugglers are seeking out
other paths in the Caribbean or the Pacific coast. We need to
be ready to combat this trend as we continue to ``squeeze the
balloon'' along our Nation's borders. Given the vastness of our
maritime borders, it is important that there is close
coordination among agencies, as well as good cooperation with
our trusted international partners.
Finally, I hope to hear today from each of our witnesses
about the equipment and resources available to you and to your
colleagues to ensure our maritime border security. For
instance, I know that you often rely on air surveillance--I
know personally because I was down there flying in one of your
P-3's not long ago--to direct where vessels should go to
disrupt criminal activity. Yet too many times, we have assets
up in the air without the right kind of technology or
surveillance packages. That is not good. That is not helpful.
This also hampers our efforts on our land borders while wasting
a lot of taxpayers' money, and we need to be smarter than that.
That is enough from me. We are anxious to hear from all of
you and have a good conversation. Thank you all.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper.
I have been made aware that there will be one vote at
10:30, so we will keep the hearing going and hopefully
Committee Members can cooperate with each other in terms of
sticking around to ask questions to keep the hearing going.
It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in
witnesses, so if you will all stand and raise your right hand.
Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you, God?
Admiral Brown. I do.
Mr. Alles. I do.
Mr. Edge. I do.
Chairman Johnson. Please be seated.
Our first witness is Rear Admiral Peter Brown. Admiral
Brown is the Assistant Commandant for Response Policy for the
U.S. Coast Guard. He has served multiple tours of duty at sea.
He has also served as the Chief of Response for the Seventh
Coast Guard District and Chief of Staff for Coast Guard
Atlantic Area. Rear Admiral Brown oversees the development of
strategic response doctrine and policy guidance for all Coast
Guard forces. Admiral Brown.
TESTIMONY OF REAR ADMIRAL PETER J. BROWN,\1\ ASSISTANT
COMMANDANT FOR RESPONSE POLICY, U.S. COAST GUARD
Admiral Brown. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Ranking
Member Carper, and other Members of the Committee. I am honored
to be here today to discuss the Coast Guard's role in securing
our Nation's borders. I thank you for your strong support of
the Coast Guard and our men and women in uniform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Rear Admiral Brown appears in the
Appendix on page 1446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is also a pleasure to be here with two of our most
important partners in maritime border security: Customs and
Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The Coast Guard's success is due in no part to the
partnerships that we have with these two organizations, and I
would personally like to thank both Executive Director Edge and
Assistant Commissioner Alles for their ongoing support and
leadership.
My complete statement has been provided to the Committee,
and I would ask that it be entered into the record.
Mr. Chairman, maintaining border security while
facilitating lawful travel and trade is a fundamental national
security interest, requiring comprehensive, coordinated efforts
across many departments and agencies and, in particular, the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). As members of the
Committee are aware, over 90 percent of global trade travels
through maritime conveyances, making the safety and security of
our maritime borders both an economic and national security
imperative.
The Coast Guard conducts operations every day to protect,
prevent, and respond to a broad range of maritime border
security threats, including illicit trafficking of narcotics
and people by organized criminal networks, undocumented
migration, the exploitation of our natural resources, potential
terrorist activities, and the disruption of maritime commerce.
So our strategy is to secure the borders in a layered defense,
one that engages with foreign partners and takes action far
from U.S. shores where threats to security and national
sovereignty emanate. Our strategy focuses on exerting our
unique authorities and capabilities in the maritime domain
before those threats land in our ports, on our beaches, or at
our borders.
Overseas, the Coast Guard assesses foreign port security
and the antiterrorism measures of international trading
partners through the International Port Security Program. These
activities aim to ensure that cargo bound for the United States
meets all United States and international security standards.
Additionally, in coordination with Customs and Border
Protection, we receive and screen notices of arrival for both
cargo and personnel long before commercial vessels arrive in
the United States. We have liaison and attache officers posted
at multiple embassies overseas and facilitate action across the
full spectrum of maritime governance.
Closer to shore, using our major cutters, maritime patrol
aircraft, armed helicopters, and law enforcement detachments,
we deploy assets to intercept those threats where they are most
vulnerable: at sea. Along with our national security cutters,
the Coast Guard's essential effort to recapitalize its fleet
through the Offshore Patrol Cutter Acquisition Project will
ensure that the Coast Guard is capable of projecting vital law
enforcement presence on the high seas, in the 200-mile U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone, in our customs waters, and in our
territorial seas for decades to come.
The Coast Guard is the only U.S. Government component that
has at all times both defense and law enforcement authority and
is able to make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches,
seizures, and arrests for violation of U.S. laws both on the
high seas and in U.S. waters. By maintaining that overt
presence offshore and in the littoral region, the Coast Guard
has interdicted more than 2,600 undocumented migrants this year
alone and deterred many more from taking to the sea in
dangerously overcrowded and unseaworthy vessels.
Likewise, just this past June, the Coast Guard conducted 22
maritime interdictions, supported by CBP and others, that
resulted in the detention of more than 60 suspects and removed
more than 14 metric tons of pure uncut cocaine. In one case,
our new national security cutter Stratton, using onboard
sensors and law enforcement intelligence gained from other
interdictions, located and seized a semi-submersible vessel
with 2.8 metric tons of cocaine in the Pacific Ocean. This
product was ultimately destined for the United States and would
have left a trail of corruption, instability, and death as it
moved through Central America and Mexico.
Through a single month of interdictions, the Coast Guard
denied criminal networks more than $480 million in wholesale
drug proceeds and profits. Cases such as these that result in
the detection and prosecution of traffickers generate
additional actionable intelligence and fuel our cycle of
success. Over the last decade, law enforcement intelligence
gained from Coast Guard interdictions contributed to the arrest
and extradition of nearly 75 percent of all drug kingpins who
were extradited to the United States.
Successfully patrolling and enforcing the maritime border
requires a strategic outlook, tactical execution, and
Department of Homeland Security unity of effort. Along the
Southern Border, the Coast Guard operates within a new DHS
Southern Border and Approaches Campaign Plan. The three task
forces set up under the Campaign Plan--Joint Task Forces East,
West, and Investigations--operate cooperatively to maintain
effective border security, and Coast Guard Vice Admiral Dean
Lee is the Director for the Joint Task Force East.
In addition, the Commandant, Admiral Zukunft, has signed
the Coast Guard Western Hemisphere Strategy that outlines three
priorities: combating networks, securing borders, and
safeguarding commerce.
Thank you, sir.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Admiral.
Our next witness is Randolph D. Alles--``Tex,'' I guess you
call him? I like that name. Mr. Alles is the Assistant
Commissioner for the Office of Air and Marine with the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection in the Department of Homeland
Security. Office of Air and Marine is the world's largest
aviation maritime law enforcement organization. Before joining
OAM, Mr. Alles served in the U.S. Marine Corps for 35 years,
retiring in 2011 as a Major General. Mr. Alles.
TESTIMONY OF RANDOLPH D. ALLES,\1\ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF AIR AND MARINE, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Alles. Thank you very much, sir. Chairman Johnson,
Ranking Member Carper, and distinguished Members of the
Committee, it is an honor to appear before you today and also
with my Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) cohorts and also
Coast Guard, who we work with extensively daily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Alles appears in the Appendix on
page 1452.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The threat in the maritime environment is dynamic.
Smugglers continually adjust their tactics in order to counter
our latest efforts to apprehend them. Increasingly, smugglers
exploit normal traffic patterns to conceal their intent, often
mimicking a legitimate recreational or commercial voyage. Small
vessels in particular are ideal conveyances for this tactic
because they operate in a largely unregulated environment,
while providing ample opportunity for concealing people or
cargo.
OAM thrives by being extremely efficient and adaptive. Our
unique authorities and specialized capabilities enable us to
bridge border environments and jurisdictions, providing
important continuity to investigations. OAM's marine
interdiction agents have a singular law enforcement mission.
They are empowered particularly to take necessary action,
including conducting searches and participating in
investigations, obtaining and serving warrants, making arrests
of U.S. citizens, and also seizures of property.
Our agents undergo intense training in maritime tactics in
order to swiftly and safely interdict smuggling threats and
mitigate the dangers of prolonged pursuits. Additionally, they
are experts in interview technique and are well versed in
applicable laws.
OAM agents, sometimes in plain clothes or undercover,
routinely collaborate with investigative partners on covert
surveillance and enforcement operations in the maritime domain.
This capability is essential to combating a threat that thrives
on concealment in legitimate traffic.
OAM's specialized fleet of vessels, particularly our next-
generation coastal interceptors, are built from the hull up for
interdiction. These high-performance vessels enable our targets
to respond quickly and effectively to incursions and to our
territorial waters. With a limited number of agents and assets,
OAM has a substantial impact in efforts to protect our Nation's
border. OAM efforts have resulted in the seizure of significant
quantities of contraband and disrupted considerable illicit
activity before it reaches our shores. In fiscal year 2014, OAM
efforts resulted in nearly 5,000 arrests of subjects, 80,000
apprehensions, and the seizures of nearly 800 weapons, $148
million in currency, and more than 1 million pounds of illegal
drugs.
Ultimately, maritime security requires a unity of effort.
No single entity has the capability or capacity to address all
aspects of maritime security. Information sharing and strong
partnerships are critical to understanding and addressing
maritime threats. We frequently participate in joint operations
with a variety of Federal partners, including the U.S. Coast
Guard, and work very closely with multiple investigative
components, especially U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement.
The recently implemented Southern Border and Approaches
Campaign, mentioned by Admiral Brown, leverages the various
roles, responsibilities, and capabilities of multiple DHS
agencies to comprehensively address border and maritime
threats. OAM has been extensively involved in the planning of
this effort on the Joint Task Force East, directed by Admiral
Lee, the Deputy, is an OAM employee, Mr. Merton Cox.
Moving forward, we will continue to work with our partners
to enhance our detection, investigation, and interdiction
capabilities to address emerging threats and adapt to changing
conditions in the maritime domain. We will fully network our
fleet and operational centers to share critical information in
real time.
OAM is an integral part of the Department's border security
mission. We blend specialized interdiction capabilities,
skilled investigations, a modern domain awareness network, and
seamlessly apply them across multiple environments and
jurisdictions. In doing so, we add a critical layer of cohesion
and coordination to maritime border security that no other
agency provides.
Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, distinguished
Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to
speak, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Alles.
Our final witness is Mr. Peter Edge. Mr. Edge is the
Executive Associate Director of Homeland Security
Investigations (HSI), for the U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security. Prior to
this position, Mr. Edge served as Deputy Executive Associate
Director and before that as the Special Agent in Charge in the
HSI Newark office. He has also served as Director of the Office
of Congressional Relations at ICE headquarters and as Acting
Deputy Special Agent in Charge of the New York HSI office. Mr.
Edge.
TESTIMONY OF PETER T. EDGE,\1\ EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
HOMELAND SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Edge. Thank you very much, Chairman Johnson and Ranking
Member Carper and distinguished Members. It is a great
opportunity to be here today, and I would like to discuss ICE's
efforts to improve security along the maritime border of the
United States. As you know, we work closely with CBP and the
Coast Guard to target Transnational Criminal Organizations
(TCO). Today, I will highlight our enforcement activities,
operational challenges, and successes in the maritime
environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Edge appears in the Appendix on
page 1462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As interdiction efforts along the U.S.-Mexico land border
increase, drug and human smuggling organizations have expanded
their operations to include maritime routes where they attempt
to evade detection by concealing contraband in sea freight, as
well as in commercial fishing vessels. As a result of increased
Coast Guard and CBP patrols, smuggling organizations are
utilizing wooden fishing panga boats to travel further out to
sea and up the California coast, to circumvent interdiction
efforts.
As a part of our ongoing efforts to identify, disrupt, and
dismantle transnational criminal organizations, in 2005 we
created the Border Enforcement Security Task Force (BEST). This
initiative promotes cooperation and coordination with Federal,
State, local, tribal, and international law enforcement
authorities. Currently, we operate 37 BEST units across 16
States and Puerto Rico, 19 of which maintain maritime units.
The individual BESTs, located in maritime environments,
face unique challenges along the shoreline because of the
surrounding geography. For instance, since its establishment
this past April, our newest BEST in Houma, Louisiana, has
afforded us the opportunity to be more robustly engaged in the
drug-trafficking organizations who are exploiting emerging
Caribbean ports for maritime smuggling along the Gulf Coast.
This smuggling is done via containerized cargo, commercial
vessels, crew members smuggling drugs, and non-commercial
fishing and sailing vessels.
A notable success from the Newark BEST involves our
creation of a carjacking task force in response to the dramatic
increase in luxury vehicles being violently carjacked in New
Jersey. These vehicles are then smuggled in containers from the
Ports of Newark and Elizabeth to West African countries, and
they are used there to fund illicit transnational criminal
activity. The BEST investigations resulted in 29 arrests and
the recovery of approximately 180 stolen vehicles worth more
than $10 million.
Along the Gulf Coast, the Houston BEST focuses on maritime
threats from Central and South America through its Mexico
Corridor Initiative. This initiative leverages law enforcement
and the Department of Defense (DOD) resources. The BEST tracked
a commercial freighter vessel from the Dominican Republic that
traveled to Puerto Rico via Venezuela. To interdict this
vessel, the Houston BEST worked with our office in Puerto Rico
and with CBP's Office of Air and Marine to yield several
arrests and seize nearly 2,800 kilograms of cocaine. The Coast
Guard made an additional 11 arrests, and the freighter was
seized by the U.S. Government.
In San Diego, the BEST has been successful in combating
criminal organizations smuggling drugs and people from Mexico
into the United States along the coastline of Southern
California. The BEST is part of the Southwest Border High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Area and leads a complex
investigation targeting a large-scale maritime smuggling
organization operating out of Baja California. Since its
initiation in 2012, the investigation has resulted in
significant enforcement outcomes across judicial districts.
During the last fiscal year, the operation yielded over 30
interdictions and 95 arrests, as well as the seizure of 81,000
pounds of marijuana and 30 pounds of methamphetamine.
A high-impact example of our maritime efforts outside of
the BEST program is the Joint Operation Panama Express. This is
a U.S. interagency strike force with significant HSI
participation that identifies and interdicts multi-ton
quantities of cocaine transported in the international maritime
environments from South America through Central America and the
Caribbean on to the United States. We play a critical role in
Panama Express through our investigative authorities and our
ability to leverage interagency resources.
Along with the successes that we are achieving in the
BESTs, we have also been designated as the executive agent for
the Joint Task Force for Investigations that you heard about
from my colleagues, and hopefully, we will be able to discuss
more of that today.
These investigative operations in the maritime environments
are compelling examples of how the agency and the Department
applies a ``whole of Government'' approach to targeting
criminal organizations and preventing them from perpetuating
their adverse impacts on U.S. border security. We remain
dedicated to this cause and this mission, and we look forward
to working with the Committee to effect some positive change in
this area. We appreciate your support and the opportunity to be
here today.
Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Edge. I will start the
questioning I think with you. You mentioned transnational
criminal organizations. I would like to get some sense of the
percentage of your attention or the percentage of the activity
devoted to the different types of crimes--in other words, drug
smuggling, human trafficking, potential terrorist activity, the
combination of the drug cartels with trans-criminal
organizations, with potential Islamic terror groups like
Hezbollah.
Can you give this Committee some sense of the proportion of
the threats and the proportion of your time and efforts trying
to combat those various components?
Mr. Edge. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. First and foremost, our
investigative efforts are, again, based on our foundation as a
border security agency. So we start there, and we enforce a
multitude of violations that affect our Nation's national
security. So, for drug smuggling, of course, drugs have,
traditionally, always come across our Nation's borders, and
with our coordination with our counterparts at Customs and
Border Protection and the Coast Guard, this is one of our
primary missions, to keep that contraband out of this country.
Chairman Johnson. But, again, is that 50 percent of your
time and effort, 50 percent of the crimes being committed? Is
it 90 percent? I realize there is no set percentage, but I just
want to get some sort of sense of that.
Mr. Edge. Well, because we do keep copious information on
our hours spent on our investigative activities, I would
venture to say that a little under 30 percent of our time is
spent in the area of narcotics interdiction and drug-smuggling
investigations. Whether through a task force, we participate in
a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Task Force (HIDTA), or
through our BEST activity, we are continually working on a lot
of drug cases.
Chairman Johnson. OK. So fill in the other 70 percent.
Mr. Edge. The other 70 percent includes child exploitation,
or counterproliferation investigations. Our responsibility is
also to enforce the export control laws of the United States,
so we find ourselves in a lot of different areas. In addition
there is our immigration portfolio, which includes document and
benefit fraud, and identity theft.
Chairman Johnson. Mr. Alles, can you answer that question
for your agency?
Mr. Alles. I cannot give specific percentages. I would have
to go back and look at my----
Chairman Johnson. A general sense is kind of what I am
looking for here.
Mr. Alles. I would say it is probably in the--I would
estimate in the 40-percent range, if you talk about drug
interdictions. On the TCO side, a primary focus in JTF-West is
on these transnational criminal organizations, so that is a
major effort in terms of taking down those networks. But I
cannot give you a percentage of the time on that versus what
they are just doing on regular border work.
Chairman Johnson. And, again, so 40 percent drugs. Describe
the activities of the trans-criminal organizations.
Mr. Alles. Well, from our standpoint, we are supporting ICE
in their investigations on TCOs, or we are actually
interdicting drugs in the transit zone or coming across the
border. So when I give you that 40 percent, I am looking at the
hours expended on my aviation side actually that is going
toward those kinds of efforts.
Chairman Johnson. What I am trying to get at here is
certainly when we came down and visited your site and were down
in the Rio Grande Valley, the more we investigate this through
our hearings, we are hearing the drug cartels combining with
trans-criminal organizations, potentially a nexus with Islamic
terror organizations like Hezbollah. I am trying to get some
sort of sense specifically what is happening.
Mr. Edge, maybe you are the best one to answer that
question. Can you give us some sense of what is happening?
Mr. Edge. Well, what we find is that in all the areas that
we are responsible for investigating, there ultimately is one
motivation, and that is financial. The bad guys around the
world want to make money to support these illicit activities
that take place all over the world. We have found that through
an export control investigation, for example, the investigation
that I mentioned out of north New Jersey where the vehicles
were being stolen and exported; that money ultimately can be
used--we have found in several investigations--for illicit
activities that fund terrorist activity.
Chairman Johnson. Is there a money-laundering aspect to the
vehicle smuggling?
Mr. Edge. Yes, sir.
Chairman Johnson. Can you describe that? Because I have had
it described to me, and it is kind of hard to follow.
Mr. Edge. Well, as far as the money-laundering aspect of
this, and with all the violations that we enforce, there is a
money-laundering aspect. We conduct these long-term financial
investigations into that aspect by assessing the assets that
the organization owns and has, and we try to follow the money
through the various accounts. Depending on the nature of the
crime, last summer when there was the UAC crisis that was down
there at the border, we find ourselves in the situation where
we were combating that by following the money. The funds that
were being used to support those smuggling efforts, the human
smuggling efforts on the southwest border, we were able to
identify those accounts and seize that money, working very
closely----
Chairman Johnson. Can you give us some sense of the dollar
volume of, just the transnational criminal organizations? What
is the dollar value of the drug trade, of their activities? Can
you give us some sort of sense there? Are we talking tens of
billions, hundreds of billions of dollars?
Mr. Edge. I cannot give you an exact assessment, but it is
in the billions of dollars. No matter what discipline or
violation that we are enforcing, whether it is intellectual
property theft or any of these other violations, such as human
smuggling, there are funds that are used and received to
support those activities and to increase the activities into
other areas.
Chairman Johnson. General McCaffrey in testimony before
this Committee estimated--and it has not been disputed yet--
that we were only interdicting on the southwest border
somewhere between 5 to 10 percent of illegal drugs coming into
this country. That is through the southwest border. A lot of
your activities involve interdicting drugs through the maritime
borders. Is it a similar type percentage? Are we only by your
estimates interdicting 5 to 10 percent of drugs? Mr. Alles.
Mr. Alles. I cannot provide an estimate on the percentage
of interdictions, I mean the stuff that we do not interdict. So
last year our office interdicted $14 billion in drugs, street
value on the drugs. By trying to estimate what that is of the
total of the United States is--again, we do not know what we
miss.
Chairman Johnson. Do you have a sense that we are
interdicting a high percentage or a very low percentage?
Mr. Alles. I mean, I would sense that, we are not getting
over 50 percent. I just do not know, to be honest.
Chairman Johnson. Admiral, do you have any input on that?
Admiral Brown. Yes, sir. The estimate that we have a
national target of reducing about 40 percent of the cocaine
supply approaching the United States. That is the nationally
set target. It has been a graduated target. It is 36 percent
this year. It is moving up toward 40 percent.
Over the past several years, we have averaged between about
11 and 18 percent in terms of maritime interdictions of the
known drug flow toward the United States. One of the challenges
of that, as was mentioned earlier with regard to maritime
domain awareness, is this is illicit activity that is trying to
be concealed for detection. So our confidence in what we call
the denominator of that, the actual flow, is somewhat limited,
but based on best estimates of the intelligence community (IC)
and the law enforcement community, in the maritime we interdict
in the range of 11 to 18 percent. For the Coast Guard it has
been about 450 metric tons over the past 5 years.
Chairman Johnson. Again, so that just underscores really
how unsecure our borders truly are. When we are talking about 5
to 10 percent drug interdiction on the southwest border, 11 to
18 percent maritime--again, I am not being critical, but I am
just laying out that reality. It is a really sad and
frightening reality. Senator Ayotte.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Chairman.
I wanted to ask each of you, I know during your testimony
you talked about seeing cocaine and to some extent marijuana
being smuggled through our maritime borders. In New Hampshire,
we have a tremendous heroin epidemic, and previously I have
heard from officials testifying before this Committee that the
heroin is coming over on the land border, on the Southern
Border. And so I was just curious if you are seeing any heroin
coming over the maritime borders. And if not, why? And could
you help me understand how these different trafficking routes
work as we want to increase our ability to interdict a drug
that, frankly, is killing so many people in this country? In my
home State of New Hampshire, we have people dying every day on
this, unfortunately, and it is too cheap. Whoever is best to
answer that.
Mr. Alles. I will take a whack at it here. I think, as you
noted, Senator, the primary flow is across the land borders. So
CBP has seen an increase in the amount of heroin interdicted
through our ports of entry (POE), so that is a prime concern as
the heroin flows coming out of Mexico through our ports of
entry.
Just as an example, another problem that we have is we have
a lot of aircraft each year that fly up to the border, and they
land and they drop off drugs. This is a typical load of an
aircraft that was interdicted in Mexico off of CBP information.
It had 389 kilos of meth, 79 kilos of cocaine, 79 kilos of
white heroin, 1.5 kilos of black tar heroin. So there is
definitely a high flow of the heroin, more so than we have seen
in years past. It is a problem that we are working against.
Senator Ayotte. I am sorry. Go ahead, Admiral.
Admiral Brown. Yes, Senator. I would add that in the
maritime domain, we have seen relatively small quantities of
heroin, typically mixed in with loads of cocaine. For example,
just about a month or so ago, we had an interdiction of a bulk
quantity of cocaine, several hundred kilos, off the coast of
Central America, and embedded within one of those cocaine
packages was approximately 10 kilograms of heroin. We have also
seen that on the Caribbean side, again, in relatively small
quantities. But as Mr. Alles mentioned, the vast majority of
heroin that comes into the United States does so across the
land border, not a maritime border. But our Intelligence
Community remains alert to instances of heroin trafficking in
the maritime, and to the extent that we can, we interdict those
when we know they are coming.
Mr. Edge. Senator, if I may, I certainly concur with my
colleagues, but also what we have seen with our investigative
portfolio, is very similar to what they have seen. Most of the
heroin is coming across the land border and the southwest
border. But, of course, there is heroin that does come into the
interior via commercial aircraft, and then that heroin is then
transported to other parts in the Northeast and the Midwest.
It is a growing problem, and it is a problem that we see at
the Ports of Entry where it is, in fact, commingled with other
shipments. You might have a shipment of legitimate goods that
might have heroin inserted inside them through containerized
cargo, and that is where our BESTs have been very effective.
Over the past couple of years, we have seen a lot of
commingled shipments, and the number of commingled shipments at
our ports of entry are increasing.
Senator Ayotte. And to address this, I have also spoken
with General Kelly, the Commander of Southern Command, about
this issue as well and coordinating with--because he has real
concerns that this network also can be used for terrorist
activity, as you have discussed with the Chairman.
What is it that you need to increase interdiction? Is it
more planes, more people? What do we need to understand?
Because we have a terrorism threat, we have the drug threat,
all of which is bad for our country.
Mr. Edge. Senator, I think we have done an effective job,
and we can always do better, of course, but we have coordinated
our efforts both from the investigative perspective and the
operational perspective, and also through the sharing of
intelligence information. At the Department of Homeland
Security, the National Targeting Center, which is at CBP, is a
place that all this information is vetted and reviewed, and
that has been a great source for our investigative efforts as
well. We have joined CBP in our efforts in assessing that
information that we get from all around the world, not just
domestically, so we can use our resources smarter.
Senator Ayotte. So, Director Edge, I think all of us have
been really shocked about what happened in San Francisco, and I
would like to ask from the perspective of ICE, obviously you
have a big piece of the job in enforcing our Nation's
immigration laws. And I want to ask you about the existence of
sanctuary cities and what your view is on that, and whether it
frustrates the mission of ICE to have these cities who
obviously we saw in the San Francisco situation where there was
not cooperation between the city and obviously the Federal
immigration authorities, and it has been really shocking to all
of us to see that this beautiful young woman was murdered.
Mr. Edge. I certainly agree that what happened in San
Francisco is a terrible tragedy, and at ICE, we are attempting
to work very closely with our law enforcement partners to
ensure that circumstances like this will not happen again. And
from the investigative side of ICE and Homeland Security
Investigations, what we do very well is we work very closely
with our State and local counterparts. We try to not only
conduct our investigative efforts into areas that affect public
safety, like our community shield gang operation where we are
arresting and infiltrating gang activity around the country
looking to arrest those foreign-born gang members who are
committing violence and truly affecting public safety.
So one of the things that we will continue to do is work
closely with our State and local counterparts and encourage
them to work with us, so hopefully something like this will not
happen again.
Senator Ayotte. Well, let me just ask you, if your State
and local counterparts as a policy matter will not work with
you, doesn't it make your job more difficult?
Mr. Edge. It would make our job more difficult, but from an
investigative perspective, we usually get great cooperation
from our State and local counterparts.
Senator Ayotte. Well, it seems to me that if your State and
local counterparts will not cooperate with Homeland Security
when it comes to a situation like we saw in San Francisco,
obviously there is real danger to the public on this. So I hope
this is something that we take up in this Committee as well
further, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Ayotte.
Before we go to, I guess, Senator Carper, Chairman McCain
has got some time constraints. We are going to let Senator
McCain ask a question.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN
Senator McCain. Mr. Edge, you really did not answer the
question. The fact is that this guy was arrested and deported
five times, and the sanctuary city--your order to detain was
not honored by the sheriff of San Francisco. So if you call
that ``great cooperation,'' fine. The rest of us do not.
And on the issue, by the way, of the drugs coming into the
United States, General Kelly said that he watches the drugs
come in because of sequestration he does not have the
capability to interdict. And so if you think you are doing a
great job, General Kelly certainly does not agree with that
because he does not have the assets to interdict.
I have one question. What do you know about the published
reports that Mexico has refused our offer to help in
apprehending Mr. Guzman.
Mr. Edge. Senator, certainly I have heard those published
reports, and we stand ready to----
Senator McCain. But do you know if it is true or not that
the Mexican Government has refused our offer to provide
assistance in tracking down Chapo?
Mr. Edge. No, I do not.
Senator McCain. You do not know anything about it?
Mr. Edge. We have an office in Mexico City, and they are
working very closely with----
Senator McCain. Well, I would think that it would come to a
higher level than our office in Mexico City, Mr. Edge. Thank
you.
Mr. Edge. Yes, sir.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Gentlemen, again, welcome and thanks for
your testimony and your responses to our questions.
I want to just go down the line--Admiral Brown, I will ask
you first of all--and each of you give us two things that we
can do to help the folks who with you, for you, be more
effective in your work. Two things, each of you. And briefly.
Admiral Brown. I will try to be brief, Senator. The first
one is support for the recapitalization of our offshore patrol
fleet, specifically the offshore patrol cutter acquisition. And
kind of following up on Senator Ayotte's question before, what
would it take for us to be more effective, our effectiveness in
our maritime interdiction role is based really on three things:
Information, actionable intelligence. That is generated
primarily through General Kelly's command, U.S. Southern
Command (SOUTHCOM), and their Joint Interagency Task Force
South (JIATF-S).
Aviation. We need fixed-wing air support to locate the
targets that JIATF points us to. That is a combination of CBP
aircraft, Coast Guard aircraft, and partner nation aircraft.
And then we need ships on station, and our long-range
cutters, our high-endurance cutters, medium-endurance cutters,
and the new national security cutter. And the future OPC
equipped with a helicopter flight deck, an airborne use-of-
force helicopter, multiple pursuit boats, and a seasoned Coast
Guard crew and boarding teams are the most effective package in
interdicting these threats, whether drug-trafficking threats,
migrant-trafficking threats, or whether those criminal pathways
are ultimately used for terrorism.
Senator Carper. OK, good. When you look at the President's
budget request for 2016 as it pertains to each of these areas,
and you look at what the Appropriations Committees have
reported out in terms of funding for those priorities, how do
they match up?
Admiral Brown. We are still examining the marks between the
Senate and the House on the----
Senator Carper. Just stay with the Senate. Just stay with
the Senate, if you will. How does the Senate--how have the
appropriators done with respect to these priorities? And how do
they match up with the President's request, the 2016 budget?
Admiral Brown. We believe there is sufficient
appropriations to continue with our acquisition program of
record to recapitalize the fleet. Obviously if we had more, we
could do better, but they are sufficient to recapitalize on our
program of record which will give us 8 national security
cutters, 25 offshore patrol cutters, and 58 fast response
cutters for coastal operations.
Senator Carper. I read somewhere--and I think it was in
your testimony--that we have funded one particular class of
boat, maybe it is the national security cutter, but your real
need was, I think, maybe the offshore cutters. Is that correct?
Admiral Brown. That is correct. Our program of record is
for the eight national security cutters that are already
budgeted for and the offshore patrol cutter that is currently
in preliminary design, and that acquisition will stretch out
over a number of years into the future as our current medium-
endurance cutters approach, some of them have exceeded, and all
of them will ultimately exceed 50 years in service before they
are retired as these new cutters replace them.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
General Alles.
Mr. Alles. Thank you, sir. Two items you asked for----
Senator Carper. Two items, please.
Mr. Alles. On the procurement side, the multi-role
enforcement aircraft----
Senator Carper. I am sorry. Say this again more slowly.
Mr. Alles. Multi-role enforcement aircraft is a procurement
we need to continue. That is in the budget both in yours, the
House's, and the President's request. That is an aircraft that
does maritime patrol near shore. So it is not going to work
down the transit zone with the Coast Guard, but does work with
the Coast Guard and our assets in the customs waters of the
United States.
Senator Carper. What kind of surveillance packages do they
include?
Mr. Alles. It includes basically a radar package and an EO/
IR eyeball on the aircraft, so it can do maritime surveillance
and interdiction.
Senator Carper. How does it compare with, say, what you
have on your P-3s?
Mr. Alles. It is shorter range. The radar is shorter
range----
Senator Carper. In terms of the surveillance capabilities,
just compare it for us.
Mr. Alles. Yes. The surveillance radar is less range.
Senator Carper. Compare it with the surveillance capability
of the P-3.
Mr. Alles. I mean, the P-3, the dome version reaches out
several hundred miles, and this thing is probably going to go
30, 40 miles. So it is a much more limited package, but we are
using it in a different environment, too. So that is one item.
Senator Carper. OK.
Mr. Alles. The second item is our coastal interceptor of
vessel. We just awarded the contract for that. We have a
program of 50. Currently we can probably buy out about 22 of
those, so that is going to be a long-term need for us in terms
of getting that budgeted, into both the President's budget and
the appropriations budgets, also.
Senator Carper. OK, good. Thanks. Mr. Edge.
Mr. Edge. Thank you, Senator Carper. From our perspective,
our biggest resource is our human resource, and for our Border
Enforcement Security Task Forces that we have around the
country, we would like to make sure that they continue to be
fully funded, and that our State and locals will be collocated
with us as well as fully trained in the Federal law that they
are going to assist us in enforcing. That is the first thing.
The second thing is to have hearings like this and to
continue the dialogue on these issues is of significant
importance to us to be able to do our job and enlist your
support in the work that we are trying to do.
Senator Carper. All right. In a trip that the Chairman and
I and some others, I think Ben Sasse, took down to the border
maybe 6 months ago, one of the things that we heard about was
looking at South Texas, the Rio Grande Valley, the ability to
put into the water boats on a fairly regular basis as opposed
to--what is it?--about 100 miles, they had maybe one place
where you could put in a boat to do surveillance along the
border. And the need was for some more shallow-bottom boats.
And just talk to us about that. You do not think about it in
terms of securing our borders. You do not think much about how
often do you have boat ramps. Well, it turns out that was an
issue. And the other one was in a lot of places, the Rio Grande
was pretty shallow, and some of the boats we were on could not
go into those areas.
Mr. Alles. So, sir, we use a series of different boats to
work the Rio Grande. One is our SAFE boat, 22-foot SAFE boats.
Those work in the deeper water of the Rio Grande. We have air
boats that can work in basically almost no water at all. And
then we are currently procuring a riverine shallow draft vessel
which can work in 4 inches of water. That procurement is in
process, and much like the Coastal Interceptor Vessels (CIV),
we are going to have some struggles in buying out the objective
we want. But those would help the Border Patrol in terms of
those areas, those shallow-water areas.
Senator Carper. OK. Thanks.
The other thing I want, let us talk a little bit about
intelligence. You guys are really intelligent, but talk to us
about the availability and the quality of intelligence that we
are getting to enable us to do our interdiction work, please.
Admiral, do you want to lead us off?
Admiral Brown. Certainly. As I mentioned earlier, the Joint
Interagency Task Force South, a DOD command under the
leadership of General Kelly and his SOUTHCOM command, has the
lawful responsibility for detecting and monitoring illicit
traffic coming toward the United States. They do that using
both national intelligence means and law enforcement
intelligence from not only other complements of DHS but also
the Department of Justice (DOJ) and numerous foreign partners.
We have terrific foreign cooperation down there that alerts
JIATF South to literally thousands of drug movements toward the
United States every year.
However, as we talked about, we are resource constrained in
terms of aviation and surface ships so that only roughly 35 to
40 percent of those targets, of those potential targets
actually become active targets searched for with aircraft.
So the intelligence systems work very well. They do a great
job of fusing national level intelligence with law enforcement
intelligence, and we have multiple partnerships to keep that
happening.
Senator Carper. All right. Just very briefly, Mr. Alles.
Mr. Alles. Sir, one struggle down there in the transit zone
is the reduction in DOD assets. When we apprehend the people
ourselves, we get a lot of intelligence out of those people we
have apprehended. So that has been a downturn for us with less
presence from the Department of Defense down there. That has
hurt us. Overall, most of what we do down there is directed
assets.
I would just say also two other important parts that we
work with ICE on really is, on the investigative side, they
provide us intelligence in investigations so our assets know
where to go, and then also in the source information they buy
from criminal sources. Those are all critical elements to us.
Senator Carper. OK. Mr. Edge.
Mr. Edge. And for us, certainly working with our
counterparts in the Department of Homeland Security is a key
and critical part of our intelligence-gathering process and
sharing with our counterparts at DOD. So, we find ourselves in
situations where we are working very closely with all the
COCOMs around the world, in addition to our law enforcement
colleagues. And the different centers that we have set up
within DHS have been successful in hashing out that
information.
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks. Thank you all.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST
Chairman Johnson. Senator Ernst.
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
gentlemen, for appearing before this Committee today. I
appreciate the testimony.
Senator Ayotte talked about the illegal drug trafficking
across the borders, whether it is maritime or across our land
borders. And in that discussion, you did mention meth is a
growing problem, and we have seen that all across the United
States. It is a big problem in my home State of Iowa.
Unfortunately, I think it does present a unique challenge
for you because often the precursors for methamphetamine are
legal substances that have legitimate uses, so I think that
would be very difficult to police some of that. But talk about
some of the challenges that you might see with methamphetamine,
whether you are seeing the finished product coming over the
borders, whether it is a challenge with the precursors, and
maybe how you deal with that issue. And all of you are welcome
to answer.
Admiral Brown. I think if I may, Senator, I will tackle the
precursors issue. We have talked a lot about the Joint
Interagency Task Force South, which is focused in the Western
Hemisphere, looking primarily at cocaine production coming from
South America toward the United States. DOD also has a Joint
Interagency Task Force West, based in Hawaii and looking
westward toward Asia, the source of many of these precursor
chemicals. One of their primary duties is to track those
precursors as they approach Central America. It used to mostly
be Mexico, now it is mostly Guatemala. And so they do a
reasonably effective job of tracking those precursors. Mexico
has clamped down substantially on precursor chemicals coming
through that country. Now they are going to Guatemala.
So as part of the Southern Border and Approaches Campaign
Plan and part of the wider Central America strategy for the
entirety of the Federal Government, we are looking to, with
multiple partners, improve the governance across Guatemala and
the other countries in Central America so they can improve
their own port security and do a better job of clamping down
both on precursor chemicals and on production.
Senator Ernst. That is good to hear. General Alles.
Mr. Alles. I think on the precursor side for us at CBP it
focuses at the National Targeting Center for cargo. So they are
trying to interdict these precursors before they enter the
United States. Typically, they are manifested as something else
on the cargo shipment, so their job is to sort out what is
actually in the container and what is legal and illegal before
it comes in.
Then there is also the cross-border flow, which we have
seen more meth coming across the border. Again, a lot of this
is not only dependent on what we do at the ports of entry, but
how we work with HSI in terms of focusing our enforcement
efforts.
Senator Ernst. Very good. Mr. Edge.
Mr. Edge. Thank you, Senator. One of the things that we
have seen with the production of precursors, we have 63 foreign
offices, including Central and South America, where we have
transnational criminal investigative units that have local law
enforcement officers that work very closely with our special
agents who are in-country. They have been a great source of our
ability to identify the production plants for the precursor
chemicals. Then we share that information with the intelligence
community in the States and with our DHS counterparts in an
attempt to be able to identify those shipments when they are
coming across the border. So that is one thing that we see.
Also, during the course of our investigative efforts,
especially in the Midwest and that part of the country, we have
had several long-term investigations that have resulted in
agents coming across the meth production labs. And one of the
biggest problems that we see is that those chemicals are quite
deadly. So we have agents who are in these situations
spontaneously who find themselves--who could be seriously
injured.
So we are trying to do our due diligence from the
perspective of taking care of our agents to make sure that they
have the equipment, they have the knowledge base, and they know
how to handle themselves in these various situations. And it is
an increasingly large problem that we find ourselves in.
Senator Ernst. Yes, it is. I appreciate that very much.
Of course, Cuba has been in the news a lot lately with
normalization of relations there, but I would like to ask about
the U.S.-Cuba immigration accord. I understand that with this
policy informally known as the ``wet-foot, dry-foot policy,''
it allows any Cubans that actually reach American soil to stay
in the United States and after one year they can apply for
legal status and become eligible for an immigrant visa, they
can apply for permanent residence, and then ultimately U.S.
citizenship. However, those Cubans that do not reach American
soil, if they are interdicted at sea, they are interviewed and
then sent back to Cuba.
I would like you to just confirm if this is, in fact, the
current U.S. policy, and then also if you would give your
opinion of that, if you believe that it does increase the
activity of Cubans trying to immigrate to the United States
through this policy.
Admiral Brown. OK. Thank you for that question, Senator. In
talking about the Migration Accords, the Migration Accord or
agreement that we have with Cuba dates back to the mass
migrations of the mid-1990s. So since the 1994-95 timeframe, we
have had agreement that allows for the direct repatriation of
Cuban migrants who are interdicted at sea and are then screened
to ensure that they are not going to be subject to persecution
or torture upon potential return to Cuba. We then have a well-
facilitated repatriation mechanism by which Coast Guard cutters
go into a particular Cuban port, repatriate those migrants to
the custody of the Ministry of the Interior.
I had the opportunity from 1998 to 2000 to serve as the
Coast Guard's essentially liaison officer to the Cuban Border
Guard. And since 2000, we have had somebody permanently
stationed at the U.S. Interests Section in Havana to help
facilitate that part of the relationship, and it is a very
professional working relationship that we have with the Cuban
Border Guard. And as relationships change with Cuba, we see
that potentially being an avenue for continued cooperation in
other matters of law enforcement and security.
Senator Ernst. OK. Do you think that that encourages very
unsafe immigration to the United States? It seems that most of
those that are trying to come from Cuba are often in vessels
that would not be worthy of going to sea.
Admiral Brown. We would say with all forms of illicit
migration and unsafe migration by sea, they are often driven
by, if not the policy itself, the perception of the policy,
which is often exploited by criminal migrant smugglers who
charge people money on the dream that they will arrive in the
United States.
Senator Ernst. OK. Is there any additional input from the
members of the panel?
Mr. Alles. I think his statement about the desire to reach
here and the danger associated with it does not just apply to
Cubans. It applies to all that try to approach our maritime
borders in a lot of these vessels that are typically very
dangerous and not very seaworthy.
Mr. Edge. And, Senator, from our perspective, with our
investigative portfolio--and we do run into circumstances where
there are migration issues and there are large volumes of
them--we usually call our colleagues at the Coast Guard to
assist us.
Senator Ernst. Very good. Thank you, gentlemen, very much.
Thank you, Chairman Johnson.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
our witnesses for your testimony this morning.
The issue of maritime border security is important to me in
my State of Michigan. We are blessed with the second longest
coastline of any State in the Union, second only to Alaska, and
a significant portion of that is the border with Canada. So
certainly if we are thinking about maritime security, we need
to be thinking about the Great Lakes as well.
I want to take this little different tack and kind of
discuss some new potential threats coming up and how you are
going to react to it. There have been a number of reports from
the White House, and the Department of Defense, the national
intelligence community, the Department of Homeland Security all
talking about some of the national security implications of
climate change. We are actually seeing some changes in the
Great Lakes that I think warrant some thought, and that is the
ice cover that we are seeing. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) has been tracking what has been very
significant ice cover these last two seasons. In fact, last
year, 92.5 percent of the lakes were covered by ice,
particularly Lakes Huron, Erie, and Superior. The NOAA folks,
although the data is still preliminary, are thinking this might
be a long-term trend as a result of the melting polar ice cap.
You will see colder weather coming in the Great Lakes, so we
may have complete freezing of the Great Lakes for future years
as well. And that can make it easier for folks to cross the
border as well.
In fact, earlier this year the Coast Guard intercepted a
man who was attempting to walk across Lake St. Clair, which was
fully frozen, on his way to Canada to cross the border using
the ice.
The 2012 Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy
acknowledged also the use of all-terrain vehicles and
snowmobiles to smuggle drugs in the Great Lakes region. So if
there is a possible way for folks to smuggle, they are going to
take it, and then criminals will attempt to cross the Great
Lakes. I do not think there is any--on ice is no different. So
I am just curious as to what assets the Coast Guard and DHS may
have to monitor people who are using small vehicles, or even
walking, attempting to enter the United States now that there
is in a sense an ice bridge across perhaps a very long border
with Canada.
Admiral Brown. Thank you for that question, Senator. I
think I will tackle the ice-breaking piece of it first and then
the security aspects.
With regard to ice breaking, we have seen record winters,
particularly the winter of 2014, and a cooperative agreement
between the U.S. Coast Guard and the Canadian Coast Guard
provided ice breaker coverage to the extent that the United
States, we are not prepared to provide on our own. We have a
number of 140-foot ice-breaking tugs as well as our 225-foot
buoy tenders as well as the Coast Guard cutter Mackinaw, our
only heavy ice breaker on the Great Lakes.
Canada has a little bit more capacity and works with us
very cooperatively on ice breaking to keep the shipping
channels open as long as possible, and we foresee that
relationship continuing in the future. We also have an in-
service vessel sustainment program to upgrade the 140-foot ice-
breaking tugs to continue them in service for an extended
period of time. So we think that from an ice-breaking
standpoint, we have sufficient capacity on the Great Lakes for
the foreseeable future for most winters, with help from the
Canadians in the heaviest periods.
With regard to the security relationship, we have a great
working relationship with Canadians both from an intelligence
and operations perspective. The Coast Guard has a ship rider
agreement with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that cross-
deputizes officers of the two services to ride on each other's
vessels so the border cannot be used as an escape route
essentially for someone who is conducting some type of
nefarious activity. We also have an intelligence relationship
with Canada that allows us to share information both about the
border itself and about other threats.
And the last point I want to make about Canada is that they
also recognize that border threats do not emanate right at
their border with the United States. Many of them come from
farther away. So the government of Canada, through the Canadian
Navy, provides Canadian naval ships that assist us with Coast
Guard boarding teams on board to interdict drugs as far away as
the coast of South America. So they have been terrific partners
in all ways.
Senator Peters. Does the fact that you have an ice bridge
now through miles and miles of border--do you need additional
assets for that? Do you look at that differently? How do you
react to the situation where people can take a snowmobile
across many miles of border?
Admiral Brown. We work that primarily in conjunction with
Border Patrol, and I would leave that to Mr. Alles.
Senator Peters. OK.
Mr. Alles. Yes, so from our standpoint, sir, in the winter
when it freezes over, we are talking about the utilization of
more emphasis on the frozen areas of the lake via snowmobiles,
increased patrols. Our marine interdiction agents who obviously
cannot use their boats in those conditions are pulled off the
water and participate in those operations.
If the flows were considered serious enough, we could look
at using technology like the Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation
Radar (VADER) to actually patrol the lake. That is the radar
technology that detects walkers. It is employed in our UAV
asset. Right now it is used exclusively on the Southern Border,
but that is a possibility up there. There is a technology to
address it.
But those are the main ways they address those cross-border
flows in the winter. It is a problem when the lakes freeze
over.
Senator Peters. Mr. Edge.
Mr. Edge. Senator, from the investigative perspective, we
have one Northern Border BEST in your jurisdiction, in Detroit,
and three others across the rest of the Northern Border. And
one of the things that we find is that the partnerships are
very strong, both with our foreign counterparts as well as our
domestic counterparts, and we are able to share the
intelligence information that we get with our counterparts at
CBP and Coast Guard.
So hopefully in the future we will be able to see the
program grow along the Northern Border, because we certainly
recognize that there is a significant problem with smuggling,
with the use of snowmobiles and skis and the like. So we look
forward to communicating with you in the future.
Senator Peters. Good. Well, I appreciate that.
Commissioner Alles, you mentioned some of the radar assets
as well, and according to the Office of Drug Control Policy's
latest Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy Report, they
claim that radar coverage of the Great Lakes region is far from
complete, which could allow certainly low-flying aircraft to
move drugs. But then you also talked about walkers and other
folks along that area. So the report called for action to
enhance some of our air and maritime efforts, particularly when
it came to radar assets.
Where are we on that? How do you view that? Is there
anything we need to do?
Mr. Alles. So currently there are no active sites on the
lake. On Lake Erie, there are three radar sites that are being
permitted and installed. I do not have the exact locations, but
I understand they are on the eastern end of the lake.
Also, as we continue to procure the multi-role enforcement
aircraft, which is a maritime patrol aircraft, that provides
you more radar density. We will eventually base those on the
northern tier--not currently. We do not have enough density to
do that, but that is the objective of the program eventually.
Senator Peters. Great. Thank you so much.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD
Chairman Johnson. Senator Lankford.
Senator Lankford. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Let
us talk a little bit about the movement of narcotics through
the gulf and the Caribbean area and then coming up the budget
the Pacific side as well, all the way up the coast. We talked a
little bit about the assets that you have requested, what you
have, and the process. This number keeps sticking with me,
Admiral Brown, that you had mentioned before, between 11 and 18
percent of known narcotics that we are able to actually do
interdiction on.
So just to clarify, that is, we have intelligence, we are
aware that we at least have a high suspicion that this
particular vessel is carrying some sort of illegal drugs,
between 11 and 18 percent of those that we know about we are
actually able to interdict.
Admiral Brown. OK. It is slightly different than that,
Senator. The 11 to 18 percent is of the estimated flow, total
drug flow toward the United States, we interdict--by weight, we
reduce that supply by about 11 to 18 percent with a national
target of 36 percent, going up to 40.
With regard to individual events about which we have known
intelligence, JIATF South and SOUTHCOM estimate that they can
only target about 37 percent of those events, but that overall,
once they locate a vessel or actual--the Coast Guard's kind of
interdiction performance, once a vessel has been sighted as a
target, our interdiction performance is between 85 and 90
percent. So it really is a matter of turning the known
intelligence into a sighting or a detection that we can then
target with the vessel, with the ship-helicopter-boarding team
combination.
Senator Lankford. OK. So what does it take to get that
done? Let us talk about the dynamics of this. If we are
targeting that number, somewhere around 70 percent then of what
we think is there we are not interdicting, what will it take to
get that number up?
Admiral Brown. I would say that as a government, aviation,
long--persistent surveillance, whether it is in the form of
fixed-wing aviation, national assets, unmanned systems,
persistent surveillance that can be targeted until a very
thinly populated fleet of surface vessels can get there.
Senator Lankford. So we are talking about we are aware of
it leaving, but we are not able to track it the whole way, and
at some point in the vast ocean or the gulf we are losing it.
Admiral Brown. Correct. And when you mention the vast
ocean, just in the eastern Pacific alone, the area that we are
talking about is an area equivalent to the continental United
States that may be patrolled by three to four ships at a time.
Senator Lankford. Right.
Admiral Brown. All of which have to refuel somewhere on the
east coast, notionally speaking. And I mentioned earlier, in
addition to the information, much of which we have, the
aviation, much of which we do not have, and the ships on
station, right now the Coast Guard is significantly challenged
by our ability to keep our older ships, our 30-to 50-year-old
medium-endurance cutters on station. Last week alone, while we
projected to have seven ships on station in the Caribbean and
the Florida Straits, we actually only had two because five of
them had mission-limiting casualties. And so the
recapitalization of our offshore patrol cutter fleet becomes to
us the linchpin of success for decades to come.
Senator Lankford. OK. So when does that get turned around,
when we go from two ships back to seven?
Admiral Brown. Well, thanks to some great efforts by our
logistic system, those ships are back up and operating. But,
again, we missed almost a week on station for many of them, and
that time on station cannot be regained.
Senator Lankford. So the aircraft, what is the most
efficient delivery system there? What is the best asset for us
that? Is that an unmanned? Is that manned? I know they have
different missions and different capabilities. But when you
look at trying to dramatically increase the number of aircraft
that are there, actually tracking what we think is moving
narcotics, what is the most efficient way to get that done?
Admiral Brown. I think perhaps Mr. Alles could comment on
that more effectively based on his experience in aviation?
Mr. Alles. Yes, I think right now the manned aircraft is
more effective because of the limitations on employing the
Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) in the airspace. So we are
eventually moving down to put a sense-and-avoid system on our
Predator aircraft UAS system. With that we can fly more
liberally in international airspace. Right now we have
restrictions on flying outside of air cover. So actually it is
your manned aircraft.
But the other part I think we ought to get to is you are
kind of asking the question of how do I secure a maritime
border, and to me that is really five components: It is
maritime domain awareness that we are talking about. It is law
enforcement information, because merely having coverage does
not tell me if a vessel is legitimate or he is doing
illegitimate activities. So I need information from
investigations. I have to have response capability, which he
mentioned about in terms of the cutters. For me it is in terms
of coastal interceptors. I have to have unity of effort because
I do not have all the information at CBP. The Coast Guard does
not have it. Not even ICE has all of it. It has to be a
combined effort, Federal, State, local. And then, finally the
small-vessel accountability piece we have not really talked
about, but we have 12 to 15 million small vessels in the United
States, and they basically are unregulated in that regard. So
whether they are doing legitimate or illegitimate activity is
very hard to know, and so the accountability of those vessels
for us is a major challenge.
The fact that we do not have any kind of device on those
vessels like an AIS system that is your beacon system that goes
on your larger, 300-ton and up vessels, is a substantial
challenge for us. But that is a regulatory issue that we cannot
really address. It would require action by the Congress.
Senator Lankford. Right. So initially what I am looking for
were the gaps. When we have intelligence that tells us we have
some sort of vehicle and it is suspected to be carrying
narcotics and we are not able to interdict that, that is the
first warning sign to say of those five you listed, we are
missing one, at least one, where there is a gap in there. The
worst-case scenario for us and for you in law enforcement is to
say I suspect there is illegal activity going on and I can do
nothing about it.
So, to me, the first step is let us find out what is
missing in that gap. Let us try to fill that gap, because we
have a long-term strategic issue on that.
When you mentioned the unmanned aerial systems as well,
your hesitation is that is not a platform we can use because of
the regulatory status? Because of what?
Mr. Alles. Because of the regulatory status to operate in
international airspace without its own ability to sense and
avoid aircraft. It needs that to comply with International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) rules. That is the issue for
the platform.
Senator Lankford. OK. Are we unifying our other fixed-wing
aircraft to make sure we are getting efficiency? There is an
issue that has happened in the past with having multiple
different types of aircraft, because then you have multiple
maintenance folks, you have multiple parts, replacement, if one
goes down, it is harder to be able to fix it.
Mr. Alles. Well, I think the direction we are going there,
both for the Department of Homeland Security--we have
constructed a joint operation requirements document for
maritime patrol aircraft that addresses the mission system on
the airplane. So our main issue there is we want to get our
airplanes linked together so they can pass information between
themselves and operations center, like our air and marine
operations center, or Coast Guard sectors, and we are moving in
that direction with this joint operation requirements document.
I think that is definitely----
Senator Lankford. OK. Mr. Chairman, may I have the luxury
of having one more question? I need to ask about Cuba and
follow up on what Senator Ernst was talking about as well. What
are you seeing as far as the rise and the fall of the number of
individuals coming from Cuba trying to come into the United
States? I saw some written statements about some numbers there.
I would like to know where we are currently today or as soon as
we can.
Admiral Brown. In the maritime domain, the number of Cuban
migrants that have attempted to come to the United States has
upticked over the past 2 years, fiscal years 2014 and 2015, as
compared with the 5 years prior. But, still, that level remains
below kind of our 10-year historical average.
So we perceived a slight uptick shortly after the
announcement of change in relationships. As I mentioned
earlier, we think that the perception of U.S. policy or
potential change in U.S. policy is often a driver of migration
and often fueled by migrant-smuggling organizations that profit
from that uncertainty.
Senator Lankford. So has that number gone back down or has
it stayed high?
Admiral Brown. That number has since gone back down on a
month-to-month basis compared to what we saw in December and
January. And, again, it is back down to historical norms now.
Senator Lankford. OK. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Lankford, let me just enter
something into the record, some facts on that. Between December
1 and December 16, 2014, the Coast Guard interdicted about 80
Cubans. On the 17, President Obama announced the new U.S.
policy toward Cuba. Between December 17 and December 31, 2014,
the Coast Guard interdicted 419 Cubans, a 423-percent increase.
To address this, the Coast Guard deployed direct
repatriation immediately and began sending those interdicted in
the waterways back to Cuba. As a result, Cuban interdictions
fell to 254 from January 1, 2015, and, according to this have
now returned to more normal levels. Is that basically correct?
Admiral Brown. That is accurate, sir. Normally, in the
winter months the flow trails off, so those numbers were fairly
high. The numbers now month to month are about 300, which, for
the summertime, is about normal and certainly well within the
normal range. And I would add that this perception of policy
issue, as Mr. Alles said before, applies not only to Cuban
migrants but to Haitian migrants as well. A few years ago, we
saw a significant spike in Haitian migrants trying to go from
the Dominican Republic toward Puerto Rico. We were then able to
come up with a policy solution to that of expedited removal of
Haitians who had landed in Puerto Rico or the islands of the
pass between Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, and we were
able to get a lid on that.
So it is a combination of policy, operations, but also
public messaging in addition to the additional operations
effort that we made.
Chairman Johnson. So bottom line, U.S. policy creates
direct incentives and disincentives for illegal immigration.
Admiral Brown. Correct. And as I mentioned before,
smuggling organizations absolutely exploit uncertainty or
perceived changes in policy to profit from people's desire to
get to the United States.
Chairman Johnson. OK. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. A couple years ago, my family took off
between Christmas and New Year's Day, and we went on a cruise
out of Florida into the Caribbean, and the first morning--we
left at night, and the first morning out, about 8 in the
morning, I said to my wife, we were in our cabin, and I said,
``I do not feel like we are moving.'' And she said, ``Go back
to sleep.''
Anyway, I went out on this little balcony on our cabin, and
I went out there, and the Caribbean was just glass, just like
glass. And I said, ``I do not think we are moving.''
And then the captain of the ship came on the P.A., and he
said, ``We are not moving.'' And what we had stumbled across
out there in the night was a boat with Cubans trying to make it
to the United States. And it was Christmas morning, and
literally we stayed with them. We had already been with them
for 3 or 4 hours. They had been out to sea for a week or two.
And we stayed with them. A couple of people were in bad shape.
We brought them in, fed them, gave them water, and attended to
their medical needs. We stayed with them for another 6 hours,
and it made us late on our cruise to get to these different
islands we were supposed to go to. Nobody ever complained. We
literally stayed there as humanitarians on Christmas morning. I
thought it was pretty extraordinary.
And then the Coast Guard arrived, and they took charge, and
we headed out. And they took those folks back to Cuba. There
were no kids on the boat. There were no unaccompanied minors.
And my guess is that most of the folks we find at sea that are
trying to make the trek by boat from Cuba to the States, my
guess is there are not a lot of unaccompanied minors.
What we deal with, as you know, certainly as Mr. Alles
knows, what we deal with on the Southern Border is a lot of
unaccompanied minors, a lot of families with kids. We just do
not see that sort of thing coming in from Cuba. It will be
interesting to watch what happens in the months ahead as we
move toward more normalized relations.
I want to follow up a little bit on James' question, and he
was talking about drones. In the old days, Mr. Alles, I spent a
lot of my life on Navy P-3 aircraft, maritime patrol aircraft,
and we were pretty good at tracking Soviet nuclear submarines
when we had good intelligence. If we actually knew what part of
the ocean to go to and search, we were pretty good at finding
those guys. It helped having sonobuoys that worked and were
efficient and highly sensitive. It helped to have a crew on
board who knew how to run the equipment. They have really
sophisticated surveillance equipment. It helps to have
maintainers of the aircraft so we could actually fly and not
have to board our flights.
But when you think about those different components--good
intelligence, aircraft that have the kind of surveillance
equipment needed, folks that are trained to operate that
equipment, folks that are able to maintain that equipment, and
to keep the airplanes flying--when you think about those
components and you think about, for example, drones or these
other shorter-range maritime patrol aircraft, Mr. Alles, how do
those factors weigh in with respect to whether it be the drones
or the--what are they called, the shorter-range aircraft,
maritime patrol?
Mr. Alles. The multi-role enforcement aircraft.
Senator Carper. There you go. Is there a designation,
something 8? What is it? S-8? I do not know.
Mr. Alles. No, sir. It is a Twin Beech, is what it is. A
Beech 350 I think it is.
Senator Carper. OK.
Mr. Alles. Is what the aircraft actually is.
Senator Carper. Talk about those components as they apply
to these aircraft, the drones and these aircraft.
Mr. Alles. Well, I think you have highlighted the key
component of this thing. Each aircraft has its kind of space it
operates best in. The drone gives me long endurance. It does
not have quite the radar range that some of my P-3s have. I
should be specific here because some of the P-3s have the long-
range apps radar on board, and the rest of them, six of them
have the SeaVue, which is the shorter-range radar, the same as
the Guardian UAV does. But the critical part really here, as
has been mentioned by the Admiral and also by Pete over here,
is really the intelligence. So how do I know where to put the
aircraft so it can actually find the vessel? So in JIATF South,
that is the model. The aircraft does not go out there unless we
have information on what he is looking for.
Now, without the aircraft, we will never find the vessel.
He will go to his destination and deliver his drugs. But
without the information, the aircraft will patrol for hours and
likely find nothing.
So I would say that same model applies if you think about
U.S. coastal lines, too, is we need that kind of information,
that kind of law enforcement intelligence that allows us to put
our aircraft in the right places to patrol and actually find
these vessels as they are coming inbound. So that is a key
part.
And then each airplane--the Multi-Role Enforcement Aircraft
(MEA), our Dash 8 is also a maritime patrol aircraft, longer
range, and the Guardian UAV, and then also finally the P-3--has
its particular element it operates in based on the performance
characteristics of the airplane and the radar it has on board.
Senator Carper. OK. Thank you.
Another one for Admiral Brown and probably Mr. Alles as
well. Let me just go back to the unmanned aerial systems for a
second. General Alles and Admiral Brown, can you talk a little
bit with us about your use of drones in the maritime--you
talked a little bit about it, but, Admiral Brown, how effective
are they in spotting traffickers, other kinds of illegal
activities?
Admiral Brown. Thank you for that question, Senator. We
have had some successes in partnership with CBP on using
unmanned aerial systems for interdictions. I recall a very good
case off of Puerto Rico where a maritime patrol aircraft first
spotted a suspect vessel, then handed it off to an unmanned
aerial system that maintained surveillance until a Coast Guard
cutter was able to get on scene and do the interdiction. So we
have had successes with that.
The Coast Guard, in addition to the partnership program
with CBP on the Guardian, has also two other unmanned aerial
system programs. One is a shipboard UAS program. We have kind
of had some fits and starts on that. Some of them, as you have
mentioned, Senator, are more people-intensive than we first
would have anticipated. In fact, I think within DOD they have
actually changed terms from ``unmanned'' to ``remotely
piloted'' to put emphasis on the fact that there is still a
pilot, just not on board the asset.
And then we are also working on small, essentially hand-
launched unmanned aerial systems for closer-range surveillance
and for a variety of applications. Right now we are testing
them in the Arctic for ice breaking, to find leads in the ice
and other environmental concerns. So we have multiple programs,
all of them in some nascent stage, but we have had some
successes.
Senator Carper. Good. Thanks.
Mr. Alles, let me ask a quick follow up. The Chairman and I
have been sitting here before with the Inspector General (IG) I
think from DHS and talking to us about drones and saying they
are not as effective, we are not getting our money's worth out
of the drones. We heard about a report maybe 3, 4, 5 months ago
from the Inspector General, and just give us an update. I know
there has been work underway to try to address the concerns
raised by the Inspector General. How are we doing?
Mr. Alles. Yes, sir. So some of the concerns he addressed
are underway in terms of addressing those. They address the
concept of operations (CONOPS) we had that needed to be updated
and is currently being updated. We talked about the flying
hours of the program. We have a disagreement on that. We are
shooting to get into the 6,000-to 9,000-hour range. We are
going to update the CONOPS so they cannot draw a false
inference from that CONOPS on how many hours we want to fly
that. So that should correct that.
In terms of the actual effectiveness of the drone, I will
just give you an example. For this year it is now responsible
for $561 million of contraband seizures, and the year is not
over yet. So I think in terms of flying hours compared to what
it costs to operate it, it is giving us a tremendous return on
investment. So I would disagree with the assessment that the
drone does not produce for us, as we talked about earlier when
you all came down to Corpus Christi, I think it was in January.
But same opinion there. It is still being verified even this
year with the numbers it has produced so far in fiscal year
2015.
Senator Carper. Just keep in mind, as we figure out how to
fund 2016, if there are things that we need to be doing to
support whether it is pilots, whether it is maintenance, to
make--I want to make sure--we spent all this money on drones.
We want to make sure we are getting our money's worth, and if
there is some component that is missing, that we need to be
mindful of, please let us know.
A last question, if I could. We are interested in root
causes. The Chairman and I are very much interested in root
causes. I think the root cause of a lot of what we talked about
here today is our insatiable appetite for illegal drugs. That
is really the root cause, and it is a hard one to solve. So
what we do instead is we address symptoms of those problems.
The Chairman and I may be heading down to Honduras,
Guatemala, and El Salvador sometime in a couple of months, I
hope, and I think with that in mind, Mr. Edge, at some point in
your testimony you talked about a joint operation that led to
the convictions and extraditions of, I think, one or two major
players in the transnational criminal network. I think it was
in Honduras, and I think you stated that the extraditions had
an effect on the flow of cocaine in Honduras. Could you expand
on that just briefly and talk about the impact the extraditions
have had on our relationship with Honduras, please?
Mr. Edge. Certainly, Senator. The relationship with
Honduras has actually been very good lately as a result of the
extraditions. The extraditions certainly sent a wave of concern
among those who are involved in the criminal organizations down
there, and also working very closely with our transnational
criminal investigative units that are in that region of the
world. We have several, and I think you have been to Panama and
have visited there. But that region has been a focus of
investigative activity that was certainly enhanced last summer
with the unaccompanied children problem that we witnessed.
But the relationship is strong, and we certainly anticipate
that it will get better in the coming months.
Senator Carper. All right. My time has long since expired.
I notice we have not started our vote yet, Mr. Chairman. Could
I just follow up on this root cause thing.
Chairman Johnson. Sure. I was going to as well.
Senator Carper. OK. Thank you very much.
Let me just ask each of you to take one minute, please, to
talk about how we, the Chairman and myself and our Committee
especially, can engage more effectively and our country engage
more effectively in the Northern Triangle region? Please, just
take a minute on that. Admiral.
Admiral Brown. Thank you, Senator. As I mentioned earlier,
there is a Central America strategy now developed out of the
National Security Council staff, and Vice President Biden is
the one who----
Senator Carper. And I am pleased to see that it has been
funded by the appropriators--not to the full extent, but I
think generously.
Admiral Brown. And I think that is terrific, sir. There are
three key aspects to that strategy. They include security,
governance, and prosperity. And I think the Coast Guard has a
role to play, particularly in security and governance, but
leading to prosperity. We talked a little bit earlier about
precursor chemicals in Guatemala. So shipping out of Central
America toward Wilmington, for example, with bananas and juice
concentrates could be an important part of their economy if
they had a relief from the pressure of corruption and the
corrosive effect of cocaine traffic moving through Central
America. So I think the appropriations for funding that
strategy are a key component of moving forward there, and from
a Coast Guard perspective, we want to put more people in the
embassies in the country teams to improve our performance in
all three aspects: security, governance, and prosperity.
Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
Mr. Alles, please?
Mr. Alles. I think on the Northern Triangle side, our big
contribution we can make from my office is continue to fund
detachments down there to help in their law enforcement work.
So we funded a detachment down to El Salvador this year, which
also worked in Guatemala, and that was the Predator UAV that
helped them on some of their law enforcement operations. So I
think that is helpful in terms of doing the security aspect we
talked about as the element of this strategy, and then other
elements of national power need to come into play because,
clearly, the economy is a big factor on why people migrate out
of those countries.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Alles.
Mr. Edge. Senator, one of the things that we need to do in
HSI is make sure we keep allocating the appropriate resources
to that part of the world. We want to make sure that we fully
staff our offices in that area of the world, so we can continue
to collaborate with our foreign counterparts, and that we also
maintain connectivity to our domestic offices in the States
through this whole joint task force model because that is very
important for us to build investigative efforts and also share
some of the information that we can with our counterparts in
that Northern Triangle region. It is going to be critical to
our success to identify the threats before they make it to our
shores.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you all. Thank you very
much for your testimony today and your good work.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Again, I think in the course of these hearings, I think we
have both come to the realization and agreement that the root
cause really is our insatiable demand for drugs, the root cause
of our unsecure border.
In evaluating that, though, I think you have to really take
a look at the history, and you have to kind of piece the puzzle
together. So I wonder if any of our witnesses are willing to
really speak to how that all came about. We have an insatiable
demand for drugs, which obviously helped the growth of these--
the creation and growth of the drug cartels. Drug cartels are
businesses, so they are smuggling drugs, and most businesses
look to expand their product lines, and that expands into human
trafficking, sex trafficking. You are moving humans across the
border. Well, let us take a look at illegal immigrants. Let us
use them as a diversion for our drug trafficking.
Can anybody speak to how those cartels have if not
completely destroyed, certainly done great harm to the public
institutions of Central American nations? Can anybody kind of
speak to the history of that and what the current State is,
which is, as pretty relevant as well? Director Edge.
Mr. Edge. Sure thing, Mr. Chairman. One of the things that
we have seen through our investigative efforts--and, again, the
foundation here is our investigations--the demand for drugs has
resulted in an insatiable demand for money. And the financial
aspect that I mentioned earlier, where we have a financial
component to all of our investigations that we conduct, no
matter what discipline they are in, there is a demand to make a
profit. And that profit certainly is inherent in a need for
these cartels to survive, to make more money, to commit
corruption in those countries, and that is a big part of it.
And that has become part of the culture in those countries.
So one of the things that we try to do is, I think, the
best course of action that we have taken, to enhance our
international footprint, to communicate more effectively with
our foreign counterparts at the law enforcement level, and that
has yielded some pretty significant results. We have actually
gotten an extradition out of a country that we otherwise would
not have.
So it is things like that that we have to continue to do to
really, perhaps, see some progress and, perhaps, see the flow
stem a little bit in addition to all-of-government effort to
reduce the demand for the product.
Chairman Johnson. Commissioner Alles, you look like you
want to chime in.
Mr. Alles. I was just going to make a comment, as he did.
It is the issue of corruption and how that basically erodes
government institutions, and also the ability to do business. I
am sure, as you recognize, if you are bidding on a contract and
you have to bribe them to get the contract, I mean, that is,
fraught with all kinds of problems and just undermines the
institution. So I see that as a major problem for, not only in
Central America but in Mexico, too.
Chairman Johnson. Can you give me a sense of the
progression or degradation of those institutions? Are they
worse than 10 years ago? Are they getting better than 10 years
ago? Admiral Brown, do you have any information on that?
Admiral Brown. I would say, sir, that the closest analog
might be Colombia in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and
perhaps Central America is in about that condition now, but
with a combination----
Chairman Johnson. Which is not good.
Admiral Brown. Which is not good, but also not hopeless.
With a combination of significant national effort by the
Government of Colombia and the people of Colombia, as well as a
relatively small investment from the United States of people
and money and time and resources, Colombia has reduced its
murder rate, substantially increased its Gross Domestic Product
(GDP), and reestablished the rule of law almost over the
entirety of the country, with the exception----
Chairman Johnson. That took extraordinary leadership,
right?
Admiral Brown. It absolutely did.
Chairman Johnson. Unfortunately, leadership--when I say
``extraordinary,'' I mean it does not exist very often.
Admiral Brown. Right, sir. And so the goal of the Central
America strategy is to try to address at the same time the
security concerns, the governance, the rule of law, and the
institutions there, as well as improving the prosperity so that
there is no longer the roots of corruption and also the
pressure on people to move out of Central America so that they
can rebuild their own countries and economies.
Chairman Johnson. OK. I will give each of you an
opportunity to just make a closing comment, something that, if
we have not asked a question, you just want to get off your
chest. But I do want to go back to the incentives and
disincentives of our own policy, and I want to go back--because
you spoke earlier about the problem we had in fiscal year 2013
and 2014 in Haiti. I want to get the numbers on the record. By
the end of fiscal year 2013, 1,760 Haitian migrants had
attempted to enter the United States through the Mona Passage,
as compared to 39 Haitians in fiscal year 2012. So it went from
39 to 1,760.
And then basically we decided to enact a policy that
immediately repatriated those Haitians, correct? Can you
describe, first of all, exactly what we did?
Admiral Brown. What had happened, sir, was following the
earthquake in Haiti in 2010, we had stopped removal of
Haitians. And I have to different between repatriation--in the
Coast Guard we use repatriation, maritime repatriation,
migrants who are interdicted at sea who return to their country
of origin or departure--from removal, which is the process
after a migrant has landed in the United States.
Chairman Johnson. Correct. But, again, repatriation is
immediate, and it is noticed immediately.
Admiral Brown. So we never stopped post-Haiti earthquake
the maritime repatriation process. Thankfully, that continued
to work, and there was no increase in migration from Haiti in
2010 subsequent to the earthquake.
However, the expedited removal of Haitians who were already
in the United States was stopped at that time and was not
resumed. And by 2013, migrant-smuggling organizations in the
Dominican Republic began to take advantage of that by bringing
Haitians already in the Dominican Republic to uninhabited
islands that are U.S. territory between Puerto Rico and the
Dominican Republic.
Chairman Johnson. So, again, because I really want to get
this straight. So U.S. policy, we stopped expedited removal or
repatriation back to Haiti, so the reality of the situation was
that if you were Haitian and you got in the United States, you
felt you had a pretty good chance of staying.
Admiral Brown. Correct.
Chairman Johnson. And as a result, we saw a pretty good
spike--nothing like we saw with the unaccompanied children, but
we saw a pretty good spike of Haitians trying to come to this
country illegally.
Admiral Brown. Right, accompanied by a spike in deaths and
injuries of migrants who were attempting to make that cross.
Chairman Johnson. A pretty dangerous journey.
Admiral Brown. Correct.
Chairman Johnson. Which is not a very humanitarian thing
for us to incentivized people to take a dangerous journey to
lose their life.
Admiral Brown. So we did a couple things. First, working
with the Government of the Dominican Republic, we asked them to
increase their shore-side enforcement to try to stop this
traffic from taking place. And within the U.S. Government, we
were able to within our Department and with interagency
partners--State, Justice, and others--we were able to
reinstitute the policy of expedited removal, and ICE
enforcement and removal operations began removing migrants who
had recently arrived in Puerto Rico or those uninhabited
islands, and very quickly, once that became public knowledge,
the traffic across that vector essentially dried up.
Chairman Johnson. My note here says that after the first
removal, the maritime flow in the Mona Passage decreased by 80
percent.
Admiral Brown. Correct.
Chairman Johnson. OK. I just wanted to get that on the
record.
Again, I would like to offer each of you gentlemen an
opportunity to make a closing comment. We will start with you,
Admiral Brown.
Admiral Brown. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to
speak before the Committee today, and I will just reemphasize
that for us in the Coast Guard, the most important aspect of us
being able to maintain maritime border security for decades to
come is going to be the recapitalization of the cutter fleet
through the Offshore Patrol Cutter Program. So your continued
support for that will help us out greatly in accomplishing not
only drug interdiction but all the other missions to which we
are appointed.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Admiral. Commissioner Alles.
Mr. Alles. Sir, I think the key point I want to make here
is the importance of having unity of effort across the
Department. The JTFs are doing that for us. Each of our
organizations brings unique capabilities to the problem set
that we are talking about. They are not redundant capabilities
per se. So I think it is important that we continue to have a
high degree of unity of effort, and I think that is a good path
that we are currently on.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you. Director Edge.
Mr. Edge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
the opportunity to engage in this dialogue today. I certainly
appreciate you and the Ranking Member, Senator Carper, taking
the time to have this hearing. And as my colleague Mr. Alles
just indicated, it is critical that for ICE and the DHS to
collaborate and to coordinate our efforts in an attempt to
leverage our resources and have this dialogue with you so that
we can continue to do that in the future and that we can all
have visibility into all that is taking place out there in an
attempt to protect our country--or secure our borders.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Edge. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. I am sure Senator Carper would like to
join me in thanking all of you, all three of you, for your
service to this Nation, for your testimony, and for taking the
time to appear here today.
With that, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days,
until July 30 at 5 p.m., for the submission of statements and
questions for the record.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
ALL HANDS ON DECK: WORKING TOGETHER
TO END TRAFFICKING AND ABUSE OF
PRESCRIPTION OPIOIDS, HEROIN, AND FENTANYL
----------
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Manchester, NH
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:59 p.m., at the
New Hampshire Institute of Politics, Manchester, New Hampshire,
Hon. Kelly Ayotte, presiding.
Present: Senators Ayotte and Shaheen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE
Senator Ayotte. I would like to welcome everyone here for
this hearing, which is part of the Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs field hearing.
First of all, I would like to thank St. Anselm's for
allowing us, Senator Sheehan and I, to use this facility to
host this important hearing and thank President Disalvo and all
who are here from St. A's for making this possible.
Also, before we begin, I just want to welcome so many of
you who are here, who I know are very involved with this issue
today. The topic of our hearing is ``All Hands On Deck: Working
Together to End Trafficking and Abuse of Prescription Opioids,
Heroin, and Fentanyl.'' And I know that there are many in this
audience who have made it their life's work in all aspects of
this when it comes to certain substance abuse, addiction, and
law enforcement.
So I thank all of you, and I am going to identify some of
the leaders we have in the audience. If I miss you, just please
know how grateful we are for you to be here.
I know that Mayor Ted Gatsas from the city of Manchester is
here. Tim Soucy, the Public Health Director from the city of
Manchester and Chris Hickey, Manchester Fire Department
Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Officer.
We have Jay Fallon, the Executive Director of New England
Health Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) and Chris
Stawasz from the American Medical Response (AMR), who is the
General Manager for New Hampshire and Maine.
John Delaney, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC), Manchester District
Office. Leo Ducey, DEA Resident Agent, Manchester District
Office.
A number of our police chiefs are here. Chief Rob Brown of
the Goffstown Police Department. We have Chief Rich O'Brien
from Goffstown Fire Department, so he's the fire chief. He's
also president of the New Hampshire Fire Chiefs. This is an
issue that our fire departments are dealing with every day.
Chief Andy Lavoie from the Nashua Police Department. Jim
Hardy of the Hillsborough County Sheriff. We also have Chief
Jamie Burkush, who is the Manchester fire chief. Chief Bob
Cormier of the Tilton Police Department and also the president
of the Chiefs Association here in New Hampshire.
And we have many from our treatment community who are here,
so thank you all for being here. Among those are Dr. Cheryl
Wilkie of the Farnum Center.
I know many of you who are here. I just want to thank
those from the treatment and prevention community who are here.
I wasn't able to get everyone's names, but know we are grateful
for you being here.
We have the Acting U.S. Attorney, Don Feith, here. We have
Jack Wozmak, who is the New Hampshire Senior Director for
Substance Abuse and Behavioral Health. So, all of you, thank
you for being here today.
I am grateful to see so many here to be part of this
hearing. We are here to discuss a public health and safety
issue that is devastating New Hampshire communities and
families: prescription opioid and heroin abuse, and the ever-
increasing role of fentanyl in fatal drug overdoses. Solving
this crisis is going to require all hands on deck and today's
hearing is representative of that approach.
I am very grateful to be here with my colleague, Senator
Shaheen. Senator Shaheen is the Ranking Member of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security. This is
certainly an issue that is very important to our State and she
has done very important on work on it, so I am grateful to have
you here as well.
This is going to require an all-hands-on-deck approach.
That is why that's the name of this hearing. Over the past year
and a half, both Senator Shaheen and I have hosted a number of
discussions on this issue throughout the State. At each of
these roundtables, I have certainly heard from law enforcement,
first responders, treatment providers, people in recovery,
public health officials, and other community leaders, and
certainly all of you here who serve are making the difference.
Today's discussion is going to be a little bit different
because this is an official hearing of the Senate Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and this will be
the official transcript. So our goal is to bring the testimony
that we hear today back to Washington so that we can make a
difference and so that we can spread this testimony around
other members so they can understand the challenges we are
facing in New Hampshire. Hopefully we can get some additional
policy solutions where we work together from the Federal
perspective and grow support for Federal legislation to help,
which you are all doing every day.
I want to thank our witnesses who are here today on the
first panel. We are going to hear from Manchester Police Chief
Nick Willard. He is the chief of our largest city, and
certainly they are seeing this epidemic as such a challenge and
they are seeing a grave increase in the number of those
addicted to heroin and the law enforcement challenges that flow
from that. I had the privilege on Saturday night of doing a
ride-along with the Manchester Police Department, and within an
hour and a half I saw officers and also the Manchester Fire
Department emergency responders go to two heroin overdoses. And
those two individuals, by the way, would not have lived but for
the response of our first responders at the scene.
I am very grateful as well to have Doug Griffin here today
to share his family's experience with heroin addiction. Doug
and his wife, Pam, who are here today, and their daughter,
Shannon, who is also here today. They tragically lost
Courtney--their daughter--to a heroin overdose last year. And
since then, they have made it their mission as a family to
share her story about addiction, to help others who are
struggling, and to prevent similar tragedies. So thank you for
being here.
We will also hear from Heidi Moran, who is a clinical
administrator for Southeastern New Hampshire Services, who will
provide her perspectives and insights as a treatment provider
for New Hampshire residents struggling with addiction. She has
been working on these issues for several decades. So thank you.
I am also honored to welcome in our second panel three of
our Federal witnesses who have traveled here from Washington
and will testify after the first panel. I am pleased to welcome
the Honorable Michael Botticelli, Director of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the Honorable R. Gil
Kerlikowske, Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP), and John Riley, Acting Deputy Administrator of the Drug
Enforcement Administration. Each brings a tremendous experience
and background, decades of experience, certainly each of them.
And we look forward to hearing from them, and we also look
forward to their opportunity to hear directly from our New
Hampshire witnesses, to bring that perspective back to the work
that they do in Washington.
Solving this crisis will take a multi-pronged approach with
local, State, and Federal officials working together to
identify and pursue effective strategies. There are a number of
bipartisan legislative efforts that we have been working on in
Washington to support New Hampshire and communities across the
country that are facing this public health epidemic. Law
enforcement is working tirelessly, as we will hear from the
chief, to take these drugs off our streets and to go after the
high-level drug dealers. But we can't simply arrest our way out
of this problem. I have certainly heard from law enforcement in
New Hampshire that key pieces of policy need to confront not
only the public safety issue, but we need more prevention
efforts, more treatment options, and more support for
individuals who are in recovery.
If you look at the statistics in our State, it is
staggering. The number of people who overdosed in New Hampshire
is alarming. In 2014 there were over 320 fatal drug-related
overdoses in our State, up from 193 in 2013. I fear from the
numbers I am hearing from throughout our State we are going to
see a bigger number this year.
And those numbers, I think it is important to understand,
do not reflect the number of lives that have actually been
saved using lifesaving drugs like Narcan, which our first
responders are administering almost every single day in this
State. And if we did not have those lifesaving drugs, I can
assure you that those numbers would probably, at a minimum, be
tripled in terms of the number of people who would die from a
combination of heroin, sometimes a combination of heroin and
fentanyl, and, of course, the overuse of prescription drugs.
There is not a corner of our State that is not affected by
this issue. From our largest city to our smallest town, we are
all seeing this, and, unfortunately, this is not something we
can think about as something happening somewhere else or to
someone else. This is all of our problem, and this is something
that everyone needs to understand. It will hit you or someone
you know sooner or later. That is why we need to do something
about it and work together on it.
We also know that addiction to prescription pain
medications can often become a gateway to heroin use. According
to a study from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, approximately four out of five new heroin users
previously used nonmedical prescription opioids before using
heroin. So that is one reason that we also need to engage our
medical community, the pharmaceutical companies, and the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) as we look at the challenges we
face on this.
I am hoping that the testimony that we hear today will
allow Senator Shaheen and I to bring this testimony to
Washington to push for getting legislation passed, legislation
like the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA), which
I am proud to support. CARA focuses on prevention; it focuses
on support for first responders; it focuses on strengthening
prescription drug monitoring programs and launching a
prescription opioid and heroin treatment and intervention
program.
There are also many other pieces of bipartisan legislation
in Washington. What we need to do is get this to the Senate
floor and get this legislation passed to give support to
everyone in this room and really start working on the Federal
level to give you more tools to solve this problem.
We know that there are so many challenges to tackling this
epidemic. We know that we do not have enough treatment in this
State and that there are some challenges that we are seeing
from Federal regulations that I hope that we can work to
provide flexibility to our treatment providers so that we can
have the maximum number of beds to help people who are addicted
and are seeking treatment.
Finally, it is clear to me today why we are here. No one
person and no one agency can solve this problem, and we are
here to listen and learn about further steps that we can take
together to fight this public health epidemic on all fronts.
So I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here
today. I look forward to hearing your testimony. And I would
like to turn it over to Senator Sheehan for her opening
statement and then to our witnesses.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHAHEEN
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Senator Ayotte, and
thank you for convening this field hearing of the Homeland
Security and Government Affairs Committee. We very much
appreciate all of the witnesses who are going to be testifying
today, and for those of you who have come from Washington, we
hope you will hear information that you can take back, that we
can work with you to address what we all know is a crisis of
heroin and opioid addiction.
Now, as I know everybody in this room understands, this
crisis is the most urgent public health and law enforcement
challenge that is facing New Hampshire right now. And as we
have heard from our law enforcement leaders, the answer is not
just in putting people in jail. It is in prevention, treatment,
and recovery. And as Senator Ayotte has said so eloquently,
it's going to take all of us working together to address this
crisis. Individuals cannot do it alone. Families cannot do it
alone. Law enforcement cannot do it alone. Public health cannot
do it alone. We have to mobilize entire communities and all of
our resources at the local, State, and Federal level to address
this crisis, because this is literally a life-and-death issue.
Addiction is a chronic illness and it has no permanent
cure. People do not find lasting recovery in a clinic. They
find lasting recovery in their communities. They need social
supports and they need to connect with a positive, healthy,
caring community. This is the only way to sustain sobriety over
a lifetime.
Now, as Senator Ayotte said, there is a lot of legislation
in Washington to address addiction, but the answer is
education; it is not incarceration. It is prevention; it is not
punishment. It is treatment, recovery, and rehabilitation; it
is not just putting addicts in jail. And in addition to the
legislation that is pending, we also have to make sure that the
resources are there to address this crisis.
As you heard, I sit on the Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee, and I am disappointed to have to come back and
report that when that subcommittee did its work, when the
Appropriations Committee did its work, some of the funding that
is going to be critical to addressing this crisis was cut. So
that means, in the Senate, we passed a budget that cut Federal
substance abuse treatment programs. The Senate's Health and
Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee voted to cut funding
for substance abuse treatment by nearly $130 million, including
a $50 million cut to the Substance Abuse Prevention and
Treatment block grant that is so important to New Hampshire.
That means we will lose about $200,000 in funding if that goes
through, as it passed out of committee.
Now, I think cutting funding is wrong, for two reasons.
First of all, it is pennywise and pound foolish, because we
will end up paying far more for incarceration and crime, not to
mention the countless lives that will be shattered because of
this crisis. So we have to do a number of things at all levels
of government. Certainly in Washington, I think we have to not
only pass the kind of legislation that Senator Ayotte talked
about, but we also have to make sure that the funding is there
and the resources are there, to actually make sure those pieces
of legislation work and that communities like Manchester,
States like New Hampshire can address this crisis in the way
that we need to.
So, again, thank you all very much for being here, and
thank you to all of our panelists for being willing to tell
your stories.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
Now, as part of the protocol and tradition of the Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, all witnesses that
come before the committee are sworn in.
So I would ask that both the first panel and the second
panel, if you would stand and raise your right hand so that I
can swear you in.
[All panel witnesses sworn.]
Senator Ayotte. Thank you. Please be seated. I want to
thank all of you for being here today. The first witness we
will hear from is Chief Nick Willard of the Manchester Police
Department (PD). Chief Willard.
TESTIMONY OF CHIEF ENOCH ``NICK'' WILLARD,\1\ MANCHESTER POLICE
DEPARTMENT, CITY OF MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE
Mr. Willard. Thank you, Senators, for having me here today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Willard appears in the Appendix
on page 1525.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to start by thanking people like Doug Griffin
who have experienced this tragedy and yet they have the courage
to put a face to the epidemic. So I do appreciate the
opportunity to sit next to you. It means a lot.
As you know, I am the police chief in the City of
Manchester, and I speak for all of law enforcement and probably
to a degree our fine men and women in the fire department and
the AMR ambulance who are out there saving countless lives. But
for their heroic actions day in and day out, saving lives
through Narcan, this tragedy would be even worse than what it
is now. Manchester PD has confirmed 52 fatal overdoses. Those
numbers may be different than what AMR tracks, but those are
confirmed through the Medical Examiner's Office, with an
addition of over 400 calls for service. So as officers are
being needed elsewhere, they are responding to medical
emergency calls.
We are now at a point where we are deconflicting through
the DEA those very things. So the Senator went on a ride-along,
and went to three heroin overdoses. We took that information,
gave it to the DEA, and then were able to deconflict some of
that information to see if there's a nexus between each of
them. And that is how far this has become.
To kind of give you an idea of what we are looking at, we
had a shooting in Manchester. We had officers go into an
apartment unknown to us previously and we found it to be a drug
house. And from that, we did an investigation that led to
Lawrence, Massachusetts, and from Lawrence, Massachusetts,
directly to Mexico. So now we know that there is a Mexican drug
cartel, the Sinaloa drug cartel, that is fueling heroin to the
streets of Manchester, New Hampshire. That is alarming. Just
last week we shut down three drug houses, all within 100 yards
of one another. Two of those drug houses were competing drug
dealers, selling out of the same building on different floors,
and yet they did so in peace and harmony because there are so
many drug users and addicts in the city of Manchester and the
surrounding communities that it is a target-rich environment
for a drug dealer.
So we need help. We already have partnerships through the
DEA, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), and the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). However, as I was
reflecting on the name for this, All Hands on Deck, on some
levels we do that. Chief Burkus from the fire department, Tim
Soucy from the health department, and myself have come up with
an action plan for 60 days. My task was the enforcements. I
have done some high-end prediction enforcement with the New
Hampshire State Police. I am going to be doing another
initiative through the State Police and the DEA. But it is not
enough.
When you say ``all hands on deck,'' I look at the Chicago
Strike Force model, the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task
Force (OCDETF). I think that that would give us an opportunity
to bring together all Federal partners, local partners, and not
just in Manchester, but statewide. And we talk about those
small towns and the communities and the county itself. This
would bring the full weight of the Federal Government to bear.
It would give us an opportunity to actually have a U.S.
attorney in the working group with them at all times, so we can
have more aggressive prosecutions. Currently, more often than
not, we are actually going to the county level to prosecute our
drug cases right now because we are just getting better
results. They are taking our cases quicker and we are turning
them over quicker.
However, I would prefer to go the Federal route because we
get larger sentences. So having somebody from the U.S.
Attorney's Office embedded with the officers who are out there
fighting the very issue that we are talking about, let us make
no bones about it: We are in the throes of human tragedies
every day. And Mr. Griffin is going to speak to that.
I believe in the treatment piece. I believe in the
education prevention piece, the prevention through education
piece. But I am a law man and I believe in enforcement. So
every single time a drug addict who would not otherwise commit
a crime because they were initially addicted through pain
medication, and then they lose their job, and now they are out
stealing from vehicles or breaking into houses, every single
one of those vehicles is a victim in the city of Manchester. So
the opportunity to give these people deferred sentences is not
there.
We do not have a drug corps. We need something similar to
that in Hillsborough County, because I believe everybody needs
to be held accountable. Maybe they are given an opportunity
through alternative sentencing, but at the end of the day, they
did victimize somebody in order to get themselves in the
position that they were in.
So I guess, moving forward, I believe in the partnerships.
We are doing it now. I think the OCDETF model, modeled after
the strike force in Chicago, would be a huge help moving
forward, at least in my view. Because, currently, we are going
after the more low level drug dealers that are causing quality-
of-life issues within our neighborhoods. So if I have a drug
dealer selling drugs out of a house, they are bringing in
unsavory characters, not just from Manchester, but from
surrounding towns. Prostitution increases. So people who live
there have to wade through prostitutes, other people that would
not otherwise be in that neighborhood, and then they steal
things coming in and out of that neighborhood.
I have decided we are going to take these drug houses out
in real-time, but by focusing our efforts on real-time drug
dealers to protect the quality-of-life in Manchester, we kind
of missed that kingpin piece that we are talking about. And I
think that most of that strike force would be a perfect
opportunity to have that piece, but also get that aggressive
prosecution that I think we desperately need.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you. Thank you, Chief Willard.
I would now like to turn to Doug Griffin, who is the father
of Courtney Griffin.
And Mr. Griffin, thank you so much for all of your work,
and certainly I know that I speak for Senator Shaheen and
myself that our hearts are with you and your family while you
are here today, as well.
TESTIMONY OF DOUG GRIFFIN,\1\ NEWTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE
Mr. Griffin. Thank you very much. Before I start my
testimony, I would like to let you know that my testimony is
based on the person I was before, not now. During all of
Courtney's problem with addiction, we were parents that hid her
addiction, so we were in a world that was different than the
world we are in now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Griffin appears in the Appendix
on page 1531.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, Courtney's story. She was born very early, about 5
weeks early, and her lungs were not strong enough to breathe.
I have really got to get through this.
So she spent the first 11 days in the Neonatal Intensive
Care Unit (NICU) center, and we were really worried then that
she would not make it. So, then, when we finally got her home,
she was strong and she did well, and she started school.
We lived in Salem, New Hampshire and she went through the
first two grades in Salem. She was always a quiet kid, never
talked much. Actually, she talked hardly at all. Then, as she
entered third grade, we moved to our home in Newton and she
started school there. She was a little chubby and the new kid,
so she was sort of shunned, and she did not take well to that.
So she did not really like school. She was very smart. I could
tell, talking to her and playing games with her all the time,
that she was really on top of things. School was not hard for
her at all, but she just did not want to go, and a lot of
mornings she would be crying, saying she did not want to go to
school.
She got into middle school and she made a couple of
friends, and then things started to turn around for her because
she had some friends. Then it was fun to go to school, and the
friends would come over to the house and things were good. We
thought things were going to go well.
When she was 12, we sent her on the People to People
program, where she went to Europe and did five countries in two
weeks, and she saw things that most people I know still have
not seen. When she came back, she was like an adult, and she
would speak with adults more easily. It was like it changed her
life. It changed our lives. And she was such a strong person
that we bought her one of those Verizon prepaid phone cards so
she could be sure to call home all the time, and she did not
call home once. And when she got home, all the parents were
thanking us for her letting their kids use the phone card so
they could call home, because they missed their parents. Crazy
kid.
So when she got to high school, she got her first job, and
she was working in fast food at Wendy's here in Haverhill. And,
of course, they take the kid that's got the new job and they
put them on the crazy hours, so she was working until midnight
or later on the weekends. And she did not have a car, so my
wife and I were driving her, dropping her off and picking her
up. I would sit in the parking lot and wait for her to close
every night, because I wanted her to have a job. I wanted her
to learn a work ethic.
We gave her a car and we were kind of relieved because we
did not have to go get her after work. But the people that come
in at that hour of the night at closing time are the people
that you would never want your kid to associate with. And, of
course, they did not have cars, so they needed a ride, and
Courtney ended up giving rides to people that, I would never
have had her give a ride to.
Then she started being late coming home, and then her
schoolwork started to suffer a little bit, and pills started
missing from our house. Not on a big scale. Some things were
missing. Money would go missing. But we were not sure whether
we misplaced things or--you do not think someone is going to
steal from you in your house at first.
So the older she got, she got a little bit more into perk
30s. She was talking--she knew the word. She was talking about
perk 30s and using drug words around the house that did not
belong in our house. We never had them in our house before, and
we were afraid.
When she was getting ready to graduate from high school,
she was accepted at the University of Hawaii. Because if you
asked Courtney what she wanted to be when she grew up, she
always had the same answer. She said ``Hawaiian. ''
And so I would not let her go, because I was afraid to cut
her a check and put her on an airplane for fear that she would
just further get into the drug thing. We were afraid at that
point. I said, ``You are going to have to come work for me for
a while, and maybe take some night classes and prove to us that
you are ready to go.''
And she said, ``OK, Dad.''
And she came to work for me. And I have a million parts in
my inventory and she came in, she sat down, and she was easily
able to handle inventory control. She controlled our inventory
without an issue. She did our shipping; she did our receiving.
That kid was brilliant. We listened to the radio every day, and
outside of one door of my office was my daughter running the
computer company and outside the other door was my daughter,
Shannon, who is here, running the flower shop. So I had
everything.
After about six months, she had saved up enough money--
thousands from working--because she did not have any bills and
did not have anywhere to spend her money and was working all
the time. So she went out and got a new car. And on the way
home from the gas station, she ran into the boy who led her to
heroin. And from that point on, our lives went straight
downhill. And at one point in our house, we found one of these.
And as you can imagine, nothing could be worse.
So we started to try to get her treatment. She ended up in
Hampstead Hospital where she was for nine days. When she came
home, all she came home with was a list of where every drug in
the world came from. Then she started disappearing for longer
periods of time, and it started to snowball, and a $7,000
necklace went missing and then checks were written out of my
company.
And she was still our child, so I did not want to hurt her
credit or get her arrested, so we did not tell anybody. We just
started to look for help. So we Googled help, and the people
that make the most money come up on top, and we just could not
get her help. Our insurance company would not cover anything.
My wife and I spent 100 hours in emergency rooms, waiting to
try to get her admitted. They would keep her for an hour or so.
They would release her. Even when the local authorities took
her to the hospital, to admit her, they were out three hours
later. Would not hold her.
Sorry.
It got to the point where we were frantic because we knew
that we were going to get the call. We knew that she was using
drugs heavily. I called the Farnum Center in Manchester and
spent an hour and a half there going through an interview
process where we were told that she would not be allowed to go.
And our insurance company let us know that it was not a matter
of life or death, so they would not cover the problem.
So we got involved with local authorities who said the only
thing you can do is kick her out of your house and cancel her
insurance, because if she is homeless, she can get help in
Massachusetts. So we kicked her out of the house and canceled
her insurance and she moved in with her boyfriend's
grandparents. Shortly after that, her boyfriend was arrested
and put in jail for a parole violation and she was all alone.
Then she totaled her car, and she was further alone. She was
just alone in a strange house with strange people.
We know who sold her the heroin. He delivered it to the
house that night. And she used it and she died of fentanyl. And
the State medical examiner told me that it was a strength of
about 80 times stronger than she thought it would be and that
she did not feel anything. She would have just drifted away.
So, in one day, we lost this.
And just in closing, this weekend, her boyfriend died--in
the same house, in the same room, the same bed--and was buried
this week.
That's all I have. Thank you .
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Mr. Griffin. Unfortunately we
hear too many stories of this happening, and just know that all
of our prayers are with you and your family.
I would now like to introduce Heidi Moran, who has a very
important position providing treatment. I want to thank her for
being here today, as she is the clinical administrator for the
Southeastern New Hampshire Services in Dover, New Hampshire.
TESTIMONY OF HEIDI MORAN,\1\ CLINICAL ADMINISTRATOR,
SOUTHEASTERN NEW HAMPSHIRE SERVICES, DOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE
Ms. Moran. Thank you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Moran appears in the Appendix on
page 1536.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Ayotte, Senator Shaheen, and distinguished Members
of the committee, it is my privilege and honor to address you
today on behalf of my agency and all those New Hampshire
residents who are struggling with the disease of addiction and
would like to access treatment.
Southeastern New Hampshire Services is a private, nonprofit
agency dedicated to helping people recover from addictive
disorders since 1979. Many clients come from the street or
homeless, couch-surfing or living in shelters or tents. We have
always been known as the house of hope and the place that would
help anyone regardless of their ability to pay.
Prior to 2013, Southeastern had not had to worry about
billing or revenue sources. We were provided with our primary
budget from the New Hampshire Board of Drug and Alcohol
Services block grant, some funding from Federal probation and
parole contracts, private pay resources from various DWI
programs, and private donations. Our sources for reimbursement
have changed and must now look to Medicaid and other insurance
providers for payment. Since 2013, the payment structure with
the State has changed several times without much notice or
assistance. We had a deficit of $85,000 last year and are
working at a deficit of at least $100,000 for our current year.
Southeastern was never asked to obtain or required to have
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
licensure or any other accreditation in the past. Since the
changes in pay structure became a reality in 2013, we became
aware that licensure is a must in order to be able to bill any
and all insurance companies for residential services. Some of
the obstacles to obtaining licensure have been lack of
qualified staff to bill Medicaid and the need for an outside
billing agent; lack of information and guidance through the
process of applications for insurance companies as well as
licensure; working with multiple agencies from town, county,
and State, and trying to coordinate meetings and agreements as
to what we need to accomplish for compliance; major renovations
that need to be done to the building which include but are not
limited to installing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-
compliant shower rooms, handicapped ramps, elevators, new
sprinklers, and more.
Some people say, ``Why not just buy another building? '' We
rent. We do not have the funds to buy, and renovations for
compliance would need to be done in any other structure as
well. Plus, we are in a location that suits the population we
serve by being close to the courts, probation, Strafford County
jail, and on the bus route. It has taken all this time to get
the necessary agencies together so the architectural plans and
safety plan can be completed and approved. We are still waiting
for final approvals, and no hammers have swung as of yet.
The county is doing all they can to work with us and to
help us get the work done. However, we are looking at
approximately $500,000 worth of work that we will be
responsible for. The county will assume half of all the safety
requirement costs. We will have to pay for the other half of
safety costs and for all renovations to bring things up to ADA
code compliance. If the county were to rent space to anyone
else and it were not be used as a residential facility, they
would not have the same requirements and codes to meet because
the license would not be needed.
Some obstacles for treatment for clients now and in the
future include losing beds due to square foot requirements in
the residential rooms and an inability to pay for treatment.
Just because people are eligible for insurance does not mean
that they can access it. I feel unreasonable expectations are
placed on many clients who are still sick and suffering, who
are without identification, address, or proof of income to back
up their application information.
My agency and others in New Hampshire need help. We have
not had the guidance, the financial support, or the time to do
what needs to be done. New Hampshire cannot afford to lose any
beds. We have been working on shoestring for many years to
provide quality treatment to the population with the greatest
need. We are all passionate about our work and are here to
promote change and increase the possibilitity of a life without
drugs for those who continue to struggle.
Berkeley Data Analytics Stack (BDAS) has given us through
June 30, 2016 to get our license or have all support pulled
from our residential programs. That would be a disaster. I have
10 short-term residential and 15 long-term residential beds.
Can New Hampshire afford to lose 25 beds? How many kids would
die?
We need people in our corner who will help us get done what
is needed in order to stay operating. I have cried with clients
who have come into treatment scared to death that they won't be
able to do it. I assure them that they can as long as they are
willing to follow our suggestions and those that they receive
from other people in recovery. I have cried with parents who
want to fix their children and cannot let go. I have cried at
the funerals of those who could not stop. My tears have flowed
freely for over 20 years.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
committee today and share some of the challenges we are facing
in trying to help treat those who are suffering from addiction.
Thank you.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Ms. Moran.
I am now going to ask questions of the witnesses and then
Senator Shaheen will have an opportunity to do that.
Chief Willard, I wanted to ask you about the proposal that
you had mentioned, the OCDETF strike force that comes from the
model in Chicago.
How would that work in New Hampshire? Would it be a working
group that would get together regularly and would bring
Federal, State, and local authorities together with the U.S.
Attorney's Office? And where would you see that centered?
Mr. Willard. The way I understand it, given the research
that I have done, is the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task
Force is a single entity made up of Federal, State, and local
partners, and that would include a U.S. attorney full-time on
staff. I would envision that they probably have room at the
facility in Bedford, and that they would work together all the
time.
So it would be other agencies, local agencies committing
personnel to it, being funded by the Federal Government. So you
would have somebody from Nashua Police Department, Manchester
Police Department, Merrimack, and New Hampshire State Police.
Essentially, the more bodies, the better, so any agency that
can contribute to them. And then you would have a funded
position from the U.S. Attorney's Office who would actually be
embedded with law enforcement as they are working through these
cases.
Senator Ayotte. So they would be specially designated to
this group?
Mr. Willard. Correct.
Senator Ayotte. Terrific.
When you look at the challenges we face, how is the
cooperation with Federal agencies?
Mr. Willard. It is fantastic. The reason we are staying
above completely sinking into the abyss is because of those
partnerships.
Now, that case that I talked about, where we took 27 kilos
of heroin off the streets through that shooting investigation,
was simply because of the partnerships that we had with the
DEA, the State Police, Massachusetts State Police, and that
type of cross-border cooperation.
Senator Ayotte. So this would be a more effective way to
get everyone together, all working together, with the
prosecution embedded?
Mr. Willard. Exactly. And all at the same time, everybody
sharing the same information, but also everybody bringing in
additional resources.
When you have a Task Force Officer (TFO) from the city of
Manchester, and you are a Federal agency, we pretty much have
all that intel at their feet when it comes to dealing with
Manchester. So imagine expanding that to the North Country,
from the farthest reaches north to the farthest south.
One thing we do know is that we have a pretty good grasp of
where the heroin is coming from. The majority of it is coming
from the Mexican cartels. That, in and of itself, should
necessitate Federal action to go after the people that are
laundering the money, go after the people that are transporting
the drugs, and go after the kingpins that are funneling the
drugs.
When I met with Mr. Riley this morning and I am looking at
a map that I am sure you will see later--when you see what the
Mexican drug cartels control of the American landscape, and
they are selling their drugs almost with impunity--we are
fighting it as best we can, but when you see that map, you
realize just how severe of a problem that we have.
On the street level, battling this with the fire department
and the ambulances, and my officers going from call to call to
call, we can only sustain that so long. We need to take these
people off of the street and we need to get the head of the
snake. And the only way to do that is through some sort of
strike force. And that is why I thought it was an important
thing to bring up today.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
Mr. Griffin, you talked about what your insurance company
said to you, and I know that Congress, before I got elected to
the Senate, passed the Mental Health Parity and Addiction
Equity Act to ensure that insurance companies were really
making sure that they were treating substance abuse on a level
playing field. But it sounded like your insurance company--and,
unfortunately, this is the first time I have heard this--
decided this was not a matter of life or death. Well, we all
know this is a matter of life or death.
So how did you feel when you tried to reach out and you got
the runaround and what do you want to make sure that we know in
order to help other families who are in the same situation?
Mr. Griffin. It was terrible for us because even if
insurance had covered it, there were no beds, anyway.
Ms. Ayotte. Right.
Mr. Griffin. I mean, everywhere we went, there were either
no beds or no insurance.
We did not actually find out how bad it was until the end.
I mean, we worked and worked and worked and worked, and then
she died. And I deal with--now, I get two or three calls at my
house every day, from families all around the country wanting
help, and all I can do is steer them to the best possible
person I know in the area. That is all I can do. Because as far
as I know, if it is someone in New Hampshire--I will talk about
New Hampshire, especially--if they have a problem, there are
very few opportunities for them to enter recovery.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
Ms. Moran, you talked about some of the challenges in
wanting to keep bed space while following some of the
regulations. What would you like us to know when it comes to
how we could better help make sure that we are supporting more
opportunities for treatment and also giving you the flexibility
that you need to make sure that we are maximizing, obviously,
the resource we do have to create as many beds and support and
opportunities for treatment as possible?
Ms. Moran. Well, as I said, we have lost beds as a result
of the compliance requirements. It is a fire and safety issue,
which I totally understand, and in no way do we want our
residents to be in an unsafe environment.
However, I believe that when some of the compliance codes
were written, they were written with nursing homes or other
types of facilities in mind. For example, the majority of my
rooms are 122 square feet, and by code, it is required that
every room is 160 square feet in order to have two beds in a
room. And that does not include space that gets taken away by
closets and furniture and things like that. I have lost four
beds in each of my programs and had to double up offices in
order to not lose more, which, puts other stresses on our
program.
So, when you look at a grandparent, for example, that is in
a nursing home, and Grandma lives in her room, and she has her
TV and her recliner and all of her things in her room.
In our facility, people sleep in their room, they get
changed in their room, and that is it. They are not allowed to
hang out in their rooms. It is very unhealthy for people in
early recovery to be isolated and be by themselves, as well as
to be housed in a room by themselves. That is dangerous.
We had a situation last winter where somebody overdosed and
they were in a room by themselves. Fortunately somebody going
down the hallway heard the gurgling and was able to get staff
and they were revived by cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
But if that had not been the case, that person probably would
not have made it.
So, it is dangerous to not have two people in a room as
well as this code issue.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
I would like to turn it over to Senator Shaheen for her
questions.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Ayotte.
Chief Willard, Senator Ayotte and I got to go with you and
members of the department this morning to see the neighborhood
where some of the recent drug busts have happened and you
talked about the challenges facing the police on the street.
And one of the things you showed us were some pretty dramatic
photos of the people who you brought out of those apartments
during those drug busts.
And I wonder, can you talk a little bit about what kind of
training there is for officers to handle drug addicts in those
situations? Because one of the things that struck me, that you
and other members of the force talked about, was that you had
not seen a bust where addicts were in as awful a condition as
the people who you worked with that night.
So can you talk about the training that officers get and
whether it is adequate, whether it needs to be improved upon,
and what more we can do to help in that situation?
Mr. Willard. I think our training is adequate. We do a lot
of training through the DEA on these types of issues. We also
do Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training, and the Manchester
Police Department is actually sending two sergeants out to be
instructors for CIT. So I think our training is pretty robust.
I think what you saw in those photographs, which I have
here if you wanted to put them in the record, is that it was a
drug house where the drug dealer would not let you leave. You
had to shoot your drugs up while you were there. So we hit it
just at the right time and we had 21 people in this two floor
apartment.
Again, these are competing drug dealers that are not
fighting with each other. And what it tells you is that the
addiction pool is large. The reason a lot of people are coming
to Manchester to sell drugs is because in New Hampshire, they
can get two to three times the profit compared to Lawrence or
even New York City, depending on where they are coming from. So
it is a target-rich environment is what some of the dealers
will tell us during our debriefs, because there is a lot of
heroin addicts here, because they can make a lot of money.
Those 21 people are a perfect example of that phenomenon.
Now, law enforcement can do what we can to disrupt the
supply, which we have. I think we are well over 30 kilos of
heroin coming into Manchester that we have taken off of the
street. Officers in the Manchester Police Department routinely
are making car stops and finding heroin--62 grams, 33 grams, 40
grams. It is astounding to see the numbers. It is so plentiful.
It is everywhere. So even though we are conducting major
disruptions in the flow, unless that pool of heroin addicts or
fentanyl addicts or now we are seeing crack cocaine is shrunk,
we are going to be swimming against the tide. So I am a big
advocate for treatment.
Now, how you get funding for treatment and what that looks
like--I know that there were changes in the insurance company
years ago. And once the insurance company said, ``We are no
longer going to pay out on detox'' or ``Now we are not going to
treat for addiction,'' you saw beds in New Hampshire shrink
down from well over 600 to nearly nothing today.
So that discussion needs to be with the insurance
companies. Can you change the way you do business? Can you now
consider or classify detox as something that you can insure?
And if you do that, then the beds will increase, because the
treatment facility currently cannot put more beds in a facility
if the money is not there. I mean, they still have to make
money. Even though in their hearts they want to end rediction
through recovery--addiction--there is no doubt in my mind. But
if there is no money in it, they still have to pay their bills.
So there needs to be a way to find, insurance companies or to
work with the insurance companies to expand the coverage.
I think, most importantly, when I am talking about
shrinking that pool of heroin addicts, we really have to focus
on these doctors that are giving out dirty scripts and are
putting more and more addicts on our streets. And the worst
thing you can probably think of is a doctor who, by the very
nature of what he does, is willing to put an unbelievable
amount of scripts illicitly on our streets that would actually
create more drug addicts. Because as soon as those pills dry
up, they are going to go to heroin.
So that is a whole other piece that we need to look at. We
need to look at the medical community and what they are going
to do to change their pain management protocol, as well as look
at the checks and balances to monitor that.
Unfortunately, the State of New Hampshire is well behind
the times when it comes to what other States are doing, and we
need to make our prescription monitoring program more robust.
We have seen some advances, but on a State level, we need a
little bit more.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
I certainly agree. We have heard testimony on the
importance of how doctors prescribe medication and guidelines.
I had a chance to question the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) Director, Tom Frieden, about this issue and he
acknowledged that this is one of the real challenges that we
face.
And also, we have to make sure that insurance companies
appreciate the changes that we have seen in addiction over the
years, and that, as Mr. Griffin said so eloquently, that it
really is life-threatening.
Mr. Griffin, first of all, I want to thank you and your
family for sharing Courtney's story with us. I know that it is
not easy and it is really important for people to speak up, so
I am so glad that you did.
Mr. Griffin. Trying to get better at it.
Senator Shaheen. You were great.
As you said, you have people calling you--I have heard, and
I am sure Senator Ayotte has heard, from families who are
desperate to know how to respond to family members and to
children who are addicted.
Do you have advice that you can give to families who may be
in this situation? What would you urge them to do?
Mr. Griffin. Yes. I am about a year into this now and there
is a tremendous support community out there that does not have
licenses. They are not clinicians; they are people. Our church
is amazing. We have a service once a month for addicts and
their families, and they come in and they change. I do not know
if you have ever seen it happen, but they come in and they are
afraid. And parents that have lost kids come in, and they are
like me. They are a mess. And, we sit with them, and they come
every month. The camaraderie of other people sharing the same
experiences, they are helping each other.
There is a lot of little Ma-and-Pa things starting up all
over the State to help people out. As a matter of fact, we have
started one ourselves. And I refer someone to the person I know
who is best at it who is closest to them. And I will take
anybody's call any hour of the day.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. That is very good advice,
the importance of support for families.
Mr. Griffin. Get them into the church. I had not been to
church in 40 years. And since my daughter died, I am a huge
proponent of the support you can get by going to church.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Ms. Moran, you talked about the challenges of providing
treatment and facilities for people who need it and how
regulations need to be reasonable.
Can you talk about what you are seeing in terms of waiting
lists for those beds that you have available and how you could
better provide services? Do you have a long waiting list and is
it consistent? Does it turn over? What do you see in terms of
people waiting for treatment?
Ms. Moran. As of this morning, I believe I had between six
and eight people on my list. And what we do is that when we
have somebody call in and do a telephone screen for a bed, once
they are screened and we figure that we are an appropriate fit
for them, then there are certain things that may be required.
We may need them to get a physical. If it is somebody that has
a lot of legal involvement, we may ask that they provide us
with their legal history. There may be a few things that we
need them to do. Or it may be a situation where we say, ``Well,
we will bring a doctor in-house. If somebody can pay for the
physical, we will have the doctor meet them here and have the
physical in-house.'' And, unfortunately, what I found is a lot
of the people that get on our waiting list are young. With the
heroin epidemic, we have seen a lot of younger people that are
abusing heroin to, a great degree, more than ever before. Most
of these people are under the age of 30. And today I reviewed a
couple of screens before I came here, and I had three people
that were 18 and 19 years old. That was not happening a few
years ago. They were not even thinking about coming in to
treatment at that age.
So, I mean, it is good that they are thinking about that,
but a lot of the problem is motivation is being created either
because they do not want to go to jail and so they are trying
to make things look good for the court or Mom and Dad are going
to throw them out if they do not get into treatment, and then
getting them to follow through with staying connected to us,
calling us, coming in and doing what needs to be done next. We
are having a hard time hanging onto them.
As far as getting people into treatment, usually it is
within wo weeks. And, it is not that long of a waiting period
for somebody who is actually doing the legwork to get into
treatment. But, so many of the young ones, they say that they
want it and they might want it as they come out of the hospital
after having Narcan, but in 10 hours they have forgotten about
it and they are back out on the street doing the same thing.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Senator Ayotte, can I ask that Chief Willard's--that those
photos\1\ be introduced to the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The photos introduced by Chief Willard appear in the Appendix
on page 1529.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Ayotte. Absolutely. I think that will be important.
Thank you, Chief.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Well, I want to thank all of you for being here today to
present your testimony. And, in fact, we really appreciate your
being here and your courage for being here. We consider this an
ongoing dialogue here in New Hampshire. And we will have our
Federal witnesses come here. I am glad they have had an
opportunity to hear from all of you from New Hampshire today.
So thank you for being here and we will call up our second
panel.
Thank you.
Panel Members. Thank you.
Senator Ayotte. I want to thank our second panel of
witnesses for being here and for having the opportunity to hear
directly from our first panel on the challenges that we are
facing in New Hampshire. This is certainly a public health
epidemic.
Our first witness is Michael Botticelli, who is the
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Director Botticelli has more than two decades of experience
supporting Americans affected by substance abuse disorders.
So Director Botticelli, we appreciate you being here.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL P. BOTTICELLI,\1\ DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
Mr. Botticelli. Thank you, Senator Ayotte and Senator
Shaheen for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the
Administration's response to the epidemic of opioid abuse,
particularly the rise in heroin and overdose deaths.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Botticelli appears in the
Appendix on page 1544.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also want to thank the first panel, and particularly Mr.
Griffin, who often at great pain have turned tragedy into
action. I think it is important that we carry Courtney's story
with us as a reminder of why we do what we do. So thank you
very much for sharing that.
During my time as the Director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy, we produced the National Drug Strategy,
the Administration's blueprint for drug policy. Our strategy
treats our nation's substance use problems as public health
problems, not just as criminal justice issues.
And I do have to pause and thank the gentleman to my left,
Commissioner Kerlikowske, who was my boss at ONDCP, for setting
this Administration's strategy, and I stand on his shoulders in
terms of the work that we are doing.
Having led the Bureau of Substance Abuse Services at the
Massachusetts Department of Public Health, I am personally
familiar with substance use issues in New England. The stark
increase in the number of people using heroin in recent years
has become a serious public health issue in our country.
Overdose deaths involving heroin have increased sharply in
recent years. Of the nearly 44,000 drug overdose deaths in
2013, heroin was involved in over 8,200 of those, up from 5,900
in 2012. And in New Hampshire, the rates of opioid analgesic-
involved deaths and drug-poisoning deaths involving heroin are
above the national average.
As we have heard, communities and law enforcement are
struggling with an increased number of overdose deaths,
increased heroin use, and increased heroin trafficking. It is
important to note that plentiful access of opioid drugs via
medical prescribing and easy access to diverted opioids for
nonmedical use is feeding our opioid drug use and opioid
epidemic. Approximately 18 billion opioid pills were dispensed
in 2012, enough to give every American 18 years or older 75
pills to relieve pain.
Even though data indicate over 95 percent of prescription
drug users do not initiate heroin use, four out of five newer
users to heroin have experience as nonprescription drug users.
Given this interrelationship, we must develop a response to
heroin use that is part of a response to nonmedical
prescription opioid use.
A further complicating factor in addressing this epidemic
is law enforcement reporting of heroin that is laced with
fentanyl, an opioid drug that we have heard to be estimated at
80 times as potent as morphine and hundreds of times more
potent than heroin. Fentanyl can serve as a direct substitute
for heroin in opioid-dependent individuals, but its increased
potency can result in even more overdoses, particularly in
those users who are not experienced.
ONDCP uses its role as a coordinator of Federal control
agencies to bolster support for substance use disorder
treatment and overdose prevention. In the Administration
released a plan to address the sharp increase in prescription
opioid drug misuse. This plan contains action items over four
areas: education of prescribers to support safer opioid
prescribing, increased prescription drug monitoring programs
through State-based prescription drug monitoring programs,
proper medication disposal, and law enforcement efforts.
The Administration has also convened an inter-agency heroin
task force, cochaired by ONDCP and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), to more closely examine heroin issues and to determine
what further actions the Federal Government can take. We look
forward to their report later this year.
We have seen overdose from prescription opioids leveling
off, but, unfortunately, this has been coupled with a dramatic
39 percent increase in heroin-involved drug abuse deaths from
2012 to 2013. To address the overdose death issue, we are
working to increase access to naloxone for first responders and
individuals close to those with opioid drug use disorders. Hand
in hand with this effort are efforts to promote Good Samaritan
laws, so witnesses to an overdose will take steps to help save
lives. I am pleased that, in New Hampshire, measures to expand
naloxone access and to provide Good Samaritan protection was
signed into law this summer.
Law enforcement nationwide has risen to the challenge of
these increases in opioid use disorders and death. We are
working in coordination with members of the public health
community. As an example, ONDCP announced earlier this month
that we will be providing funds under our High-Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area program to develop a heroin response strategy
based on a proposal submitted by a coalition of five HIDTAs
across 15 States, including the NewEngland HIDTA. The heroin
response strategy will foster a collaborative network of public
health and public safety partnerships sharing best practices,
innovative pilots, information sharing, and identifying new
opportunities to leverage resources.
We are also working with our Embassy in Mexico, the DEA,
the Department of State, and have engaged with the government
of Mexico to initiate actions that they can take to reduce the
supply of heroin. But it is also critically important that the
medical establishment work with us to meet the challenges of
overprescribing of prescription drugs and increasing access to
treatment. Primary care and emergency physicians have the
opportunity for early intervention and treatment before they
become chronic, and it is vital that individuals with opioid
use disorders receive evidence-based treatment. Medication-
assisted treatment with DEA-approved medications, when combined
with behavioral health therapies and recovery supports, have
been shown to be the most effective treatment for opioid use
disorders.
In July, the United States Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) announced an additional $33 million in funding
to States to expand the use of medication-assisted treatment
and an additional $100 million in funding to improve and expand
substance use services at community health centers. The
Administration's fiscal year budget proposal includes $133
million in new funding to reduce opioid misuse and overdoses,
with most of that funding going to efforts at the State level.
In addition to the connection given between injection of
opioid drugs and infectious disease transmission, public health
strategies are necessary to prevent the spread of infectious
disease. The recent HIV and hepatitis C outbreak in Indiana is
a stark reminder of how opioid use can spread other diseases,
how comprehensive public health measures such as syringe
service programs need to be part of our response, and how rural
communities with limited treatment capacity may experience
additional public health crises.
In conclusion, our administration will continue to work
with Congress and our Federal, State, and local partners on the
public health and public safety issues resulting from the
epidemic of nonmedical prescription opioid use and heroin.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you so much, Director Botticelli.
We also are very honored to have Commissioner Gil
Kerlikowske here. He is the Commissioner of the U.S. Customs
and Border Protection at the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), and we have to also say Commissioner
Kerlikowske is the former director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy.
So Commissioner Kerlikowske, thank you for being here.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE R. GIL KERLIKOWSKE,\1\ COMMISSIONER,
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Mr. Kerlikowske. Senator Ayotte and Senator Shaheen, thank
you very much.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Commissioner Kerlikowske appears in
the Appendix on page 1568.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was last in New Hampshire in which role to work with the
legislature on the prescription drug monitoring program, and I
am so glad that that is passed and in place. And thank you for
holding the hearing today on what really is an incredibly
important, complex, and difficult challenge to the Nation: the
increasing trafficking and abuse of heroin and other opioids.
Certainly, as I heard from Mr. Griffin, the abuse of heroin
in America continues to take too many lives and to tear too
many families apart. As a police officer and police chief for
37 years, I understand the strain that this epidemic also
places on local governments and communities across the Nation.
I commend you for holding a hearing about working together.
Customs and Border Protection is the one unified border
agency. We have a critical role in the effort to keep heroin
and other dangerous drugs out of our communities, and we
continue to intercept narcotics at the border, all as a key
part of addressing this crisis; but interdictions, arrests, and
convictions alone, as you have both stated, cannot solve the
heroin epidemic.
My efforts focused on prevention and treatment in my
earlier role, and we certainly support that now. In conjunction
with those things, we have to deter drug trafficking through
taking down the transnational organized crime routes, cartels,
and other distribution networks. And to do that effectively, we
need to better integrate our efforts and share information. Our
vision and strategy in CDP outlines how we plan to enhance our
capabilities through more collaboration, more innovation, and
better integration to meet the challenge.
Secretary Johnson's Southern Border and Approaches Campaign
unifies all of the capabilities of the Department of Homeland
Security components to integrate intelligence, law enforcement
efforts, and to provide a targeted and effective response to
these threats, including drug trafficking. I am pleased to
support ONDCP's heroin response strategy as recently announced
by Director Botticelli and that fosters a collaborative
partnership.
Our seizures of heroin have been increasing over the past
several years, and so far this year, we are 32 percent ahead of
last year, and that is on top of continuing increases of
seizures. Almost all, of course, are along the Southwest
border. We interdict heroin in all the modes, air, land, and
sea and in both the travel and cargo environments.
Interdictions of regulated opioids, such as fentanyl, have also
increased. The majority of that, by the way, is seized at our
international mail and express consignment shipments.
At the nation's ports of entry, CDP officers use
technology, canines, and advanced techniques to spot vehicles
modifications and other indicators of smuggling. Between the
ports of entry, the border patrol maintains checkpoints and
vigilance along the border. The CDP's Office of Air and Marine
monitors the complex airway and maritime traffic to identify
threats and to interdict contraband. They work with our other
agencies, DEA, FBI, ICE, and others, to provide support to
them. Because drug traffickers are known to use legitimate
modes of travel and transportation, forging partnerships with
the private sector is particularly crucial. It is a program
that carry your initiative program. We provide training and
site surveys for commercial transportation carriers with route
systems that are at high risk for drug smuggling.
CDP is committed to keeping drugs from crossing the
borders, but we are also very committed to the safety of the
public we serve. A million people come into the country through
our ports of entry every single day. We have implemented
naloxone or Narcan as it was talked about in seven of our ports
of entry, given the number of cases in which we have had
internal carriers. And, of course, we know that naloxone can
reverse the effects of an overdose.
Well, Senators, thank you for holding the hearing. I look
forward to answering any questions.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you so much Commissioner Kerlikowske.
We are also honored to have here today the Acting Deputy
Administrator for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration,
Jack Riley.
Mr. Riley.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN RILEY,\1\ ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG
ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Riley. Senator Ayotte and Senator Shaheen, thank you
for the opportunity to spend some time to talk about heroin and
DEA's response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Riley appears in the Appendix on
page 1576.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEA's single mission is enforcing the Controlled Substance
Act, and heroin has always been a major focus of our efforts.
Sadly, today, 120 Americans will die as a result of drug
overdose. Heroin and prescription painkillers cause over half
of those fatalities. The abuse of these opioids is of epidemic
proportions and is currently the Nation's number-one drug
problem. New England's no different. 85 percent of the law
enforcement agencies here in New England report heroin
prescription drugs as the number-one drug threat.
I have been with DEA almost 30 years, and I have to tell
you, I have never seen it this bad. The vast majority of heroin
used in the United States is manufactured outside of the
country and smuggled across our Southwest border. In recent
years, we have seen an increase in poppy cultivation and heroin
processing within Mexico. As a result, Mexican heroin is more
prevalent on our streets, accounting for almost half of the
domestic supply. The role of Mexican organized crime is
unprecedented, with Chapo Guzman's brutal Sinaloa cartel
dominating the New England market.
Mexican heroin arrives in New England in a number of ways.
There are violent gang members and heroin traffickers from New
York and Connecticut that have established heroin distribution
networks in and around New Hampshire. They operate out of hotel
rooms, rental apartments, or obtain the assistance of local
addicts. These out-of-state traffickers line their pockets by
exploiting the distribution networks to traffic guns and bring
violence to your cities and towns.
In addition, home-grown traffickers in New Hampshire are
obtaining heroin and heroin laced with fentanyl from local
distributors. The growing relationship between Mexican--based
drug cartels and domestic street gangs, coupled with what I
consider an unlimited supply of illegal guns, has really
created the perfect storm for law enforcement. In my opinion,
this is the new face of organized crime in America.
The DEA is evolving with this threat by targeting the
highest levels of traffickers and the vicious organizations
they run. I have personally spent the bulk of my career chasing
the man I consider to be the most dangerous heroin dealer in
the world, Chapo Guzman. He and his Sinaloa cartel dominate the
U.S. heroin market and his organization has reached to the
extent of New Hampshire's urban and rural centers. DEA focuses
its limited resources on disrupting and dismantling these
organizations. That means targeting the intersection between
Mexican organized crime and the violent urban gangs
distributing the heroin on their behalf. This relationship
between these two criminal entities is best described as toxic
and dangerous.
Heroin can be found now in virtually every part of our
country. Sadly, its regional presence is growing. In New
Hampshire, heroin overdoses have more than tripled from 2008 to
2013. In 2015 alone, there have been at least 176 deaths
involving opioids and over three-quarters of those involved
fentanyl.
Today, heroin is far different than it was just five years
ago. It is cheaper, higher in purity, and can be smoked or
snorted, much like powdered cocaine. And there is no typical
heroin addict. This problem transcends demographic and socio-
economic lines. Knowing this drug is the source of so much
violence and misery is truly what keeps me up at night. I know
from experience that the more we do to reduce drug crime, the
more we will reduce all violent crime.
While I was a special agent in charge of the Chicago Field
Division, we developed a model of cooperation and collaboration
that I truly believe is making a difference there and across
the country. The Chicago Heroin Strike Force began with the
shared belief amongst Federal, State, and local law
enforcement, political leaders, community leaders, and
prosecutors, that together we could effectively target the
violent organizations distributing heroin. This new and
innovative approach allows us to work from the street level to
prevent violent crime while, at the same time, to pursue the
investigations at the highest levels of the cartel leadership,
wherever that takes us. We are actively looking to apply this
model to DEA divisions across the country.
Just as we cannot separate violence from drugs, we cannot
separate controlled prescription drug abuse from heroin. As a
result, DEA has established highly effective tactical diversion
squads--some 66 in total--that are committed to targeting the
critical nexus between diversion, prescription drugs, and
heroin.
In addition, we are taking steps to remove unwanted,
unneeded, and expired prescription drugs from medicine
cabinets. In fact, on September 26, 2015, DEA will host its
10th National Takeback Initiative.
I know, firsthand, these threats are an urgent challenge
and a danger to our community and the lives of our citizens.
Law enforcement is not the sole answer. Prevention, treatment,
education, awareness are critical to our success. Everyone
plays a role, from parents, community leaders, educators,
faith-based organizations, cultures and athletics, to the
medical community.
This is a marathon, not a sprint, but together we can
produce the results that you seek and New Englanders demand.
Thank you.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Administrator Riley.
I appreciate all of you for being here and I thank you. I
am very glad to hear that DEA is reinstituting the takeback
days, and that is a word we all have to get out that we cannot
leave these medications in our cabinets.
I wanted to ask all of you to respond. Administrator Riley,
you talked about the Chicago model, and all of you heard Chief
Willard talk about potentially bringing this OCDETF model here
to New Hampshire and then to have the U.S. Attorney and the
prosecution piece embedded with obviously a task force that
would have a partnership of State, local, and Federal.
So I wanted to get your thoughts on that and what we could
do to move that model forward in places where we are seeing
this in New Hampshire, so that we could get a better response
with us all working together and have the prosecution piece
there as well.
Mr. Riley. I think it is increasingly important that we
share information. I will tell you the bad guys really count on
law enforcement not talking to each other and not connecting
the dots. This particular approach, the strike force idea,
really cements relationships across State, Federal, and local
lines. You heard the chief say--by the way, the citizens of
Manchester are lucky to have a chief like that. He sees it for
what it is.
Senator Ayotte. He is excellent.
Mr. Riley. He is willing to attack it. He understands the
role of treatment and prevention. And I do think the strike
force was successful in Chicago because of that same
commitment.
Senator Ayotte. So what would we need to make it happen?
What are your thoughts, certainly, Director Botticelli,
Commissioner Kerlikowske?
Mr. Botticelli. I think it is a really excellent idea. Part
of the design and delivery of the HIDTA program is precisely
along those points. So we can follow up with the chief and Jay
Fallon from our HIDTA program to talk about what are the
opportunities here to replicate that kind of model, to really
look at how we go after the criminal organizations, and not the
people with addiction, I think that is really important to do.
So the whole intent of actually for our information
sharing, our HIDTA money was to support this. So we will follow
up with the chief and with our HIDTA program and with other
Federal partners to look at what are the opportunities to bring
that here.
Mr. Kerlikowske. And should it come to fruition, we would
be happy to assign personnel to that OCDETF task force to
provide some assistance.
Senator Ayotte. Great. Thank you, Commissioner. And HIDTA
is really important and I appreciate their work here in New
Hampshire.
I wanted to ask about the nonmedical use of prescription
drugs. And so prescription monitoring programs--Commissioner
Kerlikowske, I know you testified in New Hampshire--how
important is it that we strengthen those programs? And in
addition to that, what should we be doing when it comes to
engaging the pharmaceutical companies on this issue such as the
physicians and the doctors--the medical community--to try to
break this cyclical relationship between the overuse of
prescription drugs for nonmedical purposes and substitute with
heroin use?
Mr. Botticelli. When you look at the consequence of opioid
addiction in the United States, it is a perfect track in terms
of looking at the increase in prescriptions. And, I love your
chief. But I would add that, while we need to go after bad
doctors and over prescribing, this is much more prolific than
just bad doctors prescribing. Clearly, we want to target our
law enforcement efforts. But we really have to enhance medical
education for every prescriber around this issue. States now
actually mandate some level of continuing medical education. We
at ONDCP continue to support Federal legislation for mandatory
prescriber education. As I have said before, in the midst of an
epidemic, I do not think it is too much to ask a medical
provider to take some limited medical education to do that.
Clearly, State boards play a huge role in terms of looking
at both prescribing guidelines as well as scrutiny of
physicians who might be overprescribing. Prescription
monitoring programs play a key role, because we know that many
people who start developing an addiction go from one doctor to
another. So these programs need to be strong, they need to be
real time, but they also need to be easily accessed by
physicians. So it is not enough that we have these databases,
we also have to make sure that prescribers are using them.
So, again, this is a multi-prong issue, but dealing with
both prescribing and providing good information to prescribers
is particularly important.
Senator Ayotte. Commissioner Kerlikowske and Administrator
Riley, you talked about heroin coming over the Southern Border
and the drug cartels that are really at the forefront of this.
What more can we do? Senator Shaheen and I both also serve
on the Armed Services Committee, and we have heard from the
Southern Commander, General Kelly, as well, about his concern
from a military perspective of what potentially can be brought
over the border.
How is the cooperation with the Mexican government? What
more can we do to--obviously, for those who are really driving
and leading the cartels--to better stop them, and do we need to
engage the Mexican government further on this?
Mr. Kerlikowske. I have worked with two administrations,
President Calderon and the cooperation is very good. We have
invested a lot of money in training with Mexico. They have just
put together a force of over 5,000 highly trained individuals.
We have invested in 10 sites on the border so that we have
joint communication, so that our border control on one side of
the border can talk directly through an encrypted system to
Mexican officials, rather than making multiple ways of
communication.
So the cooperation can be very good. I think there is one
area where we should look, and that is eradication. When
President Calderon took on the cartels--courageously, in my
opinion--he used the military, and the military had also been
involved in eradicating poppy and marijuana. As he moved them
into more of a law enforcement role, I believe their
eradication numbers have decreased. I think in a classified
briefing you probably get information on the amount of poppy
that is being grown and produced in Mexico. Eradication is not
the sole answer, but it needs to be part of the method.
Mr. Riley. I used to be charge of a DEA office along the
border about 10 years ago, and I can tell you that we did not
share a lot of information 10 years ago because it never went
where we wanted it to go.
We have vastly improved our ability to operate. Our agents
now work side-by-side with Mexican law enforcement and military
daily, so that relationship has improved. Our ability to
extradite key traffickers has improved. Those, I think, are the
cornerstones of how we are going to turn the tide. But it is
really crucial for us to share information. There are
investigations going on now where they share information with
us that actually affects the streets of U.S. cities. So it is
both ways.
Now, is there room for improvement? Absolutely. But we are
going to strive to continue that dialogue, because I think, in
the long run, that is going to be the most effective strategy.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator.
Commissioner Kerlikowske, I had the opportunity to visit
the Southern Border back in March with Senator Hoeven, who was
the chair of the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee.
We saw some very impressive work down there by CBP. We were in
Laredo and saw a pickup truck that was stopped and there was a
drug-sniffing dog who went around that pickup and clearly found
something in the gas tank. It was fascinating to watch those
efforts. We visited some of the stations where technology was
being used to X-ray trucks and other vehicles, so we could see
what people were looking for in terms of those interdiction
efforts. We also heard, as you have said, Mr. Riley, from
briefings, the cooperative work that is going on now, not just
between us and Mexico, but also among the various local law
enforcement agencies all along the border.
People are working together.
They are following that integrated model you talked about,
Commissioner.
But one of the things that we also heard, and as Senator
Ayotte talked about, General Kelly, who heads the Southern
Command, talked to us when he was talking about border issues
about the challenges that they have faced because of cutbacks
from sequestration, those automatic cuts that went into effect.
Southern Command was probably hit harder than any of our
commands within the military and the impact that that it had on
their ability to interdict drugs.
Do you see an impact from that cutback by South Command
(SOUTHCOM), in terms of what they can do with interdiction?
And can you also speak to what you see as the challenges if
sequestration goes back into effect at the end of this fiscal
year, October 1? What is that going to mean for our ability to
interdict those drugs and what impact is that going to have
here in New Hampshire?
Mr. Kerlikowske. You certainly have the right witness in
General Kelly, and my time with General Fraser before him and
my time with Admiral Stavridis when I came in.
So you have an absolute model in Key West, Florida called
the Joint Interagency Task Force South. It is from the Coast
Guard to the military to every Federal law enforcement agency,
and when you go into that facility, you cannot tell what badge
or what uniform anybody is wearing. There is one mission and it
is the most unified concept. It has been well written about.
They are tremendous at targeting, because random patrol in a
police department produces random results. That is why this
reduction in crime over the last 10 years, I think is the
result of putting police in the right locations at the right
times.
That is the same with the drug trafficking issues. And as
we see things like semi-submersibles and others, our ability to
random patrol, whether with RP-3s or the Navy, et cetera,
random patrol is not going to produce anything. It is
intelligence and it is targeting.
Here is the difficulty--and I think you know this very well
and that is, it is like when I was a police chief in Seattle.
If you called and said, ``They are robbing the 7-Eleven,'' and
I said, ``Gee, I am really sorry. I do not have anybody to
send.'' And that is exactly the situation that Giana South and
others are in. They target information and they have no
resources to send to interdict that. That happens far too
often. And I would say that those resources are necessary, and
I think as Secretary Johnson and others, including myself, have
expressed, sequestration would be very difficult for us to
overcome.
Senator Shaheen. And at a time when we are seeing this
dramatic epidemic and an increase in the number of people being
addicted, I understand that.
Director Botticelli, you talked about the prescription drug
issue and how much of a challenge that is. One of the programs
we used to have at the Federal level was National All Schedule
Prescription Electronic Reporting (NASPER), and I wrote down
what that acronym stands for. It unfortunately, expired several
years ago and we have not been able to reauthorize it. But one
of the things that I understand it would do is to allow us to
better work across State lines on how class B prescription
drugs are getting transferred to people.
So can you talk about what advantages it would give us if
we could reauthorize a program like NASPER to address
prescription drug overuse?
Mr. Botticelli. Sure.
While we have had great support for our prescription drug
monitoring programs, we, in essence, have the same funding
level for our now 49 prescription drug monitoring programs as
we did when we had 20. Clearly, we heard here, as we have heard
across the country, that you cannot only have one robust State
program, given the ability for people just to go across State
lines, to go to another State if we do not have that. So
information sharing and what we call interstate operability,
the ability of state prescription drug monitoring programs to
share data across State lines, become critically important. I
am very familiar with the New England region. It is very easy
when you have one State that has a robust program for people to
go across to other States.
So having a robust prescription drug monitoring program,
the ability for States to share that information across State
lines, the ability to share that information in a de-identified
way, with public health and public safety folks, become really
important. As the commissioner said, we are always going to
have finite resources and our ability to target, whether it is
at a local level or at a county level, become really important.
Those programs have really valuable information in terms of
looking at what are hot spots in terms of overprescribing in
various parts of our State and our Nation.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Mr. Riley, I had the opportunity to visit the DEA office in
Bedford not long ago, and one of the things that I heard from
the folks who were there was about the challenges--and,
actually, Chief Willard talked about this as well this morning
when we went on the walk-along with him--of fentanyl now being
mixed in with the heroin.
Can you talk about what added challenges that presents for
people out on the street trying to stop heroin?
Mr. Riley. Well, I think it is one of many things that
causes me to lose sleep, because it is really extremely
dangerous--clearly to the trapped person, to the addicts, but
to first responders, as well like the hard-working policeman
that pulls somebody over. It is 50 times stronger than heroin.
It can be absorbed through the skin or airborne and breathed
in, and it is extremely toxic. We are beginning to see it more
and more across the country. Unfortunately, what we have seen
here in the Northeast is really at a much higher level.
Fentanyl, for the most part, is being produced
clandestinely in Mexico, primarily by the Sinaloa Cartel. You
can see from the map where the stronghold of the cartels are
located, specifically in the eastern part of the United States.
So, again, the key for us in Mexico is to make sure that we
share the information when we develop information here, so that
we can work it back.
And to give the police chief another shout-out, he
recognizes that. He recognizes that we really have to work the
street level to prevent violence. But for us to be successful,
we have to jointly work these things back as far as we can go.
So, right now, I would say fentanyl, if it has not gotten
every law enforcement officer's attention, it certainly will.
We are doing everything we can to train and to get the word
out, because it is a toxic substance.
Senator Shaheen. Just to add to that, I was aware of the
potential dangers to addicts because I have heard testimony
from people about the impact of fentanyl mixed with heroin on
addicts. What I was not aware of until I had that briefing was
the potential dangers to law enforcement. And I am not sure
that that is widely known to the public, so I think that is a
piece of this challenge that we need to make sure people
understand.
Mr. Riley. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. I think we will
do one more round of questioning and I wanted to follow up with
Mr. Riley on Senator Shaheen's question about fentanyl.
One of the things that was brought to my attention is that
fentanyl is 50 times more powerful----
Mr. Riley. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Ayotte [continuing]. Than heroin.
And yet, under our laws, essentially the scheduling of
fentanyl is not treated properly, in terms of quantities, as it
is with regard to heroin.
So I recently introduced the Stop Trafficking in Fentanyl
Act to bring parity to the penalty regime, and I just wanted to
get your thought on this issue--especially as we look at how
deadly fentanyl is--of whether we are really making sure that
we are treating it with the seriousness under our Federal
statutes that it deserves. I wanted to get your thought on
that.
Mr. Riley. Yes. We have the DEA that is reviewing the bill.
We worked closely on the technical side with your staffers. I
think it is extremely important for us to have a balanced
approach to the emerging threat.
Fentanyl is clearly the reason many people are overdosing.
So anything we can do to balance that--I am speaking as a cop,
from my experience--is another tool, I think, that would
benefit us across the board.
Senator Ayotte. I appreciate it. I look forward to
continuing to work with you on that, and we certainly
appreciate any feedback you can give us.
Mr. Riley. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Ayotte. I wanted to also ask Director Botticelli
about a couple of different issues.
The first one, just while we have Ms. Moran here--you heard
her testimony--and this is an issue we have heard from other
treatment providers, that perhaps the regulations that have
come from HHS have not looked specifically at the challenges of
residential substance abuse treatment.
And so I would ask you to work to look at this issue at the
Federal level--I have written Health and Human Services about
it--but I want to get your thoughts on it and how we can make
sure that people who are in treatment get the support, make
sure that the safety is all there. But we also want to make
sure that we can maximize the resources that are directed
toward treatment in order to get more individuals into
treatment, and then, of course, hopefully after that, support
their recovery.
Mr. Botticelli. Sure. as she was testifying, and as someone
who was in charge of State licensing practices at one point,
there is probably, I think, Federal issues, but there are also
State-level licensing issues involved.
So I think we can have a follow up conversation to learn a
little bit more about what regulations are under the purview of
the Federal Government and then determine what are under the
State licensing authority, because I think it is really
important. And as I was listening to her, I was thinking that
many of the things that she, I think, is talking about fall
under State licensing areas. But we would be happy to work with
her in terms of those areas.
Senator Ayotte. We really appreciate that very much. Thank
you. Just to open up a dialogue so hopefully we can sort
through this and really help make sure that we are able to use
the resources that we do have and hopefully get more support.
I wanted to ask also, I know, Director Botticelli, you have
been at many forums that we have been having in Washington on
this issue, as well, and as a result of that, one of the pieces
of legislation that we have reintroduced is called the
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA).
I wanted to get your thoughts on that legislation and what
you think about it, as Senator Shaheen and I look to work
together on what we are hearing today, and also hopefully push
our colleagues in Washington--I keep saying to my other
colleagues ``Do you have a heroin problem? ''
And they say, ``Well, I don't know.''
I say, ``Well, go ask your public health officials, and go
ask your first responders, and I guarantee that you have a
heroin problem.''
So I just wanted to get your thoughts on some of the areas
we can work together on at the Federal level.
Mr. Botticelli. I want to thank both you and Senator
Shaheen in terms of your leadership at the Federal level. There
are significant pieces of Federal legislation that I think
speak to many of the issues that we talked about today.
Certainly, CARA, I think, highlights many of the issues and
fills really critical gaps, not only in terms of funding, but
in terms of policy around this issue.
So we know it is not enough just to reduce--to reverse
overdoses. Addiction is a chronic disease and we need to have
really good continuum of care, including prevention, treatment,
and recovery support. And so that is critical to be able to do
that.
I think there are lots of additional opportunities that we
can continue to work on together, particularly around
prescribing behavior and about continuing to look at enhancing
our prescription drug monitoring programs, as well as thinking
about critical treatment resources that I know the State and
locals critically need in terms of dealing with addiction
issues.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you very much. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. And, again,
thank you all very much for your testimony.
We have heard a lot of specific responses today to what is
obviously a very complex challenge that we are facing. But if I
were to ask each of you to talk about what is the number-one
priority that you would urge us, as members of the Senate,
Members of Congress, to address when we go back to Washington,
what would it be? Director Botticelli.
Mr. Botticelli. I think that is, at least from my
standpoint, a simple question. It is really about resources. I
think that we know that New Hampshire--we heard from providers
who were talking about wait lists. When people are ready to get
care, we should be able to give them care. So, resources, but
also, clearly insurance plays a huge role in this. We know that
only about 11 percent of people who have an addiction get care
at a specialty treatment center, and often addicts cite lack of
insurance coverage as a reason for not seeking care.
So we need to make sure we have good insurance coverage,
both private and Medicaid, but we also know that there are
people who will remain uninsured and who also need services
that insurance will not pay for. So, clearly, having those
resources at the State and local level become very important.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Commissioner.
Mr. Kerlikowske. As I think it has been agreed on, we are
not going to interdict or arrest our way out of the problem.
And as important as it is to take down the cartels and the
organizations, the traffickers with significant penalties, both
civil and incarceration for them, I think that the prevention
programs, the community coalitions that do the prevention work
that have been underfunded, and they are incredibly
inexpensive. And yet when you go to any of those meetings, and
you sit and listen to these people that spend so much of their
time, especially like listening to Mr. Griffin taking calls at
home--and I do not think that is probably part of his job that
he is being paid for--those community coalitions could really
use some help with resources.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Mr. Riley.
Mr. Riley. From a law enforcement point of view, the one
thing that would help is if law enforcement across the country
really recognized the critical link between Mexican organized
crime and urban street gangs. I do not think we can go anywhere
throughout the country where we do not see that connection. So
education and resources, things like the OCDETF strike force,
where we target those intersections that affect the quality of
life in our community, but at the same time make sure that we
go after the highest level traffickers we can, it is evolving
across the country and we have to face it.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Thank you all very much.
Senator Ayotte. First of all, I want to thank all of our
witnesses for being here today, our Federal panel and certainly
the first panel for being here.
This is a very important issue, and I look forward to
working with Senator Shaheen on some of the testimony that we
have heard today. There are some excellent ideas that came
forward here, and I hope the Federal partners I heard from,
certainly the ideas that came forth, whether it is the OCDETF
strike force and other ways that we can work together, whether
it is with the insurance issues and the regulatory issues, I
appreciate your being here.
And, again, this is about lives. We heard from Doug Griffin
about Courtney, a beautiful young woman whose life was taken.
And, unfortunately, there are too many other families in our
State that are suffering like the Griffins. We need to do
something about it, and I think the only way is for all of us
to work together. And I look forward to working with Senator
Shaheen on this, to take the feedback that we have gotten today
and to really bring this to Washington, so that hopefully we
can get some Federal legislation passed to make sure that we
are all giving you the support at the State and local level
that you need to combat this epidemic.
And with that, I have a couple of closing formalities, but
I would like to turn it over to Senator Shaheen for any final
comments.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Ayotte, and, again,
thank you for hosting this field hearing.
As the title of this hearing suggests, this really is an
all-hands-on-deck challenge that we have all got to respond to
at the local, State, and Federal level, in our communities, in
the private and public sectors, in families--the kind of
support that you talked about, Mr. Griffin. If we are going to
meet this challenge, we have all got to work together, and I
think that came through loud and clear as part of everyone's
testimonies today. We appreciate that, and I will certainly be
doing everything I can to work with Senator Ayotte and my
colleagues in Washington, as well as people on the ground here
in New Hampshire, to address this challenge.
And I hope you all will stay in touch with us. Call my
office, let us know what challenges you see, and any ideas that
you have to address this issue. Because that is the only way we
are going to be able to solve this problem.
Thank you.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
And I certainly echo Senator Shaheen's comments and
appreciate her being here today and appreciate her leadership.
I also, before we close out this hearing, I just want to
thank the staff that has come here from Washington from the
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee:
Brooke Ericson and Scott Wittmann, who are both here, and Brian
Papp, who is here to help us with this committee.
I would like to thank Sam Roberts and Chris Connelly from
my staff. I know Senator Shaheen's staff was very helpful. And
if there is anyone you want to----
Senator Shaheen. Yes. Chris Scott and Scott Merrick, who
are here. Thank you.
Senator Ayotte. Terrific. Thank you very much.
And before we close out this hearing, just for the record,
I would like to request unanimous consent to enter my prepared
opening statement for the record,\1\ and also unanimous consent
to enter Chairman Johnson's prepared statement\2\ as well as
Ranking Member Carper's prepared statement\3\ for this hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Ayotte appears in the
Appendix on page 1519.
\2\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
Appendix on page 1515.
\3\ The prepared statement of Senator Carper appears in the
Appendix on page 1517.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Shaheen. And mine.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The prepared statement of Senator Shaheen appears in the
Appendix on page 1523.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Ayotte. As well as yours, Senator Shaheen. Sorry.
So if all of those statements could be entered for the
record, I would appreciate it.
And the hearing record will remain open for 15 days until
September 29 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and
questions for the record.
And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
Thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 3:46 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
ONGOING MIGRATION FROM CENTRAL
AMERICA: AN EXAMINATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2015 APPREHENSIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, Lankford, Ayotte, Ernst, Carper,
McCaskill, and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON
Chairman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing will be called
to order.
I want to welcome all of our witnesses. Thank you for
taking the time to appear here, for your thoughtful testimony,
and for your willingness to answer our questions.
This is our 12th hearing on the lack of security on our
border. We have also had three roundtables. This hearing, like
the previous hearings, is really just a very sincere attempt on
this Committee's part to try and lay out the reality. I come
from a manufacturing background. I have had to solve a lot of
problems, and it starts with describing the reality and
acknowledging it. Sometimes you do not like looking at the
reality, and I would say that is certainly the case with the
problem of our unsecure borders and the level of illegal
immigration out of certainly Central America and Mexico. These
are tough problems. It is what I call the true definition of a
problem, something that does not have real easy solutions,
which is why we have been grappling with this thing for
decades.
Later this month, in further fact finding, we are going to
be taking a trip, the Members of the Committee, to Central
America to see the conditions on the ground there, which, let
us face it, we acknowledge the fact that people love to live in
America. This is the land of opportunity. It is a land of
immigrants. Through our history, generation after generation,
waves of immigrants have come here and made our country strong.
But it has to be a legal process. It has to be an orderly
process.
In a few weeks, maybe a couple days; I am going through the
final editing process--we are going to be releasing a report on
those 12 hearings and what we have learned. I think I can
describe it a little bit in terms of, what the conclusions of
that report are.
First and foremost--and this is, I think, shared by my
Ranking Member and everybody on this Committee--our borders are
not secure. They are just not secure. If you want to have one
piece of information, one metric that tells you how unsecure
our border is, General McCaffrey testified that they were only
interdicting 5 to 10 percent of illegal drugs coming through
the Southern Borders. That is how unsecure it is.
Now, we have to secure our borders for a number of reasons,
not just the illegal immigration issue but for national
security, for public health and safety. This is a serious
matter. It deserves serious attention. And, again, that is the
purpose of these hearings.
I think one conclusion of our report of these hearings is
also that there are multiple causes, multiple root causes. But
from my standpoint looking at this, probably the root cause of
our unsecure borders is literally our insatiable demand for
drug in this country that for decades basically gave rise to
the drug cartels that are businesses. They developed those
drug-trafficking routes, and they started expanding their
product line to human trafficking, to sex trafficking, and all
manners of deprivations as a result of those things. So, we
bear responsibility in this country for our insatiable demand
for drugs. We need to understand that.
We also have to understand, too, that within our
immigration system we have created, unintentionally--with the
best of intentions, quite honestly--a number of incentives for
illegal immigration. We need to honestly look at those
incentives, and we need to ask ourselves, Is there anything we
should do to change those laws, change those regulations that
actually incentivized people to come here illegally as opposed
to coming here in a legal and orderly process?
I would argue--and, of course, the purpose of this hearing
today is really talking about the continuing crisis. And it is
a continuing crisis of unaccompanied children coming across our
borders illegally.
I would turn everybody's attention to our first chart\1\
here, which shows the history of unaccompanied children coming
to this country illegally since 2009. And you can see the line
of demarcation there, being Deferred Action on Childhood
Arrivals in 2012, which I would say goes a long way toward
explaining why we have had this explosion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
on page 1831.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, it is true that the biggest problem we have is in
2014, but now that the figures from 2015 are in, yes, we are
down from 51,705 unaccompanied children from Central America
coming to this Nation from 2014, but in 2015, it is still
28,387. I would say by any measure still at crisis levels.
Now, we have gotten better at processing them. We have
gotten better at dispersing them in a humane fashion, and that
is not a bad thing that we are treating these people with
humanity. We are America. We are going to show that kind of
compassion. But, unfortunately, I think it continues to
incentivize more individuals coming here, and I think the next
graph\1\ is something we also have to take a look at. Because
we often just talk about unaccompanied children. We have also
created some additional incentives now for family units, and so
we have seen a real spike in the number of family units coming
in here because, you know, our policy now is to no longer
really hold them in detention centers, but also send them
throughout the country, again, in a human fashion--I understand
that--but it is incentivizing more individuals to come into
this country illegally, and we have to really face that
reality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
on page 1832.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would ask unanimous consent to enter my written statement
into the record.\2\ We have five witnesses here, so I do not
want to belabor the point any further. But the bottom line is
we have to face these realities. We have to ask ourselves some
hard questions, and we have to start solving this problem for
the reasons I have stated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
Appendix on page 1625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With that, I am happy to turn it over to our Ranking
Member, Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER CARPER
Senator Carper. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for
pulling this together again.
I want to thank you for calling this hearing on the ongoing
surge of Central American migration that we are experiencing at
our southwest border. This is an important challenge for the
region and for our country as well. I think it is a moral
challenge. I look forward to working together, continuing to
working together with the Chairman and the rest of the
delegation toward lasting solutions. I look forward to joining
him and several of our colleagues--I think Senator Peters,
maybe Senator Heitkamp, and maybe a House Member--to go down to
several of these countries, including, I believe, Guatemala and
Honduras, later this month.
Last summer, as the Chairman has said, we were shocked by
the flood of migrants arriving across our borders from
Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, particularly the
thousands of unaccompanied children and families with young
kids. When they arrived, most did not try to evade our Border
Patrol agents. Instead, they sought them out for protection.
Some of their stories--and those of migrants who did not
survive the journey--were, frankly, heartbreaking.
Our government took emergency steps to shelter and process
these individuals, but also put into place strategies to stem
the flow. These included public information campaigns on the
dangers of the journey, expedited court hearings, an increased
focus on human smuggling and trafficking rings, and support for
Mexico's efforts to better police its own Southern Border.
I was pleased that these efforts had an impact--I think we
all were--for a time in slowing migration. But many observers
warned that as long as the Northern Triangle countries remained
mired in violence and poverty, migration would continue. And
that is exactly what appears to have happened. This time, we
should not be surprised.
Although for a number of months significantly fewer Central
Americans were apprehended at our Southern Border, the flow
never really stopped. In fact, much of the decrease was due not
to fewer people fleeing the Northern Triangle countries, but
from the unprecedented new enforcement efforts by Mexico, which
we encouraged, on its Southern Border with Guatemala.
Between July 2014 and June 2015, for example, Mexico
reportedly apprehended nearly 157,000 Central American
migrants. That is a 70-percent increase compared to the same
period for the previous year.
But since this summer, even this enhanced effort on the
part of our Mexican partners has not been enough. Border Patrol
apprehensions of Central American children and families began
slowly climbing toward last year's levels early in 2015. In
August, they surpassed the number of new arrivals in August
2014.
In September, arrivals have remained relatively high as
well. I think this is particularly striking given that
apprehensions usually peak in the spring and they decline over
the summer and early fall. There are different theories as to
why we are seeing more Central American migrants again,
particularly children and families. Some people point to
increased violence in El Salvador, others to drought conditions
that have worsened poverty for many in the region. Still
another theory is that the smugglers have found new routes that
have allowed them to get around Mexico's enhanced apprehension
efforts and our own.
Of course, there are also pull factors--and they have been
alluded to already--particularly a desire on the part of
migrants to reunite with family members who are already here.
Smugglers may also be marketing real or perceived changes in
our immigration policy--such as current litigation calling into
question family detention--to persuade migrants that now is the
right time to make this trip. We are going to discuss today
some of those factors and also what we can do to try to change
the dynamic.
I think the increased apprehensions we are seeing this
summer and fall are an important reminder that we must--in
addition to ongoing efforts to better secure our borders--work
with our partners to address the root causes of Central
American migration.
The Governments of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador
have joined in an unprecedented regional agreement, as we know,
called the ``Alliance for Prosperity.'' It seeks to change the
underlying conditions on the ground that compel so many people
to flee.
Our own government has proposed a $1 billion investment in
foreign aid in the current fiscal year for initiatives to
complement the Alliance for Prosperity. These funds are
intended not only to improve security, but also to provide more
economic opportunity for the citizens of the Northern Triangle
and improve the rule of law in the region. I like to say that
the focus of these investments largely is to create a more
nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation,
mostly job creation, in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala,
which is a key part of what needs to be done.
This is clearly a daunting undertaking that will not yield
immediate results, yet we cannot continue to neglect the
underlying conditions that have led to the current migration
crisis.
It is also worth remembering that it is our appetite for
drugs--the Chairman has already mentioned this, but it is worth
mentioning again. It is our appetite for drugs that fuels much
of the violence and corruption in this region. As a result, I
believe we have a moral obligation to try and help to undo that
damage. The United States of America is complicit in creating a
situation in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala that people
want to flee. They want to get out of there. And for us to say
we are helping to create a situation which is unbearable for
you, intolerable, we would not want to live there, we would not
want to raise our kids there, we are going to be complicit in
creating that situation; and then when you try to get out and
escape, we are going to make sure you do not come to our
country. That is a moral dilemma and one that I am not
comfortable with, and I suspect none of us are.
But several of us on the Committee, as I said, are going to
be traveling to the Northern Triangle in a couple of weeks to
explore more fully what is fueling this ongoing migration and
how U.S. engagement in the region might help turn the tide.
I think our efforts and those of others working on this
issue are very much in keeping with the valuable message that
Pope Francis delivered here just a couple of weeks ago during
his visit. We need to see these migrants as people, not simply
as numbers, and work in partnership to try to alleviate the
desperate conditions that cause so many to risk life and limb
to flee to the United States, and to remember we have a moral
obligation to--and I am not preaching--but maybe I am. I am
preaching to the choir. We have a moral obligation, I think, to
put ourselves in their shoes, how would we want to be treated,
and to act accordingly.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper.
It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in
witnesses, so if you will all rise and raise your right hand?
Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you, God?
Ms. Gianopoulos. I do.
Mr. Cabrera. I do.
Mr. Casas-Zamora. I do.
Mr. Wood. I do.
Rev. Seitz. I do.
Chairman Johnson. Our first witness is Kimberly
Gianopoulos. Ms. Gianopoulos is the Director of International
Affairs and Trade, Government Accountability Office (GAO), one
of our favorite agencies.
Ms. Gianopoulos recently authored a report that reviewed
U.S. assistance in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. To
research this report, Ms. Gianopoulos traveled to Central
America to observe U.S. programs and interview migrants on
their perceptions of U.S. policies and laws. She will testify
today on the findings and recommendations of her report. Ms.
Gianopoulos.
TESTIMONY OF KIMBERLY M. GIANOPOULOS,\1\ DIRECTOR,
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRADE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE
Ms. Gianopoulos. Thank you, Chairman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Gianopoulos appears in the
Appendix on page 1628.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to
discuss our recent work on child migration from Central
America.
Unaccompanied alien children (UACs), crossed the U.S.-
Mexican border in record numbers in fiscal year (FY) 2014. Most
of these UACs were from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. A
recent surge in August 2015 has renewed concerns about the
efforts being taken by U.S. agencies to address the causes of
migration. We issued a report in July 2015 that focused on U.S.
agency efforts to address these causes. Today my statement will
focus on our conclusions and recommendations from that report,
as well as some updated information on the recent surge.
According to U.S. officials, the increase in migration
since 2012 was likely triggered by several factors, such as the
increased presence and sophistication of child smugglers, or
coyotes, and confusion over U.S. immigration policy. For
example, agency officials told us that in some cases coyotes
led many people to believe children could migrate to the United
States and receive permission to stay indefinitely if they
arrived by a certain date.
Additionally, Honduran youth and coordinators of community
centers who were interviewed as part of a U.S Agency for
International Development (USAID) focus group indicated that
they believed the United States would allow migrant minors,
mothers traveling with minors, and pregnant women to stay for a
period of time upon arrival in the United States.
Social media also plays a factor in migration. Officials in
Guatemala told us that social media outlets enable migrants who
arrive in the United States to share messages and pictures with
families in their home countries. This can serve as a powerful
and influential endorsement of the decision to migrate.
Additionally, officials noted that persistent conditions such
as violence, poverty, and the lack of economic opportunity have
worsened.
We met with children in all three countries, and they
echoed many of the same reasons for migrating to the United
States.
For example, children at a USAID outreach center in San
Pedro Sula, Honduras, noted the lack of educational and job
opportunities in their communities as a reason for migrating.
Children from a particularly violent neighborhood told us it
was even more difficult for them to find employment since
potential employers would sometimes choose not to hire them
simply because of where they lived.
A number of U.S. agencies have programs providing
assistance in areas such as economic development, community
development, law, citizen security, rule of law enforcement,
and education.
Some program address longstanding concerns while others
were developed to address the recent surge in migration. For
example, Department of Homeland Security (DHS)-led units
supported an increased focus on investigating and dismantling
smuggling operations in all three countries. We found that U.S.
agencies chose to locate programs in the three countries based
on various factors, including high poverty and crime, but
adjusted their efforts to locate more programs in high
migration communities.
With regard to evaluation, we found that most agencies had
developed processes to assess the effectiveness of UAC
migration-related programs, but there were weaknesses. For
example, DHS had established performance measures such as
arrests for units combating UAC smuggling, but had not
established numeric or other types of targets for these
measures which would enable the DHS to measure the unit's
progress toward a stated goal.
In addition, DHS and State had not always evaluated the
information campaigns intended to combat coyote misinformation.
For example, DHS launched its 2013 campaign in April of that
year, but launched its 2014 campaign in late June, which was
after the migration levels had peaked. Neither agency evaluated
the effect of its 2014 campaign.
Public affairs officers from all three countries expressed
uncertainty or doubt concerning the effectiveness of campaigns
centered on the dangers of migration. Specifically, they were
uncertain whether such campaigns resonated with citizens of the
three countries since the dangers were already well known.
Accordingly, we recommended that the agencies integrate
evaluations into their information campaigns intended to deter
migration and that DHS establish performance targets for its
investigative units.
This concludes my opening remarks. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on this very important topic, and I am
prepared to answer any questions you might have.
Chairman Johnson. Well, thank you, Ms. Gianopoulos.
Our next witness is Agent Chris Cabrera. He is a Border
Patrol agent in the Rio Grande Valley Texas Sector. Mr. Cabrera
can draw on his experience as a Border Patrol agent in the Rio
Grande Valley to discuss migration trends in the Rio Grande
Valley Sector and the recent increase in unaccompanied minors
and family units from Central America arriving at the border.
He can explain how apprehensions in fiscal year 2015 compare to
last year as well as share anecdotes he has gathered through
interviews with migrants. Mr. Cabrera.
TESTIMONY OF CHRIS CABRERA,\1\ BORDER PATROL AGENT, RIO GRANDE
VALLEY SECTOR, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, ON BEHALF OF
THE NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL
Mr. Cabrera. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, thank
you for providing me the opportunity to testify on behalf of
the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Cabrera appears in the Appendix
on page 1641.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Council represents the interests of 16,500 line agents
of the Border Patrol. My name is Chris Cabrera. I joined the
Border Patrol in 2001, after serving 4 years in the Army. I
have spent my entire career in the Border Patrol in the Rio
Grande Valley of Texas.
Last year, the American people were shocked by the massive
surge in unaccompanied children. In fiscal year 2014, the
Border Patrol apprehended 66,000 unaccompanied children
primarily in the Rio Grande Valley. Although the apprehensions
of unaccompanied children are down 50 percent fiscal year 2015,
this is no cause for celebration. We will still apprehend
35,000 unaccompanied children this year and an additional
34,000 in family groups.
There are a number of factors that are driving the UACs to
come. Many point to the endemic violence in Central America.
Without a doubt, violence and instability in Central America,
where the vast majority of the UACs and family groups are
coming from, is a factor. It is not, however, the primary
factor driving this mass migration at this point in time.
Unfortunately, many of these countries have been suffering
violence, corruption, and poverty for decades, yet they did not
leave in large numbers with the exception of the Salvadorans
during their civil war 30 years ago.
When Border Patrol Agents detain a UAC or family group, we
interview them, and they are typically very forthcoming about
their motivation for coming into the United States. Most
believe they will either not be caught or, even if they are
caught, they will not be deported back to their home country.
The UACs and family groups we detain are acutely aware of the
fact we will not hold them until they are adjudicated. They
know that they will be released and issued a Notice to Appear
(NTA). What we have right now is essentially a catch-and-
release policy. This coupled with violence and instability in
their home country is what is driving the continued flow into
the United States. Unless we hold them until we adjudicate
their cases, they will continue to come.
The second driver is the idea that they need to get here
before some ambiguous deadline. Some of them do not even know
when that deadline is; they only know that they need to beat it
if they want to stay in the United States permanently. We call
this the ``myth of the permiso,'' and it is most likely being
advanced by the drug cartels that are controlling the illegal
alien and drug smuggling across the border.
For cartels, human smuggling is big business worth hundreds
of millions of dollars each year. Most are paying $10,000 per
person. Higher-value aliens, such as Middle Eastern and Asians,
pay double or triple this figure. The UACs and family units
serve another purpose. They are human screens that tie up the
Border Patrol Agents while the cartels smuggle narcotics and
higher-value aliens behind them, who, if caught, will be
deported back to their home country.
When the crisis hit last summer, we soon realized why they
are doing this. The cartels are driving these kids and families
into the middle of nowhere to cross the Rio Grande River. Most
of these people cannot swim, and crossing the Rio Grande on a
flimsy rubber raft is incredibly dangerous. Why didn't they
simply march up to the port of entry (POE) and turn themselves
in to Customs? Customs could just as easily have detained them.
The cartels know that a group of 30 UACs will tie up an entire
shift of Border Patrol agents. All they are doing is sending
these children to tie up our agents and leaving the border
completely unguarded.
If there is one thing that could be done to correct this
problem, it would be to end the catch-and-release policy. If
they knew that if they were caught they would be detained,
adjudicated, and repatriated to their home country, the
calculus changes dramatically. I guarantee that if this was the
case, the numbers would fall dramatically.
The second action deals with resources. I know the budget
is tight, but I would estimate that in Rio Grande Valley we are
apprehending 40 percent of illegal immigrants caught crossing
into this country. This low capture rate again leaves the
perception that crossing the border illegally is a viable
option. I am happy to discuss this in greater detail during the
question-and-answer period, but I believe we are at least 5,000
agents below where we need to be to effectively secure the
borders.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Agent Cabrera, for your
service and your testimony. And I would point out this is your
second time before this Committee, and we appreciate that.
Our next witness is Kevin Casas-Zamora. Mr. Casas-Zamora is
the senior fellow and program director, Peter D. Bell Rule of
Law Program, Inter-American Dialogue. Mr. Casas-Zamora can
speak to the need of prioritized U.S. funding to ensure
programs are effective in improving the security and economic
stability in Central America. Mr. Casas-Zamora can also discuss
the conditions in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras that are
contributing to increased migration from the region, the
current status of the rule of law in these countries, and how
these conditions affect U.S. aid. Mr. Casas-Zamora.
TESTIMONY OF KEVIN CASAS-ZAMORA,\1\ D.PHIL., SENIOR FELLOW AND
PROGRAM DIRECTOR, PETER D. BELL RULE OF LAW PROGRAM, INTER-
AMERICAN DIALOGUE
Mr. Casas-Zamora. Thank you, Senator. I am grateful for the
opportunity to address the honorable Members of this Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Casas-Zamora appears in the
Appendix on page 1643.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past 5 years, 100,000 migrant children from
Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have been apprehended at
the U.S. border. They are a particularly tragic subset of the
approximately 3 million migrants from Central America's
Northern Triangle that have reached U.S. shores over the past
two decades.
Four factors are at the root of those migration flows:
First, the weakness of the State. States in the Northern
Triangle are very feeble. At just below 16 percent of gross
domestic product (GDP), the region's average tax burden is
among the lowest in the world. Such fiscal starvation impinges
on the ability of the State to mitigate the impact of the very
high levels of poverty and inequality that afflict these
countries. Also, fiscally weak States have great problems
exerting effective control over their territory.
Second, corruption. The effects of fiscal weakness are
compounded by endemic corruption, notably in Guatemala and
Honduras. Relative to the size of the economy, the fraud
recently uncovered at Honduras' social security system dwarfs
the massive bribery scandal of Brazil's Petrobras by a factor
of 20.
The state of judicial institutions is a critical factor in
explaining these levels of corruption. In all three countries,
political interference in judicial and overseeing institutions
is rife. The struggle for democracy and development in the
Northern Triangle is, above all, a fight for the rule of law,
for accountability and against all forms of impunity.
Third, economic vulnerability. For the majority of migrants
from Northern Central America, economic reasons underlie the
decision to leave their countries. Despite the efforts made by
these countries to open up their economies, they appear unable
to generate the kind of growth that could make a real dent in
their poverty levels. Over the past decade, per capita income
growth in all three countries has been mediocre at best. Given
their distributional problems, it is unsurprising that the
majority of the population remains mired in poverty or economic
vulnerability. Today remittances contribute 10 percent of GDP
in Guatemala, nearly 17 percent in El Salvador, and over 18
percent in Honduras. The truth is that it is remittances from
migrants that keep these economies afloat.
Fourth, crime and violence. The most pressing challenge
faced by the Northern Triangle concerns high levels of crime.
Last year, Honduras alone had more homicides than the 28 member
States of the European Union combined.
Senator Carper. I am sorry. Would you say that again?
Mr. Casas-Zamora. Sure. Last year, Honduras alone had more
homicides than the 28 member States of the European Union
combined. Violence levels in Northern Central America cannot be
understood but in terms of the pervasive presence of organized
crime, particularly drug trafficking.
All these mythologies are not just complex, but are deeply
intertwined. None of this can be corrected by foreign
assistance alone, yet none of this will be corrected without
foreign assistance. Let me suggest a few ways in which the
United States could play a constructive role.
One, fund generously the Alliance for Prosperity in the
Northern Triangle. The alliance is a timely and well-conceived
program. It embodies the long-term and integral approach that
is essential to bring about structural change and hopefully
contain migratory flows. It would be a loss if the program were
to shed its holistic conception and wind up as yet another
narrow counternarcotics effort.
Two, support Guatemala's International Commission Against
Impunity (CICIG) and expand it. The United States played no
small part in the creation of CICIG. You should be commended
for that. Even before its crucial role in the investigation
that led to the resignation of President Otto Perez Molina, the
Commission had proved a very valuable resource for Guatemala.
The United States continued support for CICIG is vital for the
whole region. Its experience provides a blueprint for similar
bodies that could and should be adopted in other countries,
certainly Honduras.
Three, insist on structural reforms. There are clear limits
to what even a generous and soundly conceived program of
foreign assistance can achieve in Northern Central America. It
is a legitimate question whether the United States will find in
the region's political elites suitable partners to make this
effort worthwhile. The case of Perez Molina and the popular
mobilization against corruption in Honduras suggest that some
of the best partners are to be found in the region's civil
societies. One can also point to brave, isolated reformers that
defy impossible odds to bring about institutional change in all
three countries. Identifying those champions of reform is
difficult but possible.
I will submit that the United States can gauge the
seriousness of political partners in the region according to
two criteria: first, their readiness to push for robust and
progressive tax systems; and, second, their sincerity about
introducing checks and balances and promoting judicial
independence. Hence, attempts to pack the supreme court or to
introduce indefinite reelection, for instance, ought to be
taken for what they are: preludes to the corruption, power
abuse, and impunity that have sadly been the historical norm in
much of Central America.
Introducing progressive tax reform and real checks and
balances on are the crux of the matter. If the United States is
serious about helping the Northern Triangle, it should not be
shy about demanding those structural changes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Casas-Zamora.
Our next witness is Duncan Wood. Mr. Wood is the Director
of the Mexico Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center
for Scholars. Dr. Wood recently visited the Mexico-Guatemala
border to assess Mexico's border enforcement efforts. He can
describe the State of Mexico's border enforcement efforts and
how these efforts impact Central America migration to the
United States. Dr. Wood.
TESTIMONY OF DUNCAN WOOD, PH.D.,\1\ DIRECTOR, MEXICO INSTITUTE,
WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS
Mr. Wood. Thank you, Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member
Carper, for the invitation. Good morning, everybody.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Wood appears in the Appendix on
page 1656.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you just said, I am here to talk about Mexico's Programa
Frontera Sur, the Southern Border Program, based on two recent
study tours that the Wilson Center has taken to the border with
Guatemala and Belize, and there are two main messages I would
like to leave with you today:
One, the Southern Border Program is very much a work in
progress, but it is having an impact in multiple ways that are
of enormous interest to the United States' homeland security.
And, second, based upon what Mexico is attempting to do on
its Southern Border, migrant roots are changing as migrants and
smugglers learn how to get around Mexican Government controls.
Let me begin by just talking about the border a little bit
between Mexico and Guatemala. The map here--which, of course,
is too small for you to see, but I think you have a copy of it
somewhere--between Mexico and Guatemala there are eight formal
crossing points, so eight border crossings where you can cross
legally between the two countries. And there are identified by
the Mexican Government 57 informal crossing points where people
regularly cross back and forth, often for entirely innocent
reasons of doing some shopping for the Sunday lunch, for
example, or buying basics for their house.
The border region is, of course, a divers region, difficult
terrain, rivers, forest, hills, and also urban areas. There is
an active border life. As I said, people cross regularly,
formally and informally, to engage in commerce, visits, et
cetera. And local communities are very wary of a thickening of
the Guatemala-Mexico-Belize border. And, in fact, there have
been examples, cases of protests from local communities when
efforts have been made to try to restrict traffic. And Mexican
Government officials have told us that that is actually one of
the issues they are struggling with.
Mexico's interest in its Southern Border is, of course, not
new. It really began in recent times, in the mid-2000s, a
growing awareness of the importance of the Southern Border for
organized crime and for the question of transmigration. And, of
course, there have been many criticisms from Mexican civil
society of Mexico's record of protecting Central American
migrants.
The Mexico Comision Internacional de Limites Y Aguas--the
Mexican international commission for boundaries and waters--has
done impressive work in actually mapping the border and
understanding the reality, the day-to-day reality there. They
were of enormous help to us when we actually conducted our
tour.
And, in fact, just to give you an idea of where we began
with all of this, it is only in the last decade that the border
itself between Mexico and Guatemala has been adequately
demarcated so that you actually can now visit the actual
borderline and know when you are crossing over the territory
from one country to another. That is the starting point. So
there is a lot of work to be done there.
The Southern Border Program in Mexico has existed for a
number of years, but it was reinvigorated under the current
presidency of Enrique Pena Nieto. The program has two official
objectives: one, to protect migrants who enter Mexico; two, to
manage the ports of entry in a way that promotes the security
and prosperity of the region. It aims to do this in five ways:
one, through bringing about regular and orderly migration; two,
improvements to infrastructure for border security and
migration; three, protecting migrants; four, regional shared
responsibility; and, five, interagency coordination. We saw
elements of all of those things on our tours.
The most important thing that I would say we saw there was
the impressive investment in facilities, procedures, and
controls that the Mexican Government has put in place. They
have put in place a regional visitor visa program and a
visiting border worker program, which is allowing people to
actually cross over legally in a formal fashion to visit
southern Mexico from Guatemala and Belize. And I have the
numbers of those visa permits if you need them.
This attempt to provide a formal way for Guatemalans and
Belizeans to enter Mexico is very important. The facilities at
the border are multimodal. You see the migration agency, the
military, customs, health, agriculture, everybody is actually
there. This means that there is a growing presence of the
Mexican State in the Southern Border region which has not been
there before.
What are the challenges that remain? Well, it is an
impressive attempt to establish some sense of order and to
raise the visibility of the Mexican State in the south. And in
many ways, it is positive for local communities in terms of
security. However, it is clear that the flows are not going to
diminish as long as conditions in Central America continue to
be as harsh as they are. Migrants learn and migrants adapt, and
we saw multiple examples of migrant routes going around Mexican
attempts to control. So it is a problem of abuses, many
criticisms of Mexico's treatment of migrants. We saw evidence
on both sides of that that, in fact, there are actually some
respectable conditions in detention centers in southern Mexico.
But we also heard stories that told an opposite story.
And, last, on the question of regional cooperation, Mexico
is going to face a very big challenge in evolving its regional
cooperation with countries like Guatemala simply because of the
lack of capacity in their counterpart. Interestingly enough,
military cooperation between Mexico and Guatemala has advanced
very rapidly and there is good understanding. Working with the
rest of the government agencies has been much more challenging.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Dr. Wood.
Our final witness is Bishop Mark Seitz. Bishop Seitz is a
member of the diocese of El Paso, Texas, U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Bishop Seitz can describe the
programs his organization is employing to assist youth and
other vulnerable populations in Central America in order to
deter migration and assist in repatriation proceedings. Bishop
Seitz is also an original native from Wisconsin, so, again, we
welcome you here. Thank you for your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE MOST REVEREND MARK J. SEITZ,\1\ BISHOP,
DIOCESE OF EL PASO, TEXAS, ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF
CATHOLIC BISHOPS
Rev. Seitz. Thank you very much, Chairman Johnson, Senator
Carper, Ranking Member, for holding this hearing today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Bishop Seitz appears in the Appendix
on page 1666.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, we are witnessing a humanitarian situation in
our hemisphere in which vulnerable children and families are
fleeing for their lives in search of protection. If we cannot
respond justly and humanely to this challenge in our own
backyard, then we relinquish our moral leadership and influence
globally, where much greater crises are being experienced.
Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Bishops sent a delegation led by
myself to Central America to assess the situation there and
were among the first groups to warn of a possible outflow of
children and families fleeing from that region.
Since then, the violence in the Northern Triangle region of
Central America has only worsened. El Salvador, victim of a new
gang war, now rivals Honduras as the Nation with the highest
murder rate in the world. A recent study by the United Nations
(U.N.) determined that more than 6 in 10 of those who arrived
at our borders or were leaving had legitimate asylum claims.
I would like to recall with you a very distinguished
visitor who graced these hallowed halls just last month. In his
speech to Congress, Pope Francis urged us to show compassion to
those fleeing to our land, and I quote: ``We must not be taken
by their numbers but, rather, as persons, seeing their faces
and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we
can to their situation.''
We should listen to the story of Maria, a 14-year-old from
El Salvador who was kidnapped by a gang member and held
captive, raped, and drugged. She managed to escape and fled to
the United States.
We should listen to the story of Manuel, a 17-year-old boy
who was severely beaten by gang members and threatened with
death if he did not join the gang. He escaped to the United
States and was granted a Trafficking Victims eligibility letter
by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit their stories and
those of other children for the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The stories referenced by Bishop Seitz appears in the Appendix
on page 1833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the number of children and families arriving at our
border has dropped in this past fiscal year by 40 percent, that
does not mean that the number of persons fleeing Central
America has dropped, as we have noted. Instead, it means that
they are fleeing to neighboring countries or, worse, are being
intercepted by Mexican authorities at our behest and sent back
to danger, without proper screening and protection mechanisms.
Mr. Chairman, according to the Migration Policy Institute,
the Mexican Government has returned 70 percent more migrants,
mostly women and children, back to the Northern Triangle over
the past fiscal year ending September 30. They have returned
six times more children than at this time last year. We have
transferred the authority--or the responsibility for this
crisis to others, and in so doing perhaps we have abdicated our
own.
But as we have heard, children and families continue to
arrive at our Southern Border, and more recently we have seen a
spike in their numbers. By increasing interdiction efforts, we
have driven them into the hand of more sophisticated smugglers
who are charging them $7,000 and more per trip and are finding
ways to circumvent enforcement efforts using private cars and
bribes along the way.
However, Mr. Chairman, there are more serious humanitarian
consequences to this interdiction policy. According to the
Mexican Human Rights Commission, abuse of migrants by
enforcement personnel has increased by 40 percent over the past
year, including physical and sexual assault.
There have also been reports that migrants sent back to
their countries have been killed with at least 90 such deaths
documented over the past year and a half.
Mr. Chairman, if we export enforcement, we must also export
protection.
As my testimony details, we recommend that Congress and the
administration, No. 1, approve and increase the $1 billion
administration request for aid to Central America, directing
assistance to youth development and reintegration programs.
No. 2, that we halt our punitive deterrence strategy and
instill a regional protection system based on the best interest
determinations for children.
Third, that we improve the Central American Minors (CAM),
program.
And, fourth, that we end family detention and replace it
with community-based alternative to detention programs.
Fifth, that we ultimately get comprehensive immigration
reform.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to sum up the current situation
with an analogy. Our current enforcement posture toward
children and families fleeing the violence in Central America
is akin to firemen arriving at a house fire and locking the
doors. Instead of locking the doors, Mr. Chairman, we must put
out the fire and rescue those inside.
As I conclude, perhaps we could recall our Holy Father's
words during his visit. He also invoked a basic rule of life
that should guide all of our actions: the Golden Rule. He
reminded us that it is not only right but in our long-term best
interest to practice that wise dictum. As he explained, ``In a
word, if we want security, let us give security. If we want
life, let us give life. If we want opportunity, let us give
opportunity. The yardstick we use for others will be the
yardstick which will be used for us.''
Mr. Chairman, I pray that time and history will conclude
that we honored this rule in meeting this humanitarian
challenge. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Bishop.
I will start with the questioning. Again, there is no doubt
about the fact that this is an enormous problem, and as we
talked about, one of the root causes is our insatiable demand
for drugs, the lack of opportunity in Central America, the
violence being driven a lot because of the drug cartels, that
type of thing.
The question always is, well, OK, what is an achievable
goal here? I do not think it is good for Central America that
those individuals that actually want to seek opportunity flow
out of the country. I think the goal of our policy should be to
stop the flow--again, understanding how complex that is, if you
could wave a magic wand and, make Central America corruption-
free so they actually had a rule of law, so that their
economies could actually grow, that is what we are trying to
achieve. And the hard questions are, in terms of aid programs,
are we just pouring money down a rat hole? Is there any chance
that money spent in Central America will be utilized
effectively? So if we put the money in there, what kind of
controls do we have?
Ms. Gianopoulos, I would like to talk to you in terms of
the GAO study because I think one thing I really want you to
comment on, the reality of the situation, regardless of what
Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA), what those
memorandums say, regardless of what our marketing programs are
in terms of the danger of the journey, and the Bishop spoke
very eloquently about the harm, I mean, the migrants are being
abused. It is a dangerous journey. But the reality is if those
children, if those families can get into America, they are
staying. Since 2009, less than 7 percent have actually been
sent back. So by the use of social media, those that are here
are communicating back into Central America, so it is a gamble
that pays off.
Now, some people are abused along the journey. That is a
tragedy. But the bottom line is they were willing to take that
dangerous journey because they are able to stay here. Can you
just expand on exactly how they are using social media?
Ms. Gianopoulos. Sure. When we traveled to the region, we
heard from a number of different children, from U.S. officials
in Guatemala and El Salvador that the use of social media has
absolutely exploded, not just for the families of the children
who are making the journey, but also for the coyotes, that they
are actually advertising their immigration services on various
social media and getting the word out that way as to what the
options are for the various families who want their children,
or the families themselves, to make that trek.
So the social media cannot be ignored as a major push
factor in getting families to actually consider taking all of
these risks and sending their children or themselves to the
United States.
Chairman Johnson. Mr. Casas-Zamora, you talked about the
rule of law. Can you expand on that a little bit in terms of
how crucial that is? Let us face it. You are not going to get
investment to grow an economy unless you have some stability in
terms of the rule of law, lack of corruption. How far are we
away from having low enough levels of corruption and a strong
enough rule of law to actually provide the type of economic
activity, to provide the opportunities that is admittedly
lacking in Central America?
Mr. Casas-Zamora. Thank you, Senator. The short answer is
very far from that. And the question here is, What is to be
done? And my short answer to that would be that there are basic
things that need to be put in place before we go on to more
sophisticated policies or proposals.
The most basic thing that needs to be in place if these
countries are going to be serious about corruption--but also
about the impunity that comes with the problems concerning
citizen security. I mean, the most basic thing is to protect
judicial independence, and to protect the autonomy of
overseeing institutions such as the General Accounting Office,
the ombudsman, all the institutions that are meant to control
the exercise of power. Those institutions are in terrible shape
in Central America, and my contention would be that one of the
ways in which one can gauge the seriousness of your partners in
Central America is by the willingness that they are willing to
display in doing those basic things. Then we can go on to other
things.
Chairman Johnson. Basically I would interpret your remarks,
any kind of aid would have to have enormous strings, very
strong strings attached to it so that we do not just waste the
money.
Mr. Casas-Zamora. Very much so.
Chairman Johnson. Dr. Wood, you talked about the increased
effort on the part of Mexico to secure their Southern Border.
Can you just tell me why they are doing it?
Mr. Wood. Yes, first, let me just make one quick comment on
the last question.
Chairman Johnson. Sure.
Mr. Wood. I think that we are witnessing right now
throughout Latin America a civil society awakening over the
question of corruption, and that is something that we should
celebrate and we should reinforce. I think working only with
governments is the wrong way to go. We need to be reinforcing
what civil societies throughout the region are doing. We have
seen it in Guatemala. We have seen it in Brazil. I think that
is one thing that we could do.
Why is the Mexican Government engaging in their Programa
Frontera Sur? Well, first of all, this was a preexisting
program that had never really had the investment that it
required to make it effective. So the question is: Why are they
actually investing in it now? Partly it is in reaction to
pressure from the United States to try to bring about some
order for the migration flows northwards. But there is also
very much a Mexican Government interest in this. I think there
is a crossover, a very clear crossover, between what we are
seeing on trying to control migration flows and trying to
control organized crime on Mexico's Southern Border.
When you visit these facilities, both border facilities and
facilities that are remote from the border inland, the presence
of not only migracion but also the military, the police,
health, et cetera, those multimodal interagency facilities are
designed to establish the presence of the Mexican State in a
territory where it was not really visible before.
This means that the costs of moving through southern Mexico
have been increased, not just for migrants but for organized
crime as well. It does not mean they do not adapt. Of course
they do. But it raises the cost, and it makes it much more
complex for them to do that.
Chairman Johnson. So the good news is really there is
mutual benefit to the United States as well as Mexico for a
continued effort to secure the Mexican border there.
Mr. Wood. There are definitely mutual benefits in terms of
homeland security.
Chairman Johnson. Agent Cabrera, I do want you to talk a
little bit more about--we toured the Southern Border with you--
the use of the economic immigrants for diversion for drugs. Can
you just expand on that a little bit more? Because I thought
that was pretty telling, that when you really thought about it,
these children, these families could just walk across the
bridge and turn themselves in, and, they would be processed the
exact same way, but that is not what happens. They actually do
make the more dangerous trip across the river. Just describe
some of those stories that you described at the border with us.
Mr. Cabrera. Yes, Senator. In actuality, if these
individuals that were crossing would cross through the bridge,
it would not be a criminal crossing. It would not be an illegal
crossing. They could walk up to the bridge and ask for asylum,
much like they do when they come to us. However, when they
cross the river, then there is that added charge of illegal
entry. So it is more beneficial for them to cross through the
bridge as opposed to the river, not to mention the safety
factor.
What happens is these kids or these family units or even
regular migrants, they are walking up to the bridge to claim
asylum, and they get intercepted by the cartel members, the
smugglers. And at that point they take them to a certain area,
they charge them and tell them when and where they are going to
cross. The reason they do that is once they occupy us, we will
have to send multiple agents out there to ensure their
security, their safety. And it opens up various holes along the
border because our agents are having to come from other areas
to secure them, to transport them, to make sure they are OK,
make sure they are healthy, make sure they do not have any
weapons, and get them into the station.
Chairman Johnson. How often does that happen?
Mr. Cabrera. Every time they cross.
Chairman Johnson. You have multiple groups every night,
every day?
Mr. Cabrera. Every night. It slows down during the week.
Maybe Tuesday, Wednesday, it is at its lowest. Thursday it
starts to pick up. Friday, Saturday, Sunday, it is just bodies
everywhere. At our station we are looking on the weekend 600 to
700 a day. And that is just one station.
Chairman Johnson. So it is extremely effective diversion
for their drug trafficking.
Mr. Cabrera. Exactly.
Chairman Johnson. And potentially the higher value--you
mentioned the Middle Eastern----
Mr. Cabrera. Yes, we have the Middle Eastern, you have
people that are criminals, whether they come from Mexico or,
anywhere in the country, they have criminal charges in the
United States, and they know that if they get caught, they are
going to face some real jail time. So those guys will pay more
so that they can get around different ways. If you have cartel
people that are coming back and forth, obviously they cannot
cross through the bridge, so they are going to be another one
of those high-value illegal aliens that they are going to cross
in an area where we are not.
Chairman Johnson. Right.
Mr. Cabrera. The drug smuggling, we are seeing an uptick in
not just marijuana but of cocaine, of heroin, of
methamphetamines coming in. And it is taking its toll. It is
spilled into our streets. The violence is spilling into the
United States.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you. And we have held hearings--and
we are going to have more hearings--just on the tragedy of
heroin addiction and deaths here in America coming through the
Southern Border. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I really want to
thank each of you for what you do with your lives and for
spending part of your lives with us today and testifying and
responding to our questions.
Bishop Seitz, you are a dead ringer for my first cousin,
Dan Patton, who is a lay minister in a church in Columbus,
Ohio. And I have never seen him wear a collar like this. But I
walked in and I looked at you, and I said, ``What is my cousin
doing here?'' But he would probably say, to what you have said,
``Amen.'' And I do, too.
Listening to all you testify this morning, I was reminded
of something that Winston Churchill once said. I do not know if
Senator McCaskill and others will recall this. But he once
said, ``If you are young and not liberal, you do not have a
heart. If you are old and not conservative, you do not have a
brain.'' And what we need to do in addressing this dilemma,
moral dilemma and human dilemma, is we need to act with our
hearts and with our brains. And there are a number of things
that we need to do, and some of them we need to do I think all
at once.
There is the idea of us--a great analogy you used, Bishop,
I think you were the one who said, the firemen show up at the
house, lock everybody inside, and leave. That is pretty close
to what we have done. We have contributed enormously to the
misery of the folks who live in these three countries, and then
to walk away and say, ``Well, do not try to get into our
country,'' that is just morally wrong.
I believe you have outlined for us very nicely ways that we
can act with our hearts and with our brains, one, to deter the
likelihood, reduce the likelihood that people are going to
come, one, by making it clear that it is going to be hard to
get into our country, and if you do, you may not get a chance
to stay; but, two, to say to the folks who live there, you are
going to have a better future, and you are going to have some
economic hope and not have to live in the kind of misery that
you face today. We need to do both. And we can.
Harry Truman used to say that the only thing that is new in
the world is the history we forgot or never learned, and
actually I think we learned something from Colombia where,
about 20 years ago, a bunch of gunmen rounded up the entire
supreme court of the country of Colombia, took them into a
room, and shot them to death. And today that country is
regarded as a reasonably strong, sound, vibrant democracy. We
helped them do it with something called ``Plan Colombia.'' And
it is not something that we did by ourselves. It is not
something they did entirely by themselves. But there were a
number of other folks--it was a shared responsibility. We did
our parts; others did their part. Colombians did their part.
What lessons are there for us today from Plan Colombia? I
like to say find out what works and do more of that. What did
we learn from Plan Colombia that may be transferable and usable
here in this situation? Anyone? And just be brief, please. Yes?
Mr. Casas-Zamora. Thank you----
Senator Carper. Mr. Casas-Zamora.
Mr. Casas-Zamora. That is me, hailing from Central America.
Senator Carper. Where? Donde?
Mr. Casas-Zamora. Costa Rica.
Senator Carper. OK. Great place.
Mr. Casas-Zamora. Thanks. Glad to hear that.
I think the single most important lesson that one can draw
from Plan Colombia and similar experiences is that unless there
is real serious buy-in from the political elite in the country,
very little of this will have any success. The lion's share of
transforming these countries, of reforming and, establishing
real structures, the rule of law, and accountability, really
falls on the shoulders of those countries. Unless they get
serious about that, no amount of foreign assistance will do the
trick.
Senator Carper. Yes. Bishop Seitz.
Rev. Seitz. I might also suggest we could learn a lot from
Nicaragua. It is very interesting that when you look to the
region, you realize that so many of those who are fleeing the
Northern Triangle are going to the border countries, also. They
are not just----
Senator Carper. That is right. They are not just coming
here.
Rev. Seitz. They have seen increases of something like
1,200 percent in the last, I do not know, 6, 8 years.
Senator Carper. And it is a lot easier to get into those
countries than into this one.
Rev. Seitz. Yes. They are going wherever they can go,
fleeing the burning house, if you will.
Some of the things that happened there, when a new
government entered in, they turned over the police force, and
they established a means of community policing. They increased
the pay of the police and so on to avoid situations where they
could be easily corrupted. Nicaragua is a poorer country than
even these countries that we are speaking about, but it is much
safer--not without its problems, but most of the country is
much safer. We could learn a lot from them.
Senator Carper. All right. Let us talk a little bit about
the Alliance for Prosperity that the Central American countries
have launched that our administration has proposed that we fund
to the tune of about $1 billion. I think there is some money in
the appropriations bill in the Senate that would, I think,
fund--maybe not $1 billion, but maybe $600 million. What are
some things that that money should be spent on to help address
some of the root causes that we are talking about here today?
Where might it be well spent? Because I am not interested in
wasting money, and I know none of you are either. Mr. Wood.
Mr. Wood. Yes, and it is kind of in response to your
previous question. If you look at what the aid is going to
Mexico right now through the Merida Initiative, there is all
the traditional stuff, sort of, aiding the military, law
enforcement agencies, et cetera. But one of the most
interesting aspects is actually the concept of building
resilient communities, and this is working with government at
the three levels--Federal, State, and local--working with the
private sector, working with civil society to really try to
help communities to bounce back after violence has broken out.
And I would say that some of these community-based approaches
at the local level really do provide an opportunity, not to
stop the violence but really once a community or a nation has
taken the decision to act upon it, to help them recover.
So I would say the community-based approaches are going to
be crucial in improving conditions.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Others, please? Kevin.
Mr. Casas-Zamora. Thank you, Senator. I have no doubt that
helping rebuild law enforcement institutions in these countries
should be one of the priorities of the alliance. It should not
be only that, but that has to be at the center. And my
impression is that foreign assistance in this field can only
hope to bring about visible changes if it picks a few urgent
institutional programs that can have a catalytic effect in the
transformation of the image and the efficacy of law enforcement
bodies--things like improving internal control and
anticorruption units within law enforcement bodies; adopting
modern information technologies (IT), and that means from
regular victimization surveys to the kind of--the CompStat kind
of system for data gathering; and to have those information
technologies and adopt them as part of the policymaking
process; creating vetted units to handle complex multinational
investigations; improving investigation and prosecutorial
capacities with regards to complex financial crimes; and
support CICIG.
Senator Carper. Tell the folks what CICIG is.
Mr. Casas-Zamora. It is the UN-sponsored International
Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala that, on balance, has
been extraordinarily successful.
Senator Carper. Good. Thanks.
Mr. Chairman, this is a timely hearing given the codel that
we are going to lead to several of these countries in a couple
of weeks. I have been down there any number of times, as you
know, and my sense is there is sort of a public uprising that
is occurring in some of these countries that led in part to the
incarceration of the President of Guatemala. I will close with
just a real quick story.
I remember visiting down there a couple of years ago. We
were down in Guatemala, and we were meeting with the President
of the country. And I said to him, ``Mr. President, do you
realize that you have in your prisons--like the guards are
actually providing cell phones to the inmates so they can
continue their illicit criminal business?'' And he said,
``Really?''
And I said, ``Did you know that there is technology that
would enable those cell phones not be usable in prisons?'' And
he said, ``Really?''
And I said, ``And did you know that you have that
technology installed in a number of your prisons?'' He said,
``Really?''
And I said, ``And did you know you do not use it?'' And he
said, ``Really?''
And I said, ``And do you know''--the Interior Minister of
the country was sitting next to me. And I said, ``Do you know
the guy who is in charge of this is your Interior Minister?''
And he said, ``Really?''
Well, that President is in jail today. He is in prison
today. I am going to see if I can reach him on the phone later.
But the people down there are fed up, and some of them are
voting with their feet to try to get out. Others are voting
with their feet to try to create a situation where people like
the President are arrested and put where they belong--in jail.
Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper. And let us
hope they succeed. Senator McCaskill.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator
Johnson, I would like to thank you for holding this important
hearing today, and I would like to thank the witnesses for
sharing their insights. I will ask questions about this subject
matter for the record, but I would like to use my time today to
raise concerns regarding your investigation of Secretary
Clinton's private email server.
As you know, I am a former prosecutor and a former auditor,
so I have decades of experience in conducting investigations. I
have also conducted oversight investigations since I first got
to the Senate, and I have led Subcommittees focusing on
oversight and investigations on this Committee since 2009,
including my current position as the Ranking Member on the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI).
I think I have shown I am not afraid to go after this
administration and my own party when it comes to investigating
complicated issues of national public interest. In the last
Congress, as you may recall, we worked together to issue
document requests, interview witnesses, and release a report
related to a former DHS Deputy Inspector General (IG).
It is because of my experience as an investigator that I am
troubled by the recent letters you sent regarding Secretary
Clinton's email server. I would never quarrel with your right
as Chairman to conduct any investigation that is within this
Committee's jurisdiction. But the letters, which were sent to
companies named Datto and SECNAP, contain substantial quotes
and excerpts from documents received during the Committee's
investigation. These letters were posted on the Committee's
website and received significant press attention.
My concern is that the selective release of information has
created a public narrative that prejudices the outcome of the
investigation and creates an incomplete and potentially
misleading picture for the public of the record before the
Committee. I understand that you have sent more than 10 letters
asking for information about Secretary Clinton's email server,
but so far the documents from Platte River are the only ones
that have been received and reviewed by the Committee. Nor has
the Committee conducted any interviews or depositions.
Now, generally on this Committee and on PSI and all of the
Subcommittees I have chaired, it is our practice and custom of
the Senate to conduct interviews, to get information and
documents from multiple parties, before making any information
public. That is dictated by basic fairness. Context and balance
matter.
Nevertheless, you have chosen to release substantial
portions of internal emails from Platte River as part of your
additional requests to two different companies in a manner
which created the impression in the media and the public that
the Committee's investigation had found there were shortcomings
related to the server backups and its security.
You have also made a substantial number of public
statements regarding Secretary Clinton's ``reckless disregard''
and ``wanton disregard'' for security. I am concerned that the
totality of the record before the Committee, which is currently
limited to one set of documents from one company and includes
no interviews at all, is not a sufficient basis to draw those
dramatic conclusions.
It also appears that Platte River Network documents now
before the Committee provide additional relevant information
which leads me to further question the accuracy of your
statements. I asked my staff to review all of the Platte River
Network documents controlled by the Committee, and they were
given access to some of those materials late yesterday,
although they have not been able to see all the documents,
including many of the documents cited in your letters.
Based on that limited review, I believe there is additional
information that the public has a right to know. Right now, the
only available information on these topics can be found in your
letters and the excerpts from the documents that you have
decided to cite. Because those documents and the other
materials are not yet public, I am limited in what I can say
about them and what they tell us about Secretary Clinton's
email server. But I can say that I believe that having already
put out selected information that paints one particular picture
of what happened, the Committee has an obligation to ensure
that the public record is accurate and complete with context
and balance.
While an argument can be made that all of the Platte River
documents should be released, at a minimum I would now ask
unanimous consent to include in the hearing record the
documents and emails cited in your letters to Datto, Inc., and
SECNAP, including the complete email chains and all
attachments.\1\ Those are part of the documents that you have
already determined should be released in part, so I am asking
that the entire documents be made available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information submitted by Senator McCaskill appears in the
Appendix on page 1681.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Without objection, so ordered.
Did you have questions for--this is a hearing on
unaccompanied children, so----
Senator McCaskill. I will have questions for the record.
Chairman Johnson. I will say, by the way, I appreciated us
working together on our investigation of Charles Edwards.
Obviously, that investigation was, quite honestly, pushed when
we were in the minority. And the reason those things came to
light, those revelations, was because of the transparency of
the investigation. We are here with GAO, we are here with this
Committee deals with Inspector Generals. We have seen the
problem of not being transparent, which is exactly how Charles
Edwards got in trouble. We saw 140 inspections, reports on
inspections, investigations of the Inspector General Office
within the Veterans Administration (VA), creating real problems
in the VA. So this Committee is all about transparency. We have
certainly been working with the minority staff on these things,
and they have been aware of the letters we are sending. We have
been making many letters public so that we have that type of
transparency to put pressure on the political process and on
the agencies to comply with, for example, our subpoenas and
those types of things.
So if you are truly serious about working with me, I think
you probably would have first talked to me privately as opposed
to politicizing this in a hearing on unaccompanied children, a
really serious problem. But I think you had a couple minutes,
if you would like to ask questions here as opposed to----
Senator McCaskill. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that
I think that the investigations that I have been a part of,
there has not been one member who has released selective
information from those investigations without any bipartisan
buy-in. That has just not occurred. And that is why this is an
extraordinary situation, and that is why I did it in this
manner and this way today, because I think it is important that
if we are going to unilaterally cherrypick information out of a
closed investigation and make it public, it is important that
the public have context.
Chairman Johnson. Do you have questions for the witnesses?
Senator McCaskill. I do not.
Chairman Johnson. OK.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, could I just make a very
brief comment? You and I discussed this over--I guess last
week, and I share the concerns raised by the Senator from
Missouri. As Chairman of the Committee--well, frankly, as
Ranking Member, we have staff to do investigative work, and we
are free to do that investigative work, and it is appropriate
for us when the investigations are complete hopefully for us to
share information staff to staff. But it is appropriate, as we
discussed, to release that information to the public.
What is troubling here is the concern about whether only
part of the information was being released, and I think the
term used by Senator McCaskill was whether or not it is being
cherrypicked.
As I have said to you before, in terms of Secretary
Clinton, who I have served with, have great respect for, the
person that I will support for President, if he announces, is
the Vice President. So I am not in this for, trying to support
or promote her candidacy. We talked here several times about
the Golden Rule, and it really applies in almost everything
that we do. How would we want to be treated if we were in the
other person's shoes? And I think we just want to be fair, and
what we are really asking for here is just fairness and to
treat in this case her or anybody else the way we would want to
be treated. That is a good rule to follow.
Chairman Johnson. The issues at stake here--and, again,
this is very unfortunate that you have politicized this
important hearing here. The issues at stake involve national
security issues. We need to assume, because in other hearings
we have had in this Committee on cybersecurity, we have to
assume that everything that was on Secretary Clinton's email is
in the hands of our enemies. The purpose of my involvement in
this, this is my responsibility. This Committee is charged with
national security processes and Federal records. It is the
responsibility of this Committee.
I think it is also the responsibility of this Committee to
put pressure on the agencies to make sure that they conduct a
thorough investigation so that we can, if possible, recover
every email--even those deleted that were supposedly personal,
because we need to find out what classified information might
be on those emails that now may be in the hands of our enemy or
enemies so that we can mitigate any kind of harm. This is a
very serious effort on the part of this Committee. It is
unfortunate that Senator McCaskill had to politicize this
particular hearing on a very serious problem in and of its own
self.
But, again, I am happy to discuss this. Again, we have had
a good working relationship, as you are aware of the fact. Our
staffs have been working together. We have not sent out a
letter that you have not reviewed first or your staff has not
reviewed. But, again, I want to move on to Senator Peters.
Senator Carper. Let me just say in conclusion, thank you
for agreeing to the unanimous consent request. Sunshine is the
best disinfectant.
Chairman Johnson. I am all about transparency. Senator
Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the panelists for your testimony here today.
As was mentioned, we will be heading to Central America in
a couple weeks and have an opportunity to see some of these
conditions firsthand and ask questions. Certainly the testimony
we are getting here today helps us prepare for that and to make
sure that we are asking the right questions, which is usually
more important than the answers, to make sure first you ask the
right questions to make sure you get the right answers to them.
Ms. Gianopoulos, I want to pick up a little bit on your
testimony in relation to what you have seen through your report
and, in particular, with the social media as well as the
information campaign being done by the coyotes and others who
are trying to manipulate information. We know the power of
misinformation and how folks could use that to get their way
and to make money and to profit. This Committee has had a
number of hearings related to the Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria (ISIS) and the amount of information that they put out to
recruit individuals and the power of that.
If you could speak a little bit from your knowledge and
from your report, what is the U.S. Government doing in terms of
public information campaigns to get the true information out?
And, more importantly, how effective are we in actually doing
that? In past hearings, we have been disappointed by our
effectiveness versus adversaries. Is it a similar situation
here? Are we waging effective campaigns? If you could elaborate
on that, please.
Ms. Gianopoulos. Thank you, Senator. When we visited the
countries, as well as when we spoke with U.S. agency officials
here, we learned about a variety of different information
campaigns that both DHS and the State Department have engaged
in over the past few years to try to counter some of the
misinformation that the coyotes have put out there with regard
to the dangers of the journey and what is involved and what the
immigration policy actually is here in the United States and
what the children and the families would be eligible for once
they arrived, if they chose to make that journey.
Our recommendations in our report specifically focus on the
evaluations that are necessary to ensure that the resources
being put into these campaigns are meaningful and useful and
are done at the right times.
For example, as I mentioned in my oral statement, in 2013
the public information campaign that was put out there was done
in April, which was an appropriate time since it was aligned
with the major surge for the year. Or that was what was
anticipated. However, in 2014 that effort, that information
campaign, actually took place starting in June, which was after
the major surge for that year. So the usefulness or the
efficacy of that program was brought into question. And then
DHS and State did not even do an evaluation of their
information campaigns that year, so they did not even know if
those campaigns were having any effect or were useful or were
using the right format or any of that. So our recommendations
were specific to those agencies, and they did agree with those
recommendations that in the future they spend some of their
resources evaluating the efforts that they have taken and the
resources that they have invested to try to counter that
misinformation.
Senator Peters. It sounds as if not a lot is going on as
well. Not only are we not evaluating what is happening--I am
looking at this report. It says that DHS--and correct me if I
am wrong--does not currently have an active campaign, so the
Department of Homeland Security is not involved. Then I also
see here that the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador is distributing
information in the consular waiting area, which--is that the
extent of what we are doing? Or is there more? Please tell me
we are doing more than just that?
Ms. Gianopoulos. When we heard back from the agencies after
we had given them a draft report to review, we understood that
DHS was going to engage in an additional campaign, and they do
expect to do an evaluation of that campaign as they go forward
to see how useful it is. So we can follow up with that
afterwards and see how useful that was and if they did do an
evaluation. But in July, when we issued our report, they had
just started the campaign.
Senator Peters. In your prepared remarks, you also
mentioned that State and DHS are collaborating to implement a
new in-country refugee and parole processing program that was
going to start accepting applications in December 2014, which
is an attempt to focus on legal immigration and to address this
issue. To the best of your knowledge, how is that program
performing?
Ms. Gianopoulos. We would have to get back to you with
additional information on that.
Senator Peters. OK. I think that would be important to know
how that is progressing, so I would appreciate any information
you have in the future.
Ms. Gianopoulos. Of course.
Senator Peters. Mr. Zamora, you mentioned the importance of
having the political elite buy into these programs, and I
certainly took great interest in your testimony, and the need
particularly to increase security, rule of law, and a judiciary
free from corruption. Walk us through exactly how we can
accomplish that, in your estimation, given the fact that, in
your testimony, you also mentioned that I believe up to 20
percent in some countries is from remittances, so the
government certainly benefits from folks leaving the country
and sending remittances back. Given the corruption there, I
would imagine many of those elites also probably profit from
the illegal trafficking of individuals as well. What concrete
steps should the United States take? What resources should be
put into that? And how do you see that working?
Mr. Casas-Zamora. Thank you, Senator. There is a limit to
what any foreign actor can do with regards to this. I mean,
cleaning up rotten law enforcement institutions is something
that the country itself has to do. But the one thing that you
can do in a constructive way is to lay out some conditions, and
I suppose also, be willing to say something when certain
behavior is done by the political elites in this country.
I have the impression that if you are serious about
establishing the rule of law in any of these countries, the
idea of introducing indefinite reelection is probably not a
good idea. The idea of packing the supreme court with your
acolytes is probably not a good idea.
So my humble suggestion is that you measure the seriousness
of your partners, of your political partners in Central America
by the extent to which they are willing to be serious with
regard to judicial independence and the autonomy of overseeing
institutions. The rest is really up to them.
And the other thing that I would humbly suggest is that
some of the programs that I mentioned before that can be done
in the area of law enforcement, they should be done on the
basis of matching funds from these countries. I am going to be
very blunt about this, but I do not think that it is fair,
regardless of the level of responsibility that the United
States may have on what is happening in Central America--there
is some responsibility, but the elites in these countries
should not be left off the hook.
Senator Peters. And if I may just follow up, and, Mr. Wood,
too, if you would add, both of you have mentioned that the way
to have that countervailing force--because, you are right, it
has to come from within the country--is the strength of civil
society and of those organizations in there. How would you
assess the strength of civil society? And is that a primary
focus for you? How can we best engage that in order to allow
that sunshine and accountability to come from within the
country? If both of you could briefly mention how we would
assess civil society strength and what we need to do to
strengthen it.
Mr. Casas-Zamora. It is very difficult to do it in the
abstract, but I think you can identify champions of reform.
People on the ground will tell you who is serious about these
things, and I can give you a few examples of people that defy
impossible odds; not just from civil society but also from
within institutions, defying impossible odds has managed to
promote change: former Attorney General Claudia Paz y Paz in
Guatemala, an exceptionally brave woman; police reformer Helen
Mack, in Guatemala, another exceptionally brave individual;
some of the judges and prosecutors that just recently stood up
to President Perez Molina in Guatemala; the judges of the
constitutional court in El Salvador that have been willing over
the past few years to assert their independence from political
power.
All those people are champions of reform, and I think they
at least deserve the backing of the international community in
what they are trying to do, which is change their countries.
Senator Peters. Thank you.
Mr. Wood. First of all, I would just like to say that in
all of these cases--and I know everybody understands this, but
there is no silver bullet. I mean, these are complex--there
have to be complex solutions, and we have to address it at
multiple levels.
On your question on civil society, one of the most
interesting things I think we have seen in Mexico over the past
year or so has been the rise of civil society organizations
that are focused on rule of law but in particular on
anticorruption issues. And we have seen a number of very well
respected think tanks actually doing active work trying to
understand what international best practices are in terms of
anticorruption and transparency, and they have worked very
closely with the government to design the new national
anticorruption system.
That was brought about because the Mexican Government came
under intense pressure from civil society to do so, and they
engaged with academic institutions and think tanks and civil
society to try to create at least a good legal framework. But
that is not enough. What you now need is you need the oversight
and the vigilance of civil society and from foreign governments
to make sure that that happens.
As Kevin just said, it is relatively easy to identify who
the reliable local partners are. You just need to spend some
time in-country, and the missions, you know, U.S. Government
missions in-country, should be able to pick up that information
very quickly by talking to universities and to think tanks
themselves.
Mr. Casas-Zamora. Can I just say something really quickly?
Maybe the takeaway point here is there are people you can work
with in Central America, and that is very important. It is not
fair just to, throw up our hands in despair and say, well, we
are going to waste our money. I think there are good people to
work with there. There are not many, but identifying those
champions of reform is certainly possible.
Senator Peters. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. I think the question is can you work with
the governments, and it is identifying them. Senator Lankford.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD
Senator Lankford. Thank you. Thank you all for your
testimony today and for what you have done already in this
process. I, like many others on this panel, have visited the
Northern Triangle area, have had the opportunity to be able to
ask questions and be able to walk through both with government
leaders and see what our government is doing on the ground and
be able to visit with people there, watch the repatriation
process as it happens in multiple countries, be able to
interact, and there is a great deal that can be learned there,
and it is incredibly complex in the issues that we face.
I also am one that believes that all people are created in
the image of God and have value and worth. I think every
individual is to be respected. So the way that we talk about
and treat people shows our value for individuals, but also
reinforces our value, what we believe, that God has put His
unique stamp on every individual. So we speak about people and
we treat issues differently when you have that type of
perspective.
I do have a couple broad questions. Then I want to take
things into some specifics.
We speak often of the Northern Triangle and the complexity
of the issues there. We do not see the same flood of migrants
coming in from Belize, from Nicaragua, from Costa Rica, no
other places in Central America, other places like Belize where
it is not any farther to go. Why? What can we learn by saying
we are not seeing this flood from Belize but we are seeing it
from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador?
Mr. Wood. If I can just jump on this, we visited Belize
when we were on our recent tour. We had a visit to border
management agency facilities on the Mexico-Belize border. What
we learned there was that there is a political will on the part
of the Belize Government to actually establish not just order
but really to gather data. And these are professionals. They
actually do not have huge financial resources behind them, but
they are willing to cooperate with their Mexican counterparts.
Just to give you one example, there is one point on the
border where there are in fact, two Mexican border posts but
only one Belize border post. The Belize Government did not want
to actually spend to build another border post, which is only a
few miles away. So what they did was they worked with the
Mexican Government to build a new road that brought both of
these Mexican border crossings to the one Belize border
management station right there.
The highway is walled in on either side, so you cannot sort
of jump off it and enter the country illegally in that way. And
when you get to the border crossing on the Belize side, they
are making an effort to actually gather biometric data on all
people coming in and leaving the country.
This is a political will question, and what you do not see
is you do not see that on the side of the Guatemalan
authorities. When you cross over from Mexico into Guatemala,
you see very minimal presence of the State and an absence of a
will to do anything.
I will give you one example there. The Mexican Government
paid for an electricity line to go from southern Mexico across
the border into Guatemala so the Guatemalan border authorities
would have access to electricity rather than burning a dirty
diesel generator, as they were doing before. Three years ago,
the electricity line was put in place. The Guatemalan
Government to date has not paid for the enchufe, the socket to
be put in there so the government agencies can actually use
that electricity. The Mexican Government is providing that for
free. They have done it all. That lack of will and perhaps lack
of capacity is one of the crucial elements of it.
Senator Lankford. Have you also seen some things in the
lack of shared data between the countries in the Northern
Triangle and the United States? How are we doing with records
and data and individuals that are traveling back and forth?
Officer Cabrera, do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Cabrera. Yes, sir. Thank you. We do not really share--
we do not get the information from these countries, from any
other countries, unless there is an Interpol issue, some type
of major international criminal----
Senator Lankford. So when individuals are returned back to
the country, we are not getting that information from them that
is in-country data as far as criminal records or any of that
kind of----
Mr. Cabrera. For instance, if we get somebody from, say,
Honduras that comes in, we have no idea what crimes he may have
committed in his home country.
Senator Lankford. Even in the return?
Mr. Cabrera. When we return them back there?
Senator Lankford. When we return them back. The key is if
we have apprehended someone and we are returning them back to
their country, is there no way to be able to complete the
records to say that those records, now we know more about this
individual, we have apprehended them, we have our records, we
obviously are turning that information over to them who we
think we have, but they are not sharing their information with
us.
Mr. Cabrera. No, they are not. As far as we know, as far as
Border Patrol knows, we do not get that information.
Senator Lankford. OK. Mr. Zamora.
Mr. Casas-Zamora. Thank you, Senator. I would just go back
for a second, if you will allow me to go back for a second to
the previous question. I think your question hints at something
that is crucial to understand here, which is that the reason
why these countries are, say, vulnerable to organized crime is
not merely an accident of geography. It is not simply due to
the fact that they happen to be between the main producer of
drugs and the main consumer of drugs. I mean, there is more to
that.
These countries of the Northern Triangle are vulnerable to
organized crime primarily because their States are just so
anemic that they are not able in some cases to exert effective
control over their territory, which is obviously a boon for
crime syndicates.
They are vulnerable because their public institutions,
which are debilitated by corruption, are incapable of making
the investments that would prevent them from having--I mean,
one of the tragedies of this story is that these countries have
25 percent, 30 percent of their young people that are neither
studying nor working.
Senator Lankford. Right.
Mr. Casas-Zamora. And that is a tragedy. I mean, they are
vulnerable to organized crime because their law enforcement
institutions have all but collapsed. So, I mean, there is more
than geography.
Senator Lankford. There is a lot more to it, and that is
part of the challenge that we have. We have this belief that
immigration is only an issue with us. When I was in the region
not long ago, I was visiting with some of the officials from
Costa Rica, who I will leave unnamed, who in the course of
conversation were discussing Nicaraguans will do the jobs that
Costa Ricans will not do, and that they have immigrants coming
over from Nicaragua into Costa Rica, and they have to manage
their border and figure out how to be able to do that and how
they are actually trying to increase their enforcement in Costa
Rica to be able to protect jobs for Costa Ricans from
Nicaraguans coming over.
So this is not unique to the United States. The challenge
that we have is to try to find the uniqueness of it. I think
that is part of the emphasis right now with dealing with the
Northern Triangle, and what we are trying to do as the United
States and what we have done for a long time to try to help
their legal system through the process that, until we get to
that spot, it does not get better.
One thing I do want to be able to highlight, though, is the
social media question on it, because it was my understanding
when I visited with many families there and individuals over
there that it was not just they were posting on social media,
``Hey, I made it''; it is that they were holding up their
Notice to Appear, taking a picture with their Notice to Appear
and saying, ``I have legal paperwork here in the United States,
here I am, come join me.'' Officer Cabrera.
Mr. Cabrera. Yes, sir. In Border Patrol circles, that
paperwork is now known as the ``Notice to Disappear.'' Eighty
percent, 90 percent of those folks will not show up for that
hearing. And when we have our Commissioner come down or go to
these countries and say there will be no permisos, yet that
same day we release people with the NTAs, technically they are
not called a ``permiso,'' but, in effect, that is what they
are. We are allowing them to travel further into the country.
They hit these sanctuary cities where they will never be seen
again.
Senator Lankford. Right.
Mr. Cabrera. And that seems to be the issue. We can talk
about all these, Ms. Gianopoulos over here, she said there are
social media issues, and there are. And when you have this
compounded with the NTAs, we will never see these folks again.
And unless we are talking about the rule of law in other
countries, but we are not enforcing the rule of law in this
country, but we are concerned about helping others enforce
their rule of law. We need to enforce our rule of law.
Senator Lankford. Correct. So we are on the one hand
telling people it is very dangerous to come, do not make the
trip. On the other hand, individuals that just made the trip
are sending the message down, ``I made it. And not only did I
make it, this government gave me a Notice to Disappear,'' as
you just mentioned, ``I am allowed to stay. I am not going to
have 2 or 3 years where I carry this paperwork around, where I
cannot be stopped, basically, I do have legal status basically
for 2 or 3 years until there is a Notice to Appear.'' Then you
do not actually appear, and you blend into society, and no one
actually tries to pick you up at that point.
So we are sending this double message. We can put a
commercial out that says it is dangerous, but it is not going
to compete with someone who says, ``Hey, I am with family in
the United States and have legal status. What the government
said you will not get I just did get, and no one is actually
following up with me on us.'' And the records show from 2012 at
this point we have actually removed to date 11.7 percent of the
individuals that came in during that time period from 2012. And
so we are actually not doing removals, we are not actually
following up with people, and it has become a big issue.
So any other final comments on that, Ms. Gianopoulos?
Ms. Gianopoulos. Yes, Senator. I wanted to make two quick
comments on the line of questioning that you had over the last
few moments.
First of all, when we were in-country, a USAID grantee told
us they were trying to gather some data on the returnees to the
countries at the repatriation centers. This is the
International Organization for Migration (IOM). It is one of
the grantees who is helping the repatriated folks get back into
society and find a person, especially if it is children, to
find someone in the country to come and get them and take care
of them once they have been returned to one of the Northern
Triangle countries.
I also wanted to point out--we talked a little bit about
the willingness of the individual countries to be partners in
some of these efforts. One of the things that we found in
Honduras is that there is a State and the Department of Justice
(DOJ) effort to try to train prosecutors in order to
effectively put some of these folks behind bars or at least get
them into a courtroom and prosecute them.
There is a program where the Honduran Government is
supposed to provide prosecutors that would be available for at
least 18 months to not only be trained but also to effectively
carry out these duties.
When we were in-country, we found that though there has
been prosecutors participating in the program prior to our
visit, there were no active prosecutors in this program from
the Honduran side at the time of our visit. Even though State
and DOJ were working together and trying to get this well-
intentioned program off the ground, there was nobody to train.
So even though we are putting money into these efforts----
Senator Lankford. Do we know how much money is being put
into that effort?
Ms. Gianopoulos. I can get that information for you,
Senator. I do not have it off the top of my head.
But some of the information that we got that was very
disturbing to us, that even though U.S. agencies are doing
their best to make some effort and make some inroads into this
big problem, sometimes the lack of sustainability in the
country, either by the government or by other factors, is
inhibiting our ability to do what we need to do.
Senator Lankford. All right.
Senator Carper. Senator Lankford, I have asked the Chairman
if I could just intercede here just for a moment. I am not sure
which country it is, but in at least one of the three countries
we are talking about, the criminal elements have targeted
police and members of police families in an effort to deter
them from doing their job. And when you hear about prosecutors
that do not prosecute or folks who will not even show up to be
trained to be a prosecutor, judges that do not judge, somebody
is going to kill you or your family, that is pretty good
intimidation.
Senator Lankford. OK. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
Ms. Gianopoulos, you talked about the marketing efforts on
the part of America, talking about, you are not going to be
able to stay, it is a dangerous journey, and all those types of
things, and the effect of that versus the social media.
I recall at least hearing from the government officials
down in Central America that they had their own marketing
campaign, or at least slogan: ``Hey, these are our kids. These
are our children. Let us protect them.''
Was that just a message they were telling us here, or did
they actually try and convey that? And, again, the fact that
there was nobody showing up for that training, are they serious
about that, actually trying to keep their citizens in their
country?
Ms. Gianopoulos. Well, we saw some of the posters when we
visited the repatriation centers. We saw some of the posters,
not just those from the U.S. agencies but also from the
individual governments themselves trying to deter folks from
making that dangerous journey.
But we also saw some issues, as I mentioned, with the
Honduran Government without the prosecutors available to
fulfill their roles in this program. Also, in El Salvador, we
heard a lot about the lack of economic opportunity for kids
that either they cannot cross gang territory to go to school
once they have reached a certain level or else they will, be
either conscripted into the gangs or raped or whatever. But we
also heard about some good programs that we saw that the U.S.
Government is supporting.
For example, there was a computer training program in El
Salvador that we went to visit, a beautiful room full of
computers but there was no computer teacher because the El
Salvadoran Government had not provided the computer teacher at
the time of our visit back in March. And we did not know, was
there someone eventually coming? I mean, certainly we heard
that there was an intention of someone there to fulfill their
role and be the partner to the U.S. agencies who had provided
the infrastructure.
Chairman Johnson. OK. Again, I am just looking for the
willingness of these societies to reform to the point where
their citizens actually want to stay in their country.
Mr. Casas-Zamora, I think it was in your testimony, you
talked about how much of their GDP is actually derived from
remittances from America back to Central America. That is a
pretty powerful incentive to have more people leave, take
advantage of the wage differential, take advantage of this line
of opportunity to fund their economy. Can you speak a little
bit more to that?
Mr. Casas-Zamora. Thank you, Senator. That is one of the
crucial questions here. It is a powerful incentive. I mean, the
only way to counter that is to generate alternative sources of
opportunity in the country. And to tell you the truth, that is
not easy.
Chairman Johnson. Well, that requires the rule of law. Let
me just ask you a macro question here. How many people in the
world do you think want to come to the United States? Just off
the top of your head, just go right down, how many people
throughout the world? What is the population now? More than 7
billion people?
Ms. Gianopoulos. Despite the fact that I was a math major
in college, I am not sure I could give you a number.
Chairman Johnson. It is a lot, isn't it? I mean, that is my
point.
Mr. Casas-Zamora. I mean, I cannot possibly for the life of
me answer that question, but I will give you----
Chairman Johnson. I was not expecting an accurate answer.
It was a rhetorical point.
Mr. Casas-Zamora. But I will give you a number that really
made my jaw fall to the floor a couple of days ago. A recent
opinion poll in Honduras said or found that 63 percent of
Hondurans are willing to leave their country if given the
chance to. So that in itself is a very powerful number.
Chairman Johnson. Again, that is not a good State of
affairs. It is simply not. Dr. Wood.
Mr. Wood. Yes, the question is an interesting one, but I
would say that if you gave those same people who want to come
to the United States the chance to stay in their own country,
many of them would choose that instead--under the right
conditions.
Chairman Johnson. So that is the gold policy. Stop the
flow, but the way you have to stop the flow is you do need to
stop incentivizing people to come here.
Mr. Wood. But look at what has happened in the case of----
Chairman Johnson. We need to figure out some way to provide
opportunities, and, unfortunately, without a rule of law, with
the corruption that is pretty endemic in these nations right
now, it is going to be difficult, which kind of gets me to my
next question in terms of nongovernmental organizations. I will
go to you, Bishop. I have a great deal of respect for the
Catholic Church. I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran, worked hard,
helping the Catholic school system in Oshkosh to survive to the
point were I was actually on the Finance Council of the Diocese
of Green Bay. I love what the Catholic Church does in terms of
your charities and globally.
Talk to me about the ability of the Non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), Catholic Charities, in order to
effectively operate without influence, without corruption from
those governments. How effective can they be? And can we
strengthen their hand in those countries?
Rev. Seitz. I think that is part of the answer to these
difficult problems, is public-private partnerships down there,
because some of the agencies that are least subject to
influence by the forces of corruption are church agencies, for
instance, and other NGO's. We are working very hard in these
countries through Catholic Relief Services, for instance. We
have a program called ``Youth Builders'' that tries to provide
skills to these young people and, more important than that,
hope that gives them a way to see some future and helps to
reintegrate those who are returned.
I think one of the most effective programs that we have
going is not real visible, but it is the youth programs that
every single Catholic parish does in these countries. They have
some incredible youth ministry going on. I think there might be
some way to connect with these organizations and other NGO's in
order to provide a safer----
Chairman Johnson. Part of my point is I am trying to point
out that Catch-22. I mean, the very people that are leaving the
country are the very people those countries need to stay in the
country to make it an acceptable society.
Rev. Seitz. They are losing their best and brightest.
Chairman Johnson. Yes, and that is tragic.
Dr. Wood, do you want to speak to those NGO's and what the
prospects are of them working effectively within those corrupt
systems?
Mr. Wood. Yes. I think that what we are seeing is--we are
in the middle of a learning process right now about how society
can hold government accountable. And there is an interesting
process that we are seeing where governments are being forced,
partly because of civil society, partly because of
international media attention, partly because of foreign
investors--and I would make that point strongly. What we have
in the United States with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,
U.K. Bribery Act in great Britain, those are very important
international norms that can have a big impact.
I have just been witness to the Mexican energy reforms, oil
auctions. What they have done there in terms of transparency is
extraordinary. Every single step of the way in the contract, in
the bidding process, is exposed to sunlight, as it were. You
can literally--when they announce the bids, the bid is there on
camera, written and signed by the company concerned. It is
possible to do these things. The technology exists. What you
need to have is you need to force governments to actually have
the will to do that.
Chairman Johnson. By the way, I do appreciate your use of
the word ``transparency.'' We were using it in a different
context earlier. Mr. Casas-Zamora.
Mr. Casas-Zamora. Thank you, Senator. This is really the
crux of the matter. The paradox that you alluded to is really
central. I mean, I think we have to be aware of the risk, the
real risk that the economic future of the Northern Triangle
ends up hinging on the ability to continue exporting its young
people. And that would be enormously sad because truly, as I
see it today, in the absence of a dramatic change of heart by
the political and economic elites, these countries will have to
give up their best hope for the future in order to have any
kind of future. And there are no easy ways to prevent this, but
I think the question of economic opportunity is really at the
heart of this.
Chairman Johnson. First of all, my manufacturing background
forces me to go to root cause and acknowledge those realities.
And it may be counterintuitive, but probably the most
compassionate thing we can do--and, again, the goal we should
be achieving is to stop the flow because it is--in the long
term, it is the most compassionate, it is the best thing to do.
To have those countries empty 60-some percent of the
populations, on a compassionate basis, flowing to the United
States, that would not be good for those countries long term.
So, again, I am just trying to look at that overall macro
point that somehow--and it is extremely difficult--somehow we
have to try and get those societies to succeed and recognize
all the problems.
Bishop, I will let you have the last word before I turn it
over to Senator Carper.
Rev. Seitz. I am glad you are looking at the macro issues.
I think we need to. But we also need to look at the root causes
if we are going to deal with the macro. We cannot simply say,
well, for this overarching goal we have to send children back
without due process, without representation, back into
situations that they are fleeing from, fleeing for their lives.
And that seem very clear to us that is exactly what is
happening.
Chairman Johnson. I think that is when we start talking
about where should aid flow. Maybe it should be flowing into
those countries to provide and support those types of--again,
this is, obviously, from this hearing an incredibly complex,
incredibly difficult problem. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thank you. I am going to telegraph--in
baseball, they say a pitcher telegraphs his pitch or her pitch.
That tells you what kind of pitch he is going to throw. I am
going to telegraph my pitch and say that the next question, not
this first one but the next question I ask, is: Where do you
think there is agreement among members of this panel as to the
priorities for us going forward, us, our government, to an
extent this Committee? But where do you think there is
agreement, consensus? And one of the things I love--this is a
great Committee hearing and a great panel, but I want you to
think about where is the consensus for us to go forward. So
that is going to be my second question.
The first question I would ask, for Mr. Casas-Zamora and
for Bishop Seitz, and it has been alluded to, but we know that
there has been violence in these countries for years. I was
sent down when I was a House Member many moons ago by our
Speaker, Jim Wright from Texas, and he sent about half a dozen
U.S. Representatives to Costa Rica to attend a summit of Latin
American Presidents. And we heard from any number of the
Presidents there about the violence in their own countries. So
we know that violence in that part of the world is not
something that is new.
But if you could, just to help us understand the migration
surge over at least the last couple of years, just explain for
us the ways in which the violence may have changed in the
Northern Triangle. In particular, how is it affecting kids?
Mr. Casas-Zamora. Thank you, Senator. Well, I will start
with the obvious. None of these countries has ever been
Denmark, right? But I think it is very clear from the figures
that at least criminal violence--they used to have a lot of
political violence, and that subsided after the peace accords
and all that. But the level of criminal violence that we are
witnessing today is unparalleled. It is unparalleled. It is
unprecedented and unparalleled. It is unprecedented because the
homicide rates that we are seeing in countries like Honduras
and this particular year in El Salvador really, are of a level
that has not been seen even in Colombia in its darkest days. So
there is a big difference there, and that you do not see
anywhere else in the world. The current intensity of the
problem is really beyond doubt.
As to how this affects children, well, in all sorts of
ways. I mean, I would guess that a fearful society as these
societies are is not a good place to raise children, is not a
good place to educate children. And, by the way, States that
are anemic in terms of their revenue are not able to do the
most basic things. They are not able to provide an education to
all these kids. And as long as they do not have an opportunity
to get an education, as long as they do not have an opportunity
to get proper job training, they are going to fall for the lure
of organized criminal syndicates.
So, it is a very difficult situation.
Senator Carper. Thank you. All right. Where is there
consensus for us, for our country, for a path forward? Please,
Bishop Seitz.
Rev. Seitz. If I might at first just add----
Senator Carper. Just very briefly.
Rev. Seitz. It was mentioned earlier why is there such a
difference between these three countries and the others
surrounding them? Nicaragua may be poorer. Again, the violence
is the difference, and so we have to be alert to that. It is
something we cannot even as Americans really identify with.
Even the schools are taken over very often in Honduras and El
Salvador by the drug gangs. They are in charge. They can get
payments from the teachers and so on. It is just hard to
imagine, and not hard to understand why they would flee. And
how can we even begin to calculate the economic impact?
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
Rev. Seitz. So we are certainly in agreement that it is
better to create a better situation in these countries so that
they do not need to flee. I hope we are also in agreement that
we need to make sure that the basic human rights of those who
are fleeing and have legitimate asylum claims should be
respected.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Is it Dr. Wood or Mr. Wood?
Mr. Wood. I have a Ph.D. Whatever you want to call me.
Senator Carper. All right, Doc.
Mr. Wood. Thanks. I think we have come to more or less a
consensus here on this panel that this is a very complex
problem and it requires a very complex solution, a
multidimensional approach. Enforcement alone is not going to do
it. Aid alone is not going to do it. Governments alone are not
going to do it. And that is the only way that I see is we are
actually going to make real progress on this, is by looking at
all of the factors and trying to work on a comprehensive
solution to this.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you. I will just ask this
rhetorical question, but I wonder if--you call it the Alliance
for Prosperity. I wonder if that is sort of a comprehensive
approach. It sounds to me like it is intended to be. Mr. Casas-
Zamora.
Mr. Casas-Zamora. Yes, I mean, I would echo what has just
been said. I would only hope that we are also in agreement that
there has to be buy-in from political elites in these
countries----
Senator Carper. In Colombia. I have been told repeatedly
that was one of the keys in Colombia.
Mr. Casas-Zamora. For any external effort to have an impact
in the way you want it to have an impact.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Mr. Cabrera, one of the things you said, Chris, that really
resonated with me--and it was in your testimony; I read it, and
then you said it again--is when you have a large group of
particularly young people, young families trying to get across
the border, they can take--literally, like capture a whole
bunch of your people and sort of freeze up--at least on the
rest of the border, they are just unprotected, unguarded. That
is a really good takeaway from you. Go ahead.
Mr. Cabrera. Yes, Senator. Thank you. I think for me, I
think we should all be in agreement on the health and safety of
these children that are coming across as well as the
preservation of their innocence. I think where we are differing
here is how to attack that point right there. It is a very
dangerous trip. And I think that is at the core of the problem,
at least in my eyes. I am a father. I see these children every
day, and, quite frankly, it strikes a nerve with me to see what
these children have to go through.
And as the Bishop mentioned a few minutes ago, legitimate
asylum claims, I think that is the key, is the legitimate
asylum claims. All too often we are seeing people come across
with rehearsed stories of asylum claims, and there are a lot of
people that have legitimate asylum claims. But when you have so
many, you get desensitized, and so many people are claiming it
that it is watering down the word ``asylum.''
Chairman Johnson. Let me quickly jump in here, because we
went down to the border, and what the Border Patrol has done is
really extraordinary in reaction to this. The humanity that you
have, having to grapple with an incredibly difficult problem,
the agents down there really are doing an extraordinary job,
and I am sure Senator Carper would agree with me on that. I
just wanted--as long as you were making that point, I wanted to
point that out. We truly appreciate that in terms of what you
have done.
Mr. Cabrera. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Ms. Gianopoulos.
Ms. Gianopoulos. I would say we have quite a number of
different opinions on the mechanisms and factors that would go
into a successful campaign. But what I think is consistent is
that we all want the campaign to meet its policy goals. And in
order to do that, we need to go back and check after we have
taken these steps and after we have invested these resources to
make sure that the goals that we have established are the right
ones, the ones that Congress wants to achieve, and that
whatever actions are being taken by the U.S. agencies are
actually moving us in the direction of those goals. And if they
are not, then we need to change course in order to meet those
goals in the future.
Senator Carper. Sort of a way of saying what you do not
measure you cannot manage, and there was a guy named Vince
Lombardi--what was that team that he coached? Some team up in
Green Bay. He used to say that if you are not keeping score,
you are just practicing.
Ms. Gianopoulos. And if you do not have a map, you do not
know where you are going.
Senator Carper. We could do this all day. [Laughter.]
Thank you all you have been a terrific panel. Thank you so
much.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper. And we may
have just done this. We normally give the witnesses a last
opportunity to say something to kind of summarize things. But
we will do it again because Senator Carper had a little more
specific question. So we will start with you, Bishop, and just
kind of go right down the line before we close out the hearing.
Rev. Seitz. Once again, I thank you very much for this
opportunity. I am really delighted we have looked at the in-
country situation with the focus that it deserves. We have not
spoken a whole lot about the situation in Mexico. I am
concerned that while this is, in many ways a huge initiative on
their part, we really need to look at the potential for abuses
in the way that they are responding, because these children
deserve an opportunity to tell their story and for due process
as offered by international law.
We need to see ourselves, as we have been in the past, a
moral beacon in the way that we respond to these refugee
situations. There are other countries that have received so
many more than what we are looking at here, up to half of their
population in refugees in the Middle East. And if we balk at
our responsibility in this small case, it is difficult for us
to make a claim.
I would also encourage us to look at ways that we can
protect the rights of children who arrive here also. I know it
is complicated, but they are going to be hesitant to tell the
whole story of the violence they have experienced. That has
been my experience. You have to get to know them. And a person
in a uniform is not necessarily going to be trusted, even
though in our country they should ordinarily be. That has not
been their experience in their home country. We need to give
them a good opportunity to truly assess their situation and
give them representation. That is the best way, by the way,
that we can assure that they will appear in court.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Bishop. Dr. Wood.
Mr. Wood. Thank you. Let me just focus my closing comments
on the case of Mexico, because I think the Bishop makes a very
good point here. It is an impressive advance that has happened
in Mexico. It is a work in progress. Abuses have gone up,
obviously. That is in large part, I would argue, because of
increased interaction between authorities and migrants, opening
the door for those kind of abuses.
I think there is a great deal that can be done in terms of
U.S.-Mexico cooperation and sharing the experiences, some of
the very positive experiences on the U.S.-Mexico border,
showing how migrants are treated in the United States, and
basically I would say focus on due process.
One of the incidents that we saw in Mexico at a detention
center was that we asked how migrants were registered when they
were brought in, and we were told there is no computer system
at this holding facility, it occurs at the bigger facility. And
I said, ``Well, they are in your hands for a couple of hours.
How do you actually maintain those records?'' They said, ``Oh,
we have forms that we fill out.''
So the guy shows me the form, and the form actually had all
the usual questions, name, place of origin, et cetera, et
cetera, thumbprints. But there were some questions that were
already filled out, that were already answered on that form, on
a supposedly blank form. One of them was, ``Are you claiming
refugee status?'' And it said, ``No.''
Now, those are the kind of things of due process that I
think we have to be very vigilant about, and we have to push
the Mexican Government to make sure that they are doing what
they should be doing to give people fair treatment.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Dr. Wood. Mr. Casas-Zamora.
Mr. Casas-Zamora. Thank you so much, Senator. It has been a
pleasure and an honor to be part of this hearing.
I think the United States can and perhaps should play a
very important role in helping these countries help themselves.
I think the Alliance for Prosperity is a good way to start. I
hope that it leads to a more permanent engagement of the United
States, reengagement of the United States with the region. But
I would also say that you should not lose sight that it is
ultimately the responsibility of the countries themselves to be
serious about reform, and that has a very practical
implication. Do not let the political elites of these
countries, the political and economic elites of these countries
off the hook--the political and economic elites that have made
a hash job in running these countries. And that means that the
task of nudging them toward enacting robust, progressive tax
systems, which they do not have, and the task of making sure
that they protect judicial independence and protect the
autonomy of overseeing institutions are really essential.
And my humble suggestion is that the United States should
not be shy about demanding those structural changes. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you. And, of course, you are
describing the strings I would be talking about for any kind of
financial aid. Agent Cabrera.
Mr. Cabrera. Thank you, Senator. As you know, I am a law
enforcement officer and I am paid to enforce the law. The
taxpayers expect me to enforce the law. However, the powers
that be are prohibiting us Border Patrol agents from enforcing
those laws.
We keep talking about waging a campaign. If we are waging
this campaign, we are not doing a very good job. The only thing
we are succeeding in doing is giving credence to the smugglers,
the coyotes. We are giving credence to their campaigns by
letting people go. And until we can enforce what we have on the
books and send a clear message, not a double-sided message,
then we are going to continue in the process that we are going.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Agent, for your service as
well.
Mr. Cabrera. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Johnson. Ms. Gianopoulos.
Ms. Gianopoulos. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. As I was just mentioning a few moments ago, it is
important for us--we talked a lot about social media here today
at the hearing. It is important for us as the U.S. Government
and our agencies and our practices that we keep in mind that
things are changing. They are changing continuously, whether it
is the use of social media, the misperceptions about
immigration policy, or what have you. So we need to as the U.S.
Government continually provide oversight and evaluation for
what it is that we are doing to try to combat some of these
concerns and the flow of migrants, especially migrant children,
into the United States. So continuously looking back to see:
Are we doing what we said we wanted to do? Are we reaching the
goals, the policy goals, the procedural and program goals that
we have established for ourselves? And if not, then we need to
change course or make adjustments. And hearings like this and
other hearings that the Committee has had are perfect tools and
operations to be able to allow the U.S. Government to do that.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you. And, again, thank you for the
time you have taken, your thoughtful testimony. I think we are
looking at the reality. I think we are very seriously exploring
these issues and laying out how difficult the problem is. But
that is no reason to shy away from making sure we understand
what the full extent of the problem is.
Again, thank you all. The hearing record will remain open
for 15 days until November 5 at 5 p.m. for the submission of
statements and questions for the record.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
AMERICA'S HEROIN EPIDEMIC AT THE
BORDER: LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS TO COMBAT ILLICIT NARCOTIC TRAFFICKING
----------
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Phoenix, AZ.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:59 a.m., in the
Historic Senate Chamber, Arizona State Capitol Museum, Third
floor, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, McCain, and Flake.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON
Chairman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing of the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs is now
called to order.
I want to thank the State of Arizona, Governor Ducey, and
my colleagues, Senator Flake and Senator McCain, for inviting
us here and discussing an incredibly important topic: The
security of our border, an enormous problem facing this Nation.
The title of this hearing is ``America's Heroin Epidemic at
the Border: Local, State, and Federal Law Enforcement Efforts
to Combat Illicit Narcotic Trafficking.''
When I became chairman of this Committee in January of this
year, one of the top priorities of the Subcommittee was really
border security, and this is our 13th hearing, trying to lay
out the reality of the situation.
I was talking to the Governor earlier. And coming from the
business world, particularly in my case, manufacturing, I have
solved a lot of problems. And there is actually a process to go
through solving a problem. It starts with laying out the
reality of the situation. And based on that reality, you set
yourself up with achievable goals. Then you start to design the
strategies.
We have an enormous problem in this Nation. What is my true
definition of a problem? One that does not have any solutions.
It is multi-faceted, multi-cause. One thing I will say, having
spent now the better part of the entire year fully exploring
this with hearings, with trips to the border, with trips to
Central America, there are multiple causes. I think a number of
Members on the Committee would agree with me on this--the root
cause of the fact that we do not have a secure border is
America's insatiable demand for drugs, because that demand has
given rise to the rise of the drug cartels.
And I always point out, the drug cartels, it is a business.
And they have learned to expand the product line. They have a
smuggling route, and then they begin, to think well, let us
just use that for human trafficking, sex trafficking. They
start using economic migrants as diversion for their illicit
drug trafficking. So it is an enormous problem.
I know I am making no big statement. I will ask that my
brief opening statement be entered into the record\1\ without
objection. And also that Senator Kelly Ayotte's statement also
be entered into the record.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
Appendix on page 1961.
\2\ The prepared statement of Senator Ayotte appears in the
Appendix on page 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We held a hearing up in New Hampshire where she was in
charge of that hearing as the chairperson, describing the
problem of heroin overdoses in New Hampshire. It starts: In
2008, in New Hampshire there were 16 overdoses from heroin. Now
there's nearly 250 overdoses reported in 2014.
And in Wisconsin, very similarly, between 2000 and 2007,
Wisconsin averaged about 29 heroin overdoses; already 200 in
2014. I think we are on pace, unfortunately, to break that
record in 2015. So this is an enormously difficult problem. And
it is one that we have to face.
We have a very distinguished panel, two panels of witnesses
here, including the Governor of the State of Arizona. I really
do appreciate everybody's attention to this matter.
I am really looking forward to hearing our witnesses, lay
out that reality. And, again, it is a harsh reality. It is not
fun to look at, and we are going to have a number of things we
have to do to start solving them.
So with that, I will turn it over to my distinguished
colleague, Senator McCain, for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN
Senator McCain. I want to thank you, Senator Johnson,
Chairman, Homeland Security Committee, which in my duty you
have done an outstanding job. And this is one, as you
mentioned, series of hearings that the Committee has had in the
Senate trying to address this very serious issue. And I thank
you for leaving sunny Wisconsin to come here to join us in
Arizona.
Chairman Johnson. It was sunny, a little chilly.
Senator McCain. Yes, what, 10?
Again, I want to thank you for agreeing to hold this field
hearing in Arizona. As we will soon see here from the witnesses
today, our State has the dubious distinction of being the
primary entry point of trafficking corridor and distribution
hub for drugs transported from Mexico to the United States by
the Sinaloa Cartel.
We have made progress in securing our border. There is no
doubt about that. Reduction in apprehensions over the past few
years demonstrate the effectiveness of the men and women in the
Border Patrol that they have had in preventing illegal entry of
people crossing our border. Increased surveillance towers and
other technologies will only increase that effectiveness.
But clearly, we are losing the war with the transnational
criminal organizations (TCO) that traffic illicit narcotics
into our country. But the demand for these drugs--heroin, meth,
cocaine--is too high, and the profits the cartels make are too
great to simply arrest our way out of this problem.
We must improve our drug interdiction strategy, but we must
also do what is possible to reduce the demands for these drugs.
A front to Arizona is not just as a drug corridor. These drugs
stay in our State, poisoning our children, and doing great harm
to our communities. Deaths in overdose from heroin are
skyrocketing.
According to the Arizona Department of Health Services,
heroin-related deaths increased from less than 50 in 2004 to
almost 200 in 2014. The reality is, Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) cannot interdict 100 percent of these drugs at
the border or at our ports of entry (POE). That is why it is
critical we use our intelligence capabilities and strengthen
partnerships between Federal, State, and local law enforcement
to combat these drug traffickers as a cohesive unit.
Border Patrol has long used the term, quote, ``defense in
depth'' to describe its strategy to locate and track illegal
entries, using the terrain to the agent's advantage. But
defense in depth should also apply to the coordinating efforts
when partnering the State and local law enforcement
interdicting narcotics away from the border.
That is why I am intrigued by the Governor's plan to create
a new drug interdiction strike force, setting up a dedicated
effort, working as a true partner with Federal and local law
enforcement to intercept narcotics on the highways and byways
before it hits the streets.
Finally, while the focus of this hearing is heroin
trafficking, the transnational criminal organizations that are
bringing these drugs into the United States do not limit
themselves to the trafficking of narcotics. They control the
smuggling routes and routinely trafficking humans, currency,
and other illicit activities.
There have been several recent cases of special interest
aliens from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries being
smuggled into the United States by Mexican nationals. No one
crosses the border without these cartels' permission. It is a
certainty that they have knowledge of and are complicit in
smuggling these special interest aliens into the country which
is worrisome.
I thank the Governor for his leadership. I thank the
witnesses today.
The Honorable Gil Kerlikowske, thank you for being here. I
know you have a very busy schedule. But to have the top guy
here is very important.
We welcome Frank Milstead and the great job he and his
people do.
And our distinguished Maricopa County Attorney, Bill
Montgomery.
I thank all of you for being here today.
And, Governor, I specially want to take note of your
leadership on this issue. And it is very important. And I think
that it can lay the groundwork for a greater cooperation and
work together between the State, local, and Federal
authorities. That can only happen under your leadership. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator McCain. Senator Flake.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR FLAKE
Senator Flake. Well, thank you. I just wanted to thank you,
Chairman Johnson, for coming out.
This heroin epidemic is a big and growing problem as we
have seen in the statistics. And, obviously, Arizona, given its
position along the border, it becomes extremely important here.
We have to have increased and better cooperation, better
government, State, local, and county authorities. And so that
is what this is all about. And I appreciate the focus that is
been put on this. Appreciate being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Flake I did fail to mention based
on those 13 hearings, we are releasing today the State of
America's Border Security Report, over a hundred pages, pretty
well laying out that reality, which I think, is the first step
of solving that problem.
So the tradition of this Committee is to swear in
witnesses, so if you will all rise and raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before
this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you, God?
Governor Ducey. I do.
Commissioner Kerlikowske. I do.
Mr. Montgomery. I do.
Colonel Milstead. I do.
Chairman Johnson. Our first witness will be the Honorable
Governor Douglas Ducey. Governor Ducey is the Governor of the
State of Arizona. He began his career in the private sector
where he helped launch Cold Stone Creamery, which under his
watch grew from a local ice cream scoop shop to over 1,400
locations.
In 2008 and 2009 Governor Ducey, alarmed by the State
economy and the massive spending debt the government was
incurring, sought public office and was elected on November 2,
2010, as Arizona's 32nd State Treasurer. After serving out this
term, he was elected Governor. Governor Ducey.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS A. DUCEY,\1\ GOVERNOR, STATE
OF ARIZONA; ACCOMPANIED BY COLONEL FRANK MILSTEAD, DIRECTOR,
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Governor Ducey. Chairman Johnson, good morning. Welcome to
Arizona.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Governor Ducey appears in the
Appendix on page 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator McCain, Senator Flake, thank you for the kind
words, and I look forward to talking with you this morning.
Commissioner Kerlikowske, Bill Montgomery, Sheriff Dannels,
and everyone joining me today to give testimony, thank you for
your commitment to addressing and reversing a very severe and a
very real problem in Arizona and in our country.
We are here today because our Nation is plagued by a
destructive, dangerous, and deadly epidemic. Heroin trafficking
use, abuse, and overdose is a growing problem in American
society. It is influencing and infiltrating our children's
schools. It is tearing apart families. It is spurring crime and
creating criminals.
It is driving up costs related to drug enforcement, courts,
incarceration, treatment programs, medical care, and other
unseen expenses to our taxpayers. And that is nothing compared
to the human toll.
There is no dollar sign on the life of a father, a mother,
a sibling, a child, or a spouse cut short by drug abuse. There
is only anguish and anger.
We have come face to face with a very sad, very scary
reality. Heroin is no longer someone else's problem. It is our
problem. It is Arizona's problem. It is America's problem. And
Arizona is the front door.
It is not news to any of us that Arizona has been and
continues to be a major smuggling corridor and distribution hub
for illicit drugs being supplied to the United States. We share
roughly 370 miles of continuous international border with
Mexico. The area consists of rugged terrain that makes it
extremely difficult to patrol and secure, a prime environment
for trafficking activity.
Right across our border is home to the Sinaloa Cartel, a
transnational drug trafficking organization (DTO) with a
stronghold in the region. Unless we act and act soon, these
cartels and the poison they are bringing to our communities are
not going anywhere.
Let us look at the facts. From 2010 to 2014, heroin
seizures increased 223 percent in Arizona. Why? Sadly, because
prescription opiate drug abuse often leads to heroin addiction,
and that is because heroin's a cheaper, quicker, and more
intense high. The effects have been staggering. In 2015, drug
apprehension efforts in Arizona resulted in 5,282 drug-related
arrests. An arrest for heroin alone increased 76 percent over
the past 2 years, which constitutes the largest rate of heroin
arrests in a decade. Studies have also shown heroin treatment
admissions increased approximately 77 percent from 2008 to
2012.
And here is why it should matter to all of us. The impact
of heroin reaches far beyond user and supplier.
It is having a cumulative effect on the standard of living
in Arizona and throughout our country.
More than 75 percent of inmates in Arizona's prison system
have a substance abuse problem. There are more than 17,000
children who are wards of the State because their parents are
unfit to raise them. If we found them all homes tomorrow in
foster care, there would be thousands more waiting right behind
them unless we address the corrosive nature of drug addiction.
Babies, newborns exposed to substances rose from 597 cases
in 2008 to 1,248 in 2014. That is a 109 percent, more than
double, increase in just 6 years. Each one of these is a
tragedy, a terrible, preventable tragedy.
There is no shortage of the harmful effects of heroin and
illicit drug trafficking in our communities. Some of these
damages can not be undone, but they can be prevented in the
future. It is up to us right now to act. And we are taking
action by aggressively targeting the supply.
As we know, Arizona is ground zero in the fight against
drug trafficking, a direct nexus through which these cartels
are infiltrating our States and ravaging communities in every
corner of our country.
That does not sit well with me, which is why we are taking
action and why I have created the Arizona Border Strike Force
Bureau.
Here are the highlights: The mission of the Border Strike
Force Bureau is to partner with local and Federal agencies to
deter, disrupt, and dismantle criminal organizations
responsible for smuggling drugs and humans into Arizona. The
success of the bureau is founded upon strategic partnerships we
have created at all levels.
The most significant so far have been with U.S. Customs and
Border Protection and the Cochise County Sheriff's Office.
I want to take a moment to acknowledge Commissioner Gil
Kerlikowske and Sheriff Mark Dannels for their willingness to
partner with the State of Arizona to the Border Strike Force
Bureau. In a State like Arizona, the cost of combating drug
cartels alone would be too large to bear. A successful long-
term strategy to take the fight to the cartels requires
multilayered collaboration and cooperation, intelligence
sharing, better communication. All of these serve as a force
multiplier that is magnifying our individual efforts.
This strike force has been in operation for a little over 2
months utilizing these partnerships, and our successes speak
for themselves.
Since September we have seized over $2.2 million in cash,
multiple firearms, nearly 4,000 pounds of marijuana, 73 pounds
of meth, nearly 19 pounds of heroin. It is important to note
that in 2014, Arizona and DPS seized 14 pounds of heroin total.
And we have seized nearly 19 pounds in just the last 2 months.
To paint a picture of how much that really is, there are
45,000 individual hits to one pound of heroin. We have made
over 150 felony arrests and 30 misdemeanor arrests. We have
taken down 14 documented gang members and over 70 undocumented
aliens. And we have done it in just a short time with a short
list of personnel, scarce resources, and through minimal
targeted operations. It was important to build a partnership,
prove the concept, and to get some wins.
Now imagine what we could do with more. This is a
significant concrete example of what we can accomplish when we
take a multilevel, collaborative, and cooperative approach to
dealing with public safety. It is also a loud wake-up call that
our current strategies have fallen short. We need a plan that
is robust, that leverages resources, manpower, and money from
local, State, and Federal levels.
I have spent a lot of time meeting with ranchers, families,
law enforcement, and residents near the border. I know you all
have as well. The greatest concerns among them are the cartels
and the traffickers in a place where they live and work and
raise their family. Border-related crime is a frequent
occurrence. If there were ever a time to get serious about
protecting our homeland, it is now.
In addition to the drug epidemic, I would be remiss if I
did not mention another potential threat to our country as a
result of Arizona's border. In light of the horrific terrorist
attacks in Paris, new threats on the United States from ISIS in
a video released last week and recent apprehensions of Middle
Eastern nationals near the Southern Border, one thing's for
sure: It is time to step up our game.
On behalf of the citizens of the State of Arizona, I want
to thank Commissioner Kerlikowske and his hard-working,
talented, and dedicated team who made these apprehensions last
week.
After what we have seen in the past couple of months with
the Border Strike Force, I am encouraged about our partnership.
I believe this is the most meaningful step toward securing
Arizona that we have seen in decades. But more vigilance,
collaboration and resources are needed if we are going to be
successful in keeping our State and our citizens safe.
As Governor of Arizona, I took an oath of office to protect
Arizona and our country. Arizona must hold the line for the
sake of every State, every community, and every family in this
country, and we intend to do so. But we can not do it alone.
Arizona can do a lot, and we will, to combat this epidemic,
to slam the door on these cartels and to protect the safety,
security, health, and quality of life for our citizens. But we
need your help. This is not just Arizona's problem. It is
America's problem. And it is going to need to be met with
State, local, and Federal resources: More funding, more assets,
more planes, helicopters, radios, and equipment added to our
arsenal. More personnel, troopers, analysts, pilots, people to
gather intelligence on these criminals, and people to take them
down.
Ask yourself: What is our primary duty, our highest
priority as elected officials?
The answer should be defending our homeland and protecting
our citizens.
For the first time in recent memory, we have a plan that
can yield real, meaningful results in this effort. We are ready
to do something about this problem, and we are ready to do it
now.
This could mean the difference between saving one life or
countless lives, bringing down one criminal or an entire
cartel. It could mean preventing a tragedy in Arizona or
somewhere else.
Data shows that from 2012 to 2014, there were at least 458
drug seizures in 30 other American States with a nexus back to
Arizona. I ask you, as Federal representatives of the people,
to deliver Arizona's message to Congress. If you are serious
about taking the fight to drug cartels and turning the tide on
the drug epidemic ravaging our Nation, join us. Arizona is on
the front line, and we need your support.
Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Governor Ducey.
Our next witness is Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske.
Commissioner Kerlikowske is Commissioner of U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, at the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). Commissioner Kerlikowske is also the former
director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).
Commissioner Kerlikowske has four decades of law enforcement
and drug policy expertise. And it's also his birthday today.
So welcome. Happy birthday. And we look forward to your
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE R. GIL KERLIKOWSKE,\1\ COMMISSIONER,
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Commissioner Kerlikowske. Thank you, Chairman Johnson,
Senator McCain, Senator Flake. I appreciate the opportunity to
be here and discuss this important hearing. I testified at
Senator Ayotte's hearing in New Hampshire. I think it speaks
volumes when you are having a hearing on this issue from New
Hampshire all the way to Arizona on the southwest border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Commissioner Kerlikowske appears in
the Appendix on page 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Johnson. Commissioner Kerlikowske, if you could
move your microphone up.
Commissioner Kerlikowske. And I think this really speaks
volumes about the difficulties of the problem and the fact that
the heroin issue is so wide ranging.
On a typical day, Customs and Border Protection seizes
about 6 tons of illegal drugs. For the past several years, our
heroin seizures have been increasing. Last fiscal year (FY),
they increased 23 percent. So far to date, they have increased
about 17 percent.
Now, while the vast majority of heroin entering the United
States comes in through the southwest border, it does so
through the ports of entry. We have a variety of sophisticated
technology and people, the use of canines and others. I would
tell you that the most important thing and the most impressive
thing I have seen is the resulting of these seizures.
It is between two areas. One is the quality of our people.
They are very good at spotting everything from drugs coming in
through cut flowers at Miami airport, to internal carriers at
JFK, to taking apart cars at the border, use of the canines.
But it is also, as the Governor mentioned, and Senator McCain
mentioned, it is also the collaboration and the importance of
that collaboration with State and local partners.
These continued efforts are important to intercept
narcotics at the border, and they are a key aspect of
addressing the crisis. But we clearly, all of us, recognize
that merely doing interdictions and arrests is not going to be
enough to solve this heroin epidemic.
When I got out of the Army in 1972 and joined the police
department, several years later became a narcotics detective,
several years later, commanded a narcotics unit. And then was
police chief in two of the nation's largest cities, along with
being the President's drug policy advisor, and now with Customs
and Border Protection, I have had some real experience with
this issue.
We have skipped a generation of young people that are naive
about the dangers of heroin; and as we all know, as we have all
been talking about, it is making a strong resurgence.
Secretary Johnson's Southern Border and Approaches Campaign
is important in the creation just recently of the three joint
task forces (JTF) using all of the DHS components as a
particular step forward, and it moves to increase our
collaboration across the border with State and local law
enforcement.
I want to commend the Governor and certainly Colonel
Milstead for the work that Arizona is doing. We have been
involved, and they have kept us involved in all of the
different discussions on this new strike force. We could not be
more proud to be a partner and to be collaborative on that.
I am also pleased that the Office of National Drug Control
Policy and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have a National
Heroin Task Force that they jointly chair. We also do a lot of
training for the private sector, because they are an important
partner in all of this. So when you have people that are
driving the trucks and operating the rails and operating in the
maritime environment, the more that we can educate them about
what smugglers may use to try and get these drugs in, the
better partner they become.
And our Office of Air and Marine (AMO) has a program called
SKY PRO, which I will be happy to talk about later.
Last, I will tell you that in the over 6 years that I have
been with the Administration, the opportunity to meet with many
officials in the government of Mexico has presented itself to
me. I think that to a person, whether it is the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), Customs and Border
Protection, and others, would tell you that the cooperation and
the information being shared with the government of Mexico
officials to combat this issue on both sides of the border is
at a very high level.
So I look forward to your questions and thank you for the
opportunity to be here.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Commissioner.
We are going to kind of open this up a little bit in terms
of being too structured where we each get our 7 minutes. We are
going to start going down different lines of questioning. And I
encourage Senator McCain and Senator Flake to just chime in
when it makes sense.
Let me start, though. This is obviously a complex problem.
There are all kinds of things we have to do.
But what I would like to ask both the Governor and
Commissioner, understanding we need resources, we need the
resource to do any of these things--set that aside; that is
just a given--what is the top one, two, or three things that we
must do to address this problem?
Governor Ducey. So there are a number of things. First and
foremost, I would say it is the cooperation between the State
level, the Federal level, the county level, and the local
level. Rather than being a confrontation, the fact that we are
bringing these agencies and this enforcement together can make
a real measurable difference in this.
And I think you touched on this as well, Chairman. It is
the insatiable desire and demand for drugs that we have in this
country is the other part of the equation that we have to deal
with here.
And then, last, I will reiterate it because it is critical,
that the funding and partnership with the Federal Government
with set objectives is what success looks like, is critical to
the success of this.
Chairman Johnson. OK. So out of that, not to complain,
but--so you had cooperation. That is obviously natural. But to
do what? So address the demand side and, of course, the need
for funding.
Commissioner, I will ask you: The actions, I mean, what
must we do in a cooperative fashion with proper funding?
So one thing is to address the demand side. I mean, I
completely agree. When I was down in Guatemala with General
Kelly, we were obviously just talking about the drug cartels
and how basically they are off limits and destroy those public
institutions.
General Kelly asked me the question: When was the last time
as a nation we actually had concerted public relations
education campaigns to try and dissuade Americans, but
particularly our young, from doing drugs? And according to
General Kelly, it was under Nancy Reagan: Just Say No.
And he talked about that famous commercial with a couple of
eggs, ``Here's your brain.'' Scrambled up, ``Here's your brain
on drugs.'' So, again, so that is the address on the demand
side. What are other things? Actions that cooperatively with
proper funding must do.
Commissioner Kerlikowske. For us it would be congressional
support for technology. We have a lot of boots on the ground,
but the technology is truly the game changer in all of this.
Whether it is our unmanned aircraft that you got to see when
you visited the border, whether it is replacing our
nonintrusive inspection devices, just big x-rays that have
reached the most useful life cycle, we need that type of new
equipment. And the research and development (R&D) that goes
into that technology is huge.
We could not be more appreciative of the Department of
Defense giving us the remote video surveillance systems, the
tethered aerostats. All three of you have seen a lot of this
technology, but it needs to be supported, and it needs to be
improved upon.
Chairman Johnson. OK. So technology to detect people coming
to this country illegally. Do we have the manpower once we
detect to actually apprehend?
Commissioner Kerlikowske. Well, one is that the Border
Patrol is more than doubled in size since 2007, 2008. We are
having difficulty hiring right now in the United States Border
Patrol (USBP). We are having difficulty hiring our Customs and
Border Protection officers. A lot of law enforcement agencies
that I know at the State and local level are having that
difficulty.
Your support for the veterans hiring. I can not think of
another Federal organization that has done as well as we have
when it comes to the number of veterans in CBP. But the fact
that we are aggressively working with the Department of Defense
(DOD) to get the people that will be leaving the Army as it
restructures, to get them to come and be a part of Customs and
Border Protection is a great opportunity. And that
congressional support, your ability to use the stature and the
positions you hold to support veterans coming into CBP, is a
big help to us.
Chairman Johnson. So let us say we have the manpower to
detect, we apprehend, what are we doing in terms of our own
laws in terms of processing and in many cases releasing? Can
you kind of speak to that and the incentive that creates?
Because, bottom line is: If the people come into this country
illegally, and they are caught, and they are released, and they
are in the State illegally without consequence. Or, for
example, the drug traffickers, juveniles that we do not
prosecute that we also face, criminally speaking, can you speak
to that problem?
Commissioner Kerlikowske. If they are caught with drugs, I
do not think we have seen any problem with prosecutions either
at the State level or at the Federal level. I think the State
prosecutors will probably tell you that they would like to be
reimbursed by the Federal Government for some of those costs
involved in that, and I think that is important.
So the prosecution of, particularly for a drug smuggler, is
critical because that is the way that we also get the
information about who is behind it, who is part of the
pipeline. If there is no sanction and they are just released,
even if it is a smaller amount of drugs, I do not think that is
helpful.
Chairman Johnson. Governor, you spoke about, obviously your
initial success now in terms of breaking up some of these drug
cartels on the Arizona side of the border. What do you know in
terms of the drug cartels' control of the Mexico side of the
border?
Governor Ducey. That is definitely part of this equation. I
mean, I am in my first 11 months in office here, but I do have
the commitment of the Governor of Sonora, Claudia Pavlovich, in
terms of cooperation and communication to combat this issue.
In addition to that, I want to amplify what the
commissioner said. It is not only about law enforcement assets,
but it is about proper prosecution. And having the prosecutors
available and competitively paid so that when there are
arrests, we can complete that to return people to their country
of origin, but also to lock up the bad guys.
Chairman Johnson. When I toured the border through the Rio
Grande Valley, touring with some local officials that
complained to me that unless, for example, that the quantity of
marijuana was 5 pounds or above, locals did not even bother
with the prosecution of it.
Is that something similar here in Arizona?
Governor Ducey. I hear those stories as well through the
county prosecutors and county sheriffs. And to your point,
Chairman Johnson, on the wrong incentives, I think if we are
telegraphing what you can get away with, we are going to have
more distribution and more trafficking. And that is why I think
we need to tighten the screws on this.
Chairman Johnson. Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Let's talk for a minute, Mr. Kerlikowske,
about the Sinaloa Cartel.
Is it true that they have significant control over the
areas in Sonora and further south and are able to bring these
drugs with relative impunity to the Arizona border?
Commissioner Kerlikowske. Yes.
Senator McCain. That is true?
Commissioner Kerlikowske. Yes.
Senator McCain. Sinaloa Cartel is the most vicious of all,
particularly now that Chapo Guzman is back.
Commissioner Kerlikowske. I know they are vicious, and I
know no one crosses a plaza of a cartel without paying a price.
Senator McCain. So the old days where some individual or
groups of individuals decided they wanted to bring some drugs,
that is not the case anymore. It is all orchestrated by the
Sinaloa Cartel?
Commissioner Kerlikowske. Or it passes through them for a
fee.
Senator McCain. And then, Mr. Montgomery, the drugs come
across the border, and then they come to Tucson, and then they
come to Phoenix, Arizona, which is, according to testimony, a
major distribution point throughout the country.
By the way, I was just in New Hampshire over the weekend.
In New Hampshire, they view this as an epidemic.
I want to tell you. They view it as an epidemic because of
the dramatic rise in these deaths.
What happens then, Mr. Montgomery?
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BILL MONTGOMERY,\1\ COUNTY ATTORNEY,
MARICOPA COUNTY
Mr. Montgomery. Senator McCain, the drugs get up here into
the Phoenix metropolitan area, and they go to what we term
stash houses where from there they may be sold to additional
distributors or repackaged for further trafficking, either west
or east. We have the benefit of having a pretty intricate
interstate highway system here where several different highways
come together, and they exploit that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Montgomery appears in the
Appendix on page 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator McCain. Do we have enough assets to do the job you
want to do?
Mr. Montgomery. Absolutely not.
Senator McCain. Absolutely not?
Mr. Montgomery. No. In order for us to be able to deal with
all the drugs that are getting through--and I would underscore,
too, that seizures at Arizona ports of entry are substantially
on the increase. But the cartels are still getting enough drugs
through to make it financially lucrative to continue to try and
exploit Arizona's border.
Again, going to some of the prepared remarks, but just with
a few local investigations, local law enforcement has seized
131 pounds of heroin just within the last several months. So
while we have seen the percentage and the size of seizures
increase at Arizona ports of entry due to great fortified
Customs and Border Protection, there is still so much getting
through.
And right now I have 15 prosecutors assigned to my Drug
Enforcement Bureau, all of whom are more than gainfully
employed right now. And we do not have the luxury, I would say,
as a local law enforcement prosecutor to turn away cases. I
have no arbitrary thresholds below which I will not take cases.
Because if I do not do it, it will not get done.
Senator McCain. Commissioner Kerlikowske, I appreciate your
comments about hiring vets. I was recently down at Mariposa
Port of Entry, and I found that they are 200 short, which then,
even though we have expanded the port of entry and there is
many more lanes, they are not all open because we are so short
of personnel.
Now, what is the--hiring veterans, I think, is a step
forward, the program for that. I am glad that it has been
inaugurated.
But what are we going to do to get more people?
Commissioner Kerlikowske. Well, I think the difficulty has
been, Senator, is that when Congress authorized a lot of money,
particularly for the Border Patrol in 2007 and 2008, we rushed
very quickly to get a number of people on board.
Not all of those people would be hired today. We stopped
doing a polygraph examination during that period. As you know,
Congress has made that mandatory with the work of leadership of
Senator Cornyn on that. So the process to get very good people
who have been clearly vetted is time-consuming.
The job market is better right now. And, frankly, if you
are a talented Customs and Border Protection or Border Patrol
officer, you have a college degree, you are fluent in Spanish,
there are a lot of other opportunities out there for you. So
particularly with the Border Patrol, we are losing more people
than we are actually able to hire. And we just have to support
it.
And as I think all of you know, right now this is a
difficult time for any level of law enforcement in the public's
eye. And we really need to kind of turn that and work to turn
that image around.
Senator McCain. One of the benefits, obviously, of hiring
veterans, you can short-circuit this extensive background
process that you have to go through.
Finally, Governor, I am sure you have seen this chart.\1\
It shows the cost of illegal drugs. For example, heroin in 1991
was almost $1,500 per gram. And now today it is down around
$465. And there is substantial reductions. That can only mean
to me that there is a supply. The old rules--laws of economics:
If there is a greater supply, the cost goes down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart referenced by Senator McCain appears in the Appendix
on page 2053.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I would finally ask if you think that we are winning or
losing in this effort to try to control this flow of drugs,
which clearly is becoming cheaper and cheaper? And I would
point out when it gets really cheap, as the heroin has, it is
so much less expensive than OxyContin that people turn to
heroin as well. Governor.
Governor Ducey. Senator, we are losing on this front.
You can look at the cost here, and that is a reflection of
the supply. But I think what is more important than the
statistics and the numbers is the effect that it has on our
State and has on our country.
I can tell you that everything that I am dealing with as
Governor beyond K-12 education: Chronic homelessness
oftentimes; unemployment; poverty; joblessness; the 17,000
children that are wards of the State; the parents that are
unfit to care for them; domestic violence; the people, the men
and women, that populate our prisons. There is a central
unifying theme of drug abuse and addiction.
So there is a tremendous human toll not only on the
families of our State and our country, but the cost to our
government in terms of public policy.
Senator McCain. I thank you.
And, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for coming to
Arizona. You have made this issue a top priority of the
Homeland Security Committee. I appreciate all the work that you
have done and many hearings and visits, and thank you for being
here today. I think it means a lot to the people of our State.
Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Appreciate the invitation. Senator Flake.
Senator Flake. Thank you. Commissioner Kerlikowske
mentioned that the Border Jobs for Veterans Act was signed into
law just a few months ago.
I want to thank the chairman also. Senator McCain and I
held hearings and talked to you and others. We were told for a
long time the reason these jobs have not been filled partly is
because we have too small an applicant pool that can get
through all the hoops. And it certainly made sense to turn to
our veteran community.
And so when we brought that legislation to Senator Johnson,
he worked quickly to move it through, and we are happy to have
that signed, and we hope it makes a difference. It is not a
solution for everything, but it should help a lot.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Flake, let me just quick jump in
here because I always say when a train does not derail, that is
good news. It is just not news.
I mean, here is a bill that was very good news, and it was
done because we concentrated not just amongst ourselves, but
with, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I mean,
that was an area of agreement that unified us. So we were able
to get this passed and signed into law. I mean, everybody
involved in this, and it was really the leadership of these two
gentlemen here that really gets credit in that.
But, again, there is good news. If you concentrate on the
areas of agreement, you actually can accomplish things to get
resolved, and Senator McCain and Senator Flake made that
happen.
Senator Flake. Thank you. Let us turn to this chart\1\ that
Senator McCain referenced talking about this drop in price just
across the board--less so for marijuana--but look at the top,
heroin, $1,500 a gram back in 1991 down to $465 now, a huge
percentage in drop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart referenced by Senator Flake appears in the Appendix
on page 2053.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am just wondering, how price sensitive is the demand for
heroin? Looking at the problem we have today, you know that
when it is more available, when it becomes cheaper than some of
the prescription drugs that people either can get or can not
get anymore, if we were to, through focusing on the supply
side, bring this price back up here, at what point do we make
progress? Or is it simply squeezing the balloon, and it goes to
somewhere else? It goes to cocaine. It goes to other drugs.
What are your thoughts on that, Mr. Kerlikowske?
Commissioner Kerlikowske. Well, Senator, so sadly I will
tell you that the long history of attempting to influence the
price by interdiction or interception is analogous to
attempting to reduce the number of diamonds in this country by
seizing the lumps of coal. That is a fact. Reducing the demand,
as all of you have mentioned, is going to be critical if there
is less demand.
But there is two other important points in here. One is
that under President Calderon's administration, we all know
that the Mexican Military is used to do an awful lot of local
law enforcement. I believe they did less of eradication where
the poppies are being grown in Mexico.
Very hopeful with this relationship with the government of
Mexico, that they will be back involved in greater efforts and
eradication because the heroin problem is not just one for us.
It is also one for Mexico. So rather than pay a smuggler to
bring drugs into the United States, that smuggler may be paid
in product. That product will be sold locally on the plazas and
the cities and the towns in Mexico.
So eradication is important. Greater interdiction is
important. But in the long term, reducing our demand, as all of
you have mentioned, is going to be one of the better aspects of
how to deal with this.
Senator Flake. Governor Ducey.
Governor Ducey. In addition to that, Senator, I think it is
important to point out the prescription opiate drug abuse that
exists in this country. So there are things we can do beyond
law enforcement and prosecution in terms of reforms around
prescriptions and how many of these pills are prescribed and
for what, how many, and how many refills.
And I will defer to Colonel Milstead on how the supply and
demand has affected the consumption in terms of the pricing
structure. But it is in addition to the cartels. There is
always also things we can do right here at home.
Colonel Milstead. Chairman Johnson, Senator Flake, the
price does change. And back 10 years ago, if you were a heroin
addict, it would cost you somewhere between $350, $400 a day to
continue with your habit. Today that same amount of heroin or
the potency of the heroin would be somewhere closer to $30 or
$35 for that same addiction, that same high.
A tab of OxyContin in a school, in a high school in
Phoenix, Arizona, is going to be somewhere around $50 or $60. A
point of heroin is $10. But what the kids do not understand,
remembering it is youth, they are risk takers, they believe it
will not happen to them and that the reports are wrong. But the
addiction rate for heroin, for opiates, is astronomical. And
one of three things happen to those children: They become a
slave to the drug, they overdose and die, or they are in a
lifetime of rehabilitation and treatment.
Senator Flake. Before you get to that, you may have
addressed some of these in the opening statement, so I do not
want to take away from that, but I would be interested, in
terms of prosecutions, of those doctors or others' prescription
mills that we see out there. And, in fact, the most effective
prosecution is at the State level or the county prosecution or
if it needs to be Federal or there needs to be cooperation
there?
But before we get to that, since you may address that in
your opening, Governor Ducey, can you talk a little more about
the human cost? And you mentioned in your opening statement
this is impacting the standard of living of folks in Arizona.
We hear numbers. You talk about number of kids that are
affected. But somebody could say, well, this is a population of
6.57 million in this State. That is still on the margins.
Is it beyond the margins? Is it affecting more families?
What do you see out there? Is it really affecting the quality
of life of the State?
Governor Ducey. Well, I would just ask every parent that is
in the room: Has this affected their family or their neighbor's
family or your extended family in terms of drug abuse and
addiction and the human toll that this brings to a family in
terms of pain and anguish and anger and drug abuse?
My experience traveling the State over the last year is
that this affects all of our communities and, in fact, affects
all of our families, either directly or indirectly. And that
does not even go to the fact that we have so many people living
in a lower standard of life today than they did before the
downturn. And I can not tell you how many small business
entrepreneurs tell me when they go to hire for a position, that
they can not find people that can pass the drug test. So I
think it is affecting us in our homes and our families, but it
is also affecting our economy and our productivity as a State
and a nation.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Flake. Just to pick up
on the drug test. I know as I traveled around the State of
Wisconsin, there is not one manufacturer that can hire enough
people and for multiple reasons. One of them is they do drug
testing. 50 percent of the people, when they find out they have
to take a drug test, do not show up. Of those that do take the
drug test, 50 percent fail. So you are already a ways down the
list there.
Commissioner, I do want to pick up a little bit on the
poppy issue. When I was down in Central America, we were
certainly briefed that for the farmers, it is 50 times more
profitable for them to grow poppies than really any other crop.
The abundance of crops they can grow down in Central America--
it is a great place to grow crops--50 times more profitable.
Plus, they do not even have to transport it. So that is huge.
Heroin poppies are an extremely profitable crop, and that is
also part of the issue.
But I do want to talk--in our report, in testimony, former
Drug Czar General Barry McCaffrey testified that we are only
interdicting about 10 percent of the illegal drugs coming to
the Southern Border. I know we had testimony from the Coast
Guard separately, only interdicting 11 to 18 percent over our
maritime border.
I will just ask the panel: Anybody want to either confirm
or dispute those types of numbers?
Commissioner Kerlikowske. When I was in Seattle as the
police chief, I was his police chief, so I would get a lot of
advice from General McCaffrey. I would tell you that I think
there is one big issue of trying to determine what percentage
we interdict or do not interdict, and that is that we do not
know what we do not know.
So we are doing a much better job, as I said. Our increases
last fiscal year, our continuing increases this fiscal year.
When Senator McCain talked about our appetite for drugs in this
country, we have got to work to reduce that. So I have seen
lots of economists and, reminds me of when President Truman
said: If you lined up all the economists end to end, would not
that be a beautiful sight?
You mentioned that I have seen lots of econometric pieces
on this, and, frankly, I still think that there are a lot of
questions about how much are we missing versus how much do we
interdict?
Chairman Johnson. Well, again, those are difficult numbers
to come up with. But we can estimate our basic total usage in
America. Again, it is not just General McCaffrey. It is also
the Coast Guard. Bottom line is: We have an enormous flow
coming into this country illegally that we are not catching. Is
that kind of without dispute? Mr. Montgomery.
Mr. Montgomery. Chairman Johnson, I think that is true. The
cartels have a high level of tolerance for the amount of drugs
that are being seized for them to continue the same sorts of
routes that they try to exploit. And it is not until they
suffer severe economic pain in trying to exploit a particular
route that they are going to change and shift their behaviors.
And I think that is also somewhat reflected too in the
chart, the pricing chart. A couple of other points that I would
offer to consider in this context is, when you look at the
early 1990s, the high price for heroin and methamphetamine,
over time the drug cartels have been able to improve their own
economies of scale where they can produce these drugs at a much
lower price than what it used to cost them.
They do not have to import heroin from South America or
import it in a way where it originates out of Afghanistan. They
are growing it locally. It costs them less to produce. They
have improved their ability to produce high-quality heroin by
mimicking what Colombian drug cartels were able to do.
So you have product closer to its source in greater
amounts, and they have been able to cut out the middleman in
order to transport their product into the country. Each one of
those different improvements obviously allows you, then, to
sell for less and still maintain a high profit potential.
And when it comes to methamphetamine, back in the 1990s it
used to be a product of lower yield, small labs domestically.
And so there was a lot of danger. The product was not very
good. You could charge more if you were a good dealer. But now
you have super labs producing methamphetamine just across the
border, and that is now a part of that cartel's product mix.
And they have gotten very good at producing high quality
methamphetamine for less.
Chairman Johnson. Talk a little bit about routes and flow.
I just kind of want to talk a little bit about the history now
and how it really is like damming water, and it just kind of
flows around, because 25, 30 years ago the flow was really out
of Colombia, through the Caribbean, and then up through Miami;
correct? And we did not stop it. Maybe we reduced the flow
through there. But then we redirected the flow through Central
America.
And same thing's true, in our next panel we will be talking
about the 1990 plan which really has not been updated. You shut
down certain areas, and it just flows into other areas.
Can somebody address where we are on that? And is that all
we can really do is just redirect it to some other area and
then destroy public institutions in some other area?
Governor Ducey. Well, I think when you talk specifically
about this State, you look at our neighbors. California does
have a wall. New Mexico has a mountain range. Texas has a
river. Arizona's border situation is different. So in terms of
the history and how that's affected the State over the course
of decades, I will ask Colonel Milstead to comment.
Colonel Milstead. Mr. Chairman, over the--I am sorry. If
you look at over the years of what has happened with the
movement of drugs into the United States, I was a Phoenix
police officer back during 9/11. When everything quit moving
during 9/11, the supply in Phoenix, the supply for drugs, for
hand-to-hand drug deals, was almost nonexistent after about 10
days.
So the supply train, the chain of available drugs in
Phoenix, was about a 10-day supply. So that was pretty much
cutoff. When everything quit moving, the borders were locked
down. Everything stopped.
As we have looked at the changes over the years, Arizona
continues to be a central focal point. And really the hard
narcotics, they come through the ports, and we call them ports.
And the other side, they call them plazas, and as Mr.
Kerlikowske spoke of, those plazas are all run by a cartel. And
those ports of entry are where your hard narcotics are coming
through. Easier to secrete in produce. Easier to secrete in
vehicles.
And the number of vehicles coming through Nogales and come
through DeConcini and through Mariposa, it is the busiest port
in the Nation, so it is very hard to control. And those cars
that come through routinely day after day, they begin to be
thought of as vehicles that are coming in for work. They have
work visas. They come in and out every day.
Some of those are unwitting people who are moving drugs
that they don't even know they're moving because they're
secreted into cars without their knowledge.
The other thing that happens is through these mountainous
regions, if you talk to Sheriff Dannels in Cochise County, you
talk to the ranchers, they will tell you that the backpackers
are bringing in 25 kilo loads on their backs. They are armed.
And when you ask the ranchers, ``Well, what do you do when
you see these cartel members coming through your ranch and
cutting your fence and disrupting your operation?'' They say,
``We step aside because the response time is too long, and you
can not get law enforcement there quick enough.''
So the marijuana is still coming through those mountainous
areas through the Tohono O'odham Nation and they daisy chain
the Indian reservations up into metro Phoenix.
So what can we do? We have to have that presence. We have
to have the troopers, the Federal agents, the sheriffs.
Everybody's got to be in alignment to make it much more
difficult. And it will move it to some other area, but we will
respond to that as well.
But really at the end of the day what has to happen, there
has to be a change in America's appetite for narcotics. We have
taken law enforcement out of every school for the most part.
The only thing that is left is the school resource officers.
There is no drug resistance training. There is no national
campaigns on drugs.
What we are doing in Arizona with Youth, Faith & Family and
Debbie Moak, we are trying to close the back end of that
circle, the treatment and prevention side. But until we do
something about that, when there is not that insatiable demand
as you spoke of, sir, this will continue.
Chairman Johnson. By the way, that is an extremely
important point you made earlier, though, that after 9/11 we
shut down our ports of entry. It really went a long way for
drying up the supply, which tells you the reality of the
situation: Most of these hard drugs are coming through our
ports of entry, not being backpacked.
Anybody else want to comment on that? I mean, that is an
insight to me. That is extremely good testimony there.
Commissioner Kerlikowske. Mr. Chairman, the majority of our
seizures of heroin are at the ports of entry, not between the
ports of entry. But, most police chiefs are not really known
for their optimism. But if you look at cocaine, our consumption
of cocaine in this country since 2007 and 2008 is down by half.
We have made significant improvements. The crack cocaine
epidemic that we talked about in the late 1990s is really
pretty much a thing of the past.
Chairman Johnson. Moved on to other drugs, methamphetamine
and----
Commissioner Kerlikowske. Well, methamphetamine has always
been the lowest drug in drug use in the United States. The
difficulty with methamphetamine is that it is very specific to
geography. So a place like Arizona or Iowa or the West Coast
can get hit very hard, devastatingly hard, with
methamphetamine. If you go to New England, it is not that much
of an issue.
But when you approach this issue from this whole of
government approach, which I think everybody here is talking
about, I think cocaine would be a place where optimism, we
could look toward heroin, working and doing the same kind of
thing, reducing the demand, doing better interdiction, having
better technology, but educating people about, as Colonel
Milstead said, the dangers of drug use.
Senator McCain. Could I just----
Chairman Johnson. Yes.
Senator McCain. I know we have another panel, so I will be
brief.
Governor Ducey, as a major part of your Arizona Border
Strike Force Plan is the acquisition of systems, aircraft,
hardware that you need very badly. It is called a 1033 program,
as you know, where the Defense Department will transfer
equipment that we can determine is, quote, ``excess.''
I just want to tell you we will begin work in January on
the 2017 defense authorization bill. We will work closely with
you and your people to make sure that we make use of this 1033
program to transfer some of the much needed equipment that you
need in order to make this Strike Force Plan effective. So we
will go to work on that.
Governor Ducey. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Flake.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Governor Ducey, I want to say congratulations on, again,
the Strike Force. That is a great idea to leverage the State's
resources and to work more cooperatively at all levels.
Can you give us any idea of where we still need help at the
Federal level to make that work more efficiently? Do you work
well with the U.S. Attorney's Office, for example? And are
there other areas that we can work on and help you out with?
Governor Ducey. Well, I want to say thank you, Senator
Flake. And I want to say the beginning of this partnership with
Commissioner Kerlikowske here has been the best first step.
Step two is going to be around proper prosecution. But what
we have found, I would say that the difference here is we are
reaching out to these agencies, and we are talking about the
needs of Arizona and the shared goals, not only about our
State, but of the Nation.
And I want to say how grateful I am to Commissioner
Kerlikowske for his urgency on this matter. And I think we also
have some excitement around the success we have in just 8
weeks, and what is possible afterwards.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. I just have two basic lines of
questioning here.
First of all, you go down to Central America. You see this
drug problem having destroyed the public institutions in
Central America. In testimony in the second panel, we are
talking about the concern with all this money about potential
corruption within our own institution.
So I just want to ask your evaluation, how much corruption?
How concerned are you? And just take it from there.
We will start with you, Governor Ducey.
Governor Ducey. Well, the last thing I want to do is paint
our State as perfect, because no place is perfect. But this
culture of corruption does not exist in the State of Arizona.
In terms of what we are seeing across the border, again, I will
defer to folks that have been around longer than I have been.
But regardless of that situation, this idea that there is a
fight that needs to be fought and that we need to bring
resources to it and the best possible people at the highest
level of ability and intelligence and sense of mission is going
to be in the face of what is happening with these drug cartels
and the amount of money that is sloshing through this system
and destroying lives on this side of the border.
Chairman Johnson. First of all, that is good news.
Colonel, do you want to offer any insights?
Colonel Milstead. With corruption I think I would leave
that to Commissioner Kerlikowske having so much experience with
the border itself, Mr. Chairman.
But I will tell you, if you speak to the county sheriffs
along the border, to Senator Flake's point earlier, there is a
huge problem in getting the U.S. Attorney's Office to prosecute
these drug offenses on the border by a pound of load, by age of
the criminal alien.
But there is a huge concern about the ability to prosecute
these cases through the U.S. Attorney's Office. And it puts
that burden back on these counties, and I think really the
expert on that would be Sheriff Dannels to speak to that
specifically and really more Commissioner Kerlikowske on the
corruption.
But thank you, sir.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you. Commissioner.
Commissioner Kerlikowske. Mr. Chairman, 60,000 employees, I
think, the corruption issue is a significant concern to me. And
until August of last year, we did not have Internal Affairs,
and what we had was anemic.
Secretary Johnson gave me authority to build an Internal
Affairs Unit with aggressive criminal investigators, and we are
in the process of doing that. Given the amount of money and the
drug issues, corruption is always a concern. It has me
concerned every night.
Chairman Johnson. So let me close out again. Just trying to
talk to you about, why do we have to secure our border? I mean,
obviously we are talking about one of the problems. The root
cause is the insatiable demand for drugs. We have to secure our
borders for public health and safety. We also have to secure
our border from a standpoint of an immigration system that
works.
We also have to secure our border--it is imperative to
national security. When I was down in Honduras and touring with
General Kelly, apparently this term has been around--I had
never heard of it--I have always heard of Other Than Mexico
(OTM). In hearings, we would say, well, those are the folks
coming in from Central America.
But when we were in Central America, they talked about
special interest aliens (SIAs). Right now a lot of the special
interest aliens are Cubans because of our, dry foot policies,
driving people here that can get here. Cubans, they can stay.
There is an incentive.
But also included in that SIA category were Somalis,
Pakistanis, and Syrians, and others.
Can you speak to that? Again, to me that is a very large
concern based on what we are seeing over in Syria and Iraq
right now.
Commissioner Kerlikowske. So the term is for special
interest aliens, those that have come from a country that could
have problems with the United States. We apprehend every year
people from well over 100 countries, whether it is on the
Northern Border or whether it is on the southwest border. We
turn those people in a very short period of time over to
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for further work. But
it is always a concern, and I work hard with ICE to make sure
that they are fully vetted, and ICE works hard to make sure
that they are detained.
Chairman Johnson. Anybody else providing insights, some
data?
Senator McCain, do you want to make comment on that?
OK. Sure.
Mr. Montgomery. Chairman Johnson, I know that within just a
couple of years ago, I think 2012, Department of Homeland
Security's own Statistics Bureau identified that along the
southwest border, Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol
has detained people from every single country of interest and
every single State-sponsored terror country that is listed by
the U.S. State Department. And this is ongoing. And that
national security threat is critical.
There has been testimony before Congress by the Acting
Inspector General (IG) at DHS noting corruption issues with DHS
border personnel and the link between drug trafficking
organizations and terrorist organizations. It is in the public
record.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Montgomery.
Ready for the second panel. Again, I just want to thank all
three of you gentlemen. First of all, your service to the
community, your State, to our Nation. I really do appreciate
you, Governor, in terms of making this a very high priority. It
is a priority we share. We want to work very cooperatively with
you. We have to solve this problem as a national issue. So,
again, thank you for your thoughtful testimony and for your
time.
We will seat the next panel.
Governor Ducey. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Senators.
(Applause.)
Chairman Johnson. Will the next panel please be seated.
Well, some of the witnesses are participating in a press
conference, so let us get going so we can move things along.
Stay standing. Raise your right hand.
Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you, God?
Sheriff Dannels. I do.
Ms. Mertz. I do.
Agent Judd. I do.
Mr. Taylor. I do.
Chairman Johnson. Our next witness is Sheriff Mark Dannels.
Sheriff Dannels is the Sheriff of Cochise County, Arizona. Mr.
Dannels began his law enforcement career in 1984 after serving
a successful tour in the Army. With 30 years of law enforcement
experience, Mr. Dannels has been recognized, among other
things, to receive the Medal of Valor, Sheriff's Medal, and
Deputy of the Year. Sheriff Dannels.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARK J. DANNELS,\1\ SHERIFF, COCHISE
COUNTY
Sheriff Dannels. Chairman Johnson, Senator McCain----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Dannels appears in the Appendix
on page 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Johnson. I think we all have to get our
microphones pretty close.
Senator Flake. You might want to just grab that mic there
if you can reach it. Seems to be a little bit better.
Sheriff Dannels. That's better?
Chairman Johnson, Senator McCain, Senator Flake, thanks for
being here and listening to us today.
With 83 miles of international border within its
jurisdiction, Cochise County plays a significant role in
combating drug and human trafficking organizations and the
associated violent crimes which adversely affects Arizona
residents and other areas throughout the United States.
One of Mexico's largest and most notorious drug cartels,
Sinaloa Cartel, long employed the use of local Mexican drug
trafficking organizations, to carry out cartels' drug
distribution and transportation into and throughout the United
States.
Violence against innocent citizens, public officials, law
enforcement, and rival drug/human trafficking groups in Mexico
continues to escalate.
The adverse effects of the drug and human trafficking
organizations operating in Cochise County not only have
significantly diminished the quality of life of county
residents, but also placed unbearable strains on the budgets
and resources of private and governmental agencies in our
county.
Having the true-life experience to live and work as a
officer and deputy and now Sheriff of Cochise County since
1984, it has been an educational lesson for me reference border
security. I have witnessed the escalation of violence by these
careless assailants on our citizens raising the question: Who
actually controls our borders? Cochise County has become known
as the gateway to illegal activity for those that unlawfully
enter into the United States.
I want to talk just a minute on the history of our border
and why we are in the current situation that we are in. In the
1990s, the Federal Government prepared a plan to address the
unsecure, unsafe border. At a press conference, Former Sheriff
Larry Dever, in Tucson, Arizona, a Border Patrol spokesman
announced their intent to secure the populated areas of the
border, specifically San Diego, Yuma, and El Paso, and the
international port of entries. These target areas, which I call
the Ps, ports and populations, will be a Federal Government
focus point.
The second half of their plan was to reroute the illegal
activity disturbances into the rural parts of the southwest
border with the thought that the cartel organizations and
smuggling groups would be deterred by the rugged and
mountainous terrain along the border.
Since the release of the plan 20-some years ago, many
changes have taken place in Cochise County: Increased illegal
activity outside the protected areas, ports; fear and
frustration increased in rural Cochise County and along the
southwest border, my fellow sheriffs; ranch and farmlands
damaged due to an increase in illegal activity; transnational
cartels and smuggling organizations controlling and set up
smuggling routes in rural Cochise County and the southwest
border; no lack of redefinition of the plan since the 1990s;
economic down-cline to include a population decrease in Cochise
County; lack of federally elected leaders to address unsecured
border and fears creating a lack of trust and anger by citizens
of my county; undue pressure on local law enforcement and
sheriffs to address issues, fear, and consequences for those
committing those crimes; lack of funding for local law
enforcement and criminal justice system and corrections in
order to address border crimes at the local level due to lack
of Federal Government intervention.
Local law enforcement is best suited to best understand the
community needs and solutions based on the expectations of
their citizens. Community policing begins and succeeds at the
local level first.
As the Sheriff of Cochise County, I felt it was my elected
and statutory duty, my oath of office to support the United
States Constitution and the Arizona Constitution, to protect
and secure the freedoms and liberties of my citizens. No longer
a debate by those who live in the rural parts of the southwest
border, the rural parts of the southwest border are not secure
and are vulnerable to any type of transnational criminal
activity.
Working with a limited budget and staffing, sheriffs along
the southwest border struggle each and every day to find ways
to enhance the quality of life and safety for those they serve.
Sheriffs along the southwest border work diligently to do it by
educational, prevention, and enforcement programs by building
true, trusted partnerships with our local law enforcement
partners.
Local law enforcement, typically sheriffs throughout the
southwest border and within the State of Arizona, have taken a
lead on arresting and prosecuting those involved in local
smuggling which create an enormous challenge to our local
budgets. One of the most controversial is the juveniles that
are smuggling.
And right now we have taken the role of doing that at the
State level with our county attorney. And our juvenile rate has
gone down from three or four. We are managing juveniles up to
19, 18 or 19 in our jail. So it is a big burden on us.
Additionally, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
(SCAAP), have steadily decreased over the years. The financial
decrease has, once again, placed a huge financial burden on our
local sheriffs. Between 2009 and 2014, Arizona sheriffs have a
SCAAP deficit of over $226 million. We have been rewarded 19
million throughout the State of Arizona. We get about 4.8 cents
on the dollar for detaining illegal aliens at the local level.
The smuggling of Mexican heroin and methamphetamine
crossing our national border has become very popular based on
the effectiveness and efficiency of transferring certain drugs
by the drug cartels. Detection is more difficult by law
enforcement creating a financial opportunity for those
organizations on both sides of the border.
Sadly, those that become victims of these drugs often
become a deadly statistic. In Arizona, heroin deaths in 2004
was 50 and 2014 was 200. Education and prevention programs are
necessary for those tempted and are in need of these programs.
Many law enforcement agencies are equipping their law
enforcement deputies with Narcan to assist with these
overdoses. This is becoming a common epidemic in our
communities. This epidemic is relentless. It holds no age, race
or gender harmless.
Governor Doug Ducey has been instrumental in supporting our
efforts here in Cochise County, constructing a regional public
safety communication, intelligence center, providing additional
complimentary, I would say, resources to our efforts to combat
drug smuggling, that adds nexus to secure the border.
This true partnership unifies local and State efforts in
hopes of enhancing our quality of life for our citizens and
beyond. As we all know, this problem not only challenges our
quality of life here, but negatively exploits communities
throughout this Nation.
I want to get to a few recommendations that are a common
theme in our county when it comes to talking to our citizens
and based on my experience working with law enforcement. We
really need to look at redefining that plan of the 1990s. It
has been over 20 years, and take the successes and buildupon
what is not working and identifying them.
We need to have a political will by our Federal leaders to
make border security a mandated program. Border security should
be first and not mixed or blended with immigration reform.
In the Tucson Sector, only 43 percent of the Border Patrol
agents are actually on the border in the Tucson Sector. Support
immigration first-line Border Patrol agents that work the
border regions. They have a dangerous job, and it is no secret
that their frustration is high based on the abnormal
complexities in reference their assignments.
Secondary checkpoints are good as long as the primary is
working first. Quality in life, citizens living on our borders
by sheriffs and the State Governors regarding approved security
and safety. Funding supplement for local law enforcement
prosecutions, detention, and criminal justice in support of
border crimes.
Continued funding and support for the Stonegarden program
which is discretioned by the local sheriffs, to tell what is
best needed for their respective counties. Empowerment with
action to the Border Patrol leaderships. We have three great
leaders in our county, and they have great ideas. Enhanced
funding for the regional communication and accountability for
the local law enforcement needs to continue.
In summary, our local efforts have proven to be beneficial
in bringing overdue solutions to an insecure border that
becomes a discretionary program by those federally elected
leaders and policymakers that have been entrusted to protect
our freedom and liberties.
As a sheriff elected by the good people of my county, my
biggest fear is losing another life, another citizen in my
county and/or law enforcement officer, deputy, or agent.
One would hope the priority of security on our border does
not become just another price tag and/or political posturing,
but, rather, legal and moral requirement to safeguard all of
America, which so many heroic Americans have paid the ultimate
sacrifice.
Today's opportunity instills fresh hope that our voice and
Senator Johnson comes back, but before DC, comes back for the
invite, I truly appreciate that. On behalf of my citizens in my
county and law enforcement in my county and the folks in this
great State and all the sheriffs here in Arizona, thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Sheriff.
Our next witness is Dawn Mertz. She is the Executive
Director of Arizona High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
(HIDTA). Prior to her appointment, Ms. Mertz served 27 years as
a criminal investigator for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Criminal Investigations Unit. Ms. Mertz.
TESTIMONY OF DAWN MERTZ,\1\ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARIZONA HIDTA,
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
Ms. Mertz. Good morning. And thank you for this opportunity
to appear before you, Chairman Johnson, Senator McCain, and
Senator Flake.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Mertz appears in the Appendix on
page 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my privilege to address you today on behalf of the
Arizona High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Executive Board
concerning law enforcement efforts to combat illicit narcotic
drug trafficking.
The Arizona HIDTA region is just over 64,000 square miles.
It includes 372 miles of contiguous international border with
Sonora, Mexico. The international border area consists of
inhospitable desert valleys and rugged mountainous terrain,
which are ideal for drug smuggling.
Due to Arizona's geographical location and shared border
with Mexico, all of its highways and roadways are exploited by
Mexican drug trafficking organizations to transport large
quantities of illicit drugs.
Each year the Arizona HIDTA conducts a comprehensive
intelligence study to identify new and continuing trends in the
Arizona region.
The most recent threat assessment found that the Sinaloa
Cartel continues to present the primary operational threat to
Arizona, with vast resources to source, distribute, transport,
and smuggle large amounts of cocaine, marijuana, heroin, and
methamphetamine, in and through Arizona, to drug networks
throughout the United States.
A significant number of drugs seized in other States have
been linked to Arizona, which demonstrates how vital Arizona is
to Mexican drug organizations. After methamphetamine, heroin is
the greatest threat in the Arizona HIDTA region. The abundance
of heroin in Arizona is directly correlated to the high levels
of opium poppy cultivation and heroin production in Mexico.
The number of Arizona HIDTA investigations with heroin
seizures increased 161 percent from 2011 to 2015. Many of the
investigations are international, multi-state, and multi-
jurisdictional in scope.
Law enforcement operations that successfully disrupt and/or
dismantle Arizona-based organizations directly impact the
availability, price, and purity of heroin and other U.S. drug
markets. Seizing the opportunity to profit from the growing
appetite for heroin, stemming from the prescription drug
epidemic, the Sinaloa Cartel and other Mexican drug
organizations have adapted to meet the growing demand by
producing, smuggling, transporting, and distributing wholesale
quantities of Mexican white, brown powder, and black tar heroin
to expanding northeast, midwest, southeast, and northwest
markets through Arizona-based trafficking networks at
unprecedented levels.
The Sinaloa Cartel and other Mexican drug organizations
have diversified heroin production to produce white heroin to
increase their market share in emerging and existing heroin
markets. Historically, heroin users in the East Coast cities
have preferred white heroin over Mexican tar heroin.
Chronic abuse of prescription opioid drugs, such as
OxyContin, Percocet, and Vicodin, creates a gateway for heroin
addiction. Research indicates prescription opioid abusers
between the ages of 12 and 49 are 19 times more likely to
engage in heroin use than their counterparts with no history of
prescription opioid abuse.
The transition from prescription opioid abuse to heroin
occurs most often among youths age 12 to 17, with a transition
to heroin occurring within an average of 17 months.
Preventing prescription drug misuse and abuse is essential
to reduce the number of lives lost and those addicted to
prescription drugs and heroin.
The Arizona HIDTA, in collaboration with State and local
agencies, is expanding its prescription misuse and abuse
initiative to all counties in the Arizona HIDTA region. In the
pilot counties, the number of deaths from opiate drug overdoses
decreased 28 percent while the non-pilot counties' deaths
increased.
The Arizona HIDTA has also launched a Stronger Together
prevention initiative bringing together law enforcement and
community substance abuse prevention coalitions with a central
goal of reducing substance abuse and is in the process of
developing a Native American and Spanish language prevention
tool to fill those gaps.
Coordination through shared intelligence is critical to
combating the tremendous threat posed by the Sinaloa Cartel and
Mexican drug organizations. Under the coordination umbrella of
the Arizona HIDTA, participating law enforcement agencies
eliminate duplicative operational and investigative programs
and facilitate tactical, operational, and strategic
intelligence sharing.
The Arizona HIDTA approach to intelligence training,
information sharing, and demand reduction demonstrates that as
traditional organizational barriers are overcome, law
enforcement entities can better focus investigative and
intelligence resources on dismantling and disrupting the most
dangerous and prolific drug trafficking organizations.
The Arizona HIDTA remains committed to facilitating
cooperation among law enforcement entities and to supporting
coordinated law enforcement efforts to combat Arizona-based
drug organizations.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
and for the Subcommittee's continued support of the HIDTA
program.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Ms. Mertz.
Our next witness is Brandon Judd. Brandon Judd is a Border
Patrol agent and serves as the President of the National Border
Patrol Council, representing more than 17,000 Border Patrol
agents and staff. Mr. Judd started his career as a field agent
in 1997 and brings with him more than 17 years of experience as
a Border Patrol agent. Agent Judd.
TESTIMONY OF BRANDON JUDD,\1\ PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER
CONTROL COUNCIL
Agent Judd. Senator Johnson, thank you very much, Senator
McCain, Senator Flake, I appreciate the opportunity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Judd appears in the Appendix on
page 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 26, 2015, the DHS Deputy Secretary Alejandro
Mayorkas was in the State of Montana to take a hard look at the
organized illegal smuggling problems with narcotics in the
Havre Border Patrol Area of Responsibility to the back-end oil
fields located in Montana and North Dakota. Mr. Mayorkas was
made aware of the smuggling due to the diligence of various
local law enforcement entities.
During his visit, Mr. Mayorkas met with several law
enforcement agencies as well as with me and a few other
officers of both the National Border Patrol Council and the
National Treasurer Employees Union (NTEU). Although I represent
the men and women of the Border Patrol in the capacity of a
labor leader, I am also a Border Patrol agent extremely
concerned about the security of our nation's border. My
members, who are your agents, are also genuinely concerned
about the security of our borders. Therefore, at the meeting
and on their behalf, I raised three issues:
First, the lack of actionable intelligence provided to
agents to allow them to be successful.
Second, the releasing of criminal aliens from Mexico who
are in our custody.
And third, the practice of providing overtime to managers
to sit behind a desk as opposed to field agents performing
enforcement duties.
For the purpose of this hearing, I will confine my comments
to the lack of intelligence and its impacts on Border Patrol
and Border Patrol's operations. Simply put, Border Patrol
agents are not being given the intelligence necessary to be
successful.
How can a Border Patrol agent know smuggling is taking
place, let alone do their job, if they are not given the
necessary intelligence? To date and even though this issue was
brought directly to Deputy Secretary Mayorkas's attention 2
months ago, Border Patrol agents in Montana still have not been
given the intelligence necessary for them to interdict the
narcotics being smuggled through their Area of Responsibility.
Please allow me to give the committee two examples of how
this is impacting our operations. When Customs and Border
Protection Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske became aware of this
hearing, he hastily put together an operation aimed at
interdicting heroin coming from Mexico into the United States.
This operation is now in the fourth week of four, and it
has been a complete failure. I personally spoke to the agents
participating in this operation and asked the following
questions:
Were you given any idea of how this operation could be a
success?
Were you given any intelligence that would help you be
successful?
Were you given any training on how to conduct the
operation?
Were you given any intelligence specific to heroin
smuggling?
As a Border Patrol agent, are you familiar with or have
ever worked at a port of entry?
Were you trained on how to work at a port of entry?
Are you aware that this operation is not only to seize
heroin, but also to gather intelligence?
Do you know of any heroin that was seized during this
operation?
Do you feel this operation was properly planned and
communicated to the agents assigned?
And last, and most important, as per the stated purpose, do
you feel this operation was a success?
To every single one of those questions, those agents
answered no. Not one of those did they answer in the
affirmative except for one K-9 handler who was formerly an
Office of Field Operations (OFO) officer that worked for the
port of entry that knew what the port of entry's
responsibilities were.
I would also like to give you another example. On February
23, 2015, a Bisbee, Arizona, police officer made a routine
traffic stop on a U-Haul moving truck. During the stop and
while speaking with the driver, the officer developed enough
suspicion to call for a Border Patrol K-9 Handler nine to
conduct a free-air sniff around the truck. While walking around
the truck the canine alerted to the presence of a controlled
substance or persons inside the locked storage unit of the
truck.
Several thousands of pounds of marijuana were discovered
inside the truck, and it was later determined that the truck
came from a home in Naco, Arizona. A subsequent search warrant
was obtained and in the early morning of February 24, 2015, a
tunnel was found on the property of the home. It is estimated
the tunnel was used for several years prior to discovery.
I would like to point out, because Sheriff Dannels is here,
the only reason we knew that that truck came from a home in
Naco, Arizona, was because one of his deputy sheriffs reported
to the scene and said, ``Hey, I saw that truck at this home,''
which allowed us to get the warrant to search that home.
This was great police work, and all officers and agents
involved should be commended. It is, however, a complete
breakdown of the intelligence cycle. Prior to writing this
testimony, I spoke with three of my former colleagues at the
Brian Terry Memorial Station. This station is assigned to the
area where the tunnel was found, and all three were absolutely
amazed that a cartel was able to run contraband directly under
the nose of several agents for so long.
How serious is the lack of intelligence? It is very
serious. But candidly, heroin is the least of our worries. Last
week five Pakistani nationals and two Afghan nationals were
arrested by Border Patrol agents in Sonoita, Arizona, in the
Sonoita, Arizona, Area of Responsibility.
What can we do better? We are dealing with highly
sophisticated, well-organized criminal cartels. As the HIDTA
report notes, these cartels employ encrypted communications and
hire transportation networks and hundreds of cartel members on
this side of the border.
Do we need to support local law enforcement agencies like
the Cochise County Sheriff's Department? The answer is
absolutely. When Federal agencies work and support local law
enforcement, our effectiveness increases exponentially.
Will Joint Agency Task Forces make a difference? Without a
doubt. They will have a positive impact. Joint Agency Task
Forces not only increase our effectiveness in arresting
criminals and seizing contraband, they increase the probability
of gathering the necessary intelligence to support the men and
women in the field.
Can the Border Patrol be successful without actionable
intelligence that is disseminated to the field agents? The
answer is an emphatic no. We must take a proactive instead of a
reactive approach to combating crime. Intelligence is the only
way we will be able to predict when, where, and how persons or
contraband will illegally enter our country.
I appreciate this time to testify before you and look
forward to answering any questions you have.
Chairman KJohnson. Thank you, Agent Judd.
Our final witness is Mr. Jeff Taylor. Mr. Taylor represents
The Salvation Army public policy as an advisory board member.
Mr. Taylor also serves as national speaker for The Salvation
Army, most recently sharing the stage with President George W.
Bush regarding child safety drug treatment. Mr. Taylor has
struggled with drug addiction and will share his story with us
today. Mr. Taylor.
TESTIMONY OF JEFF TAYLOR,\1\ MEMBER, PUBLIC ADVISORY BOARD/
PUBLIC POLICY, THE SALVATION ARMY
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor appears in the Appendix on
page 2029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you just heard, my name is Jeff Taylor, and I will be
presenting the many effects drug addiction has on our State. My
personal experiences on what works and where to go from here.
Briefly, I grew up in Phoenix and attended Central High
School with Senator McCain's wife and also with Colonel
Milstead who was on the panel earlier.
My junior and senior year, I achieved a 4.0 grade point
average (GPA) in advance placement (AP) classes. My senior
year, I was selected as a first team all-State football player
and all-city baseball player, and then attended the University
of Arizona to play football and study finance.
After college I was employed as a stock options trader for
a prestigious Wall Street firm. And at the age of 29, I left
the business at the absolutely peak of my career as one of the
firm's top traders.
I came from a good family, had a successful and meaningful
work history, participated in varied philanthropic works, and
had acquired much as symbols of financial and success. I mean,
everything that we gauge in this country for success, I had.
Four years after leaving the trading position, I was living
on the streets of Phoenix. I had lost everything to addiction.
It can happen to anyone. My story is not unusual.
Early on in college I received a career-ending football
injury and was prescribed a narcotic pain medication. My first
experience with narcotics came from a doctor. Actually, I had
one other really bad experience in high school with Boone's
Farm Strawberry Hill. That was enough for me. But I was not a
drinker. I did not smoke weed in high school. I was a normal,
good kid.
As a result of my addiction, I have been incarcerated many
times in numerous county jails and State prison. This does not
make me a bad person. It makes me an addict in need of help. We
have a sheriff here that runs one of the toughest county jails
in the country, Sheriff Joe Arpaio. As I have told him many
times, he tries to make our facilities very tough that you do
not want to go back. And we agree. We do not want people going
back. But I have told him, that his jail is so tough, I have
only been back six times. That is the power of addiction.
Facing a 4 to 6 year prison term, a very wise judge
diverted me to The Salvation Army drug treatment facility. It
is 20 years later, and I am still very grateful for that. My
drug treatment cost $6,000. My prison term would have cost
$100,000, and statistics show I would likely be back.
You have asked me to share what I have learned from my
unique perspective. First of all, I agree wholeheartedly with
Senator McCain. We cannot incarcerate our way out of addiction
alone. Our State population has doubled. During the same
timeframe our prison population in the State of Arizona has
gone up 1196 percent. People are released with the same drug
problem they were arrested with.
And we prove this by our high rate of re-arrest. And what
is worse when addicts are all placed together in a prison
environment, they network and pick up new skills. While
incarcerated, I learned how to manufacture crystal
methamphetamine, a lot about identity theft, how to import and
transport drugs and avoid canine detection, and was introduced
to several high-ranking drug cartel members, all while on a
prison yard.
Arizona Department of Corrections just reported of the
nearly 20,000 inmates we will release next year, 77 percent are
in need of substance abuse treatment. I cannot emphasize the
following statement enough: We do not have a prison expansion
problem. We have a drug problem.
You will never hear me complain about the time I served in
jails and prisons. I was a danger to myself and others. Addicts
understand consequences. But for me, there was a back door to
that prison cell. I received what I needed, a transitional drug
treatment program.
That experience has led me to work with several legislators
over the years to develop one of the most successful prison
transition programs nationally. And if there is one sentence
that I would like the panel to hear today, it is this: This
program has reduced crime committed by those released from
prison by 50 percent. This is not measuring in a month. This is
measuring at 3 years and tracking over a thousand inmates.
This program saves taxpayer money, a lot of money, and
increases public safety. So let us work on the not-going-back
part.
As a result of the increased flow of drugs into Arizona and
addiction rate soaring, our State Department of Child Safety
(DCS) is under pressure from the wreckage caused by addictive
parents. Our system is overburdened in the sheer numbers of
child abuse and neglect cases, yet nearly 90 percent of DCS
caseloads are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol, one or both
parents.
We do not have a child abuse and neglect problem. Again, we
have a drug problem.
I know this, because after graduating the drug treatment
program, The Salvation Army sent me back to college to study
early childhood development to design and administer the first
nursery of its type: A State licensed childcare facility
serving children of drug addicted parents.
The program was very successful. Of the 27 women that were
released pregnant, drug addicted from Sheriff Joe's jail, 96
percent of these pregnant women delivered a drug-free baby.
These mothers could receive residential drug treatment while
their children were monitored and kept safe. Often child
removal is absolutely necessary, but we must not throw away the
parent who is addicted as they will have more kids that we can
take away. We need to stop the cycle of addiction.
As high schoolers we all remember going to parties, and
there was always someone outside getting sick in the bushes
after drinking too much. Teens overdo it. They always have. But
if you overdo it with heroin, it kills.
Currently opiate overdoses account for more teen deaths
than auto accidents. The bigger question is: Why are our teens
altering reality in such an extreme way? And then I was
introduced to a very effective education and prevention program
called ``Not My Kid.''
The title really says it all. Most parents today are caught
off guard by their children's drug use and are in desperate
need to help navigate these difficult parenting challenges. Not
My Kid understands that teens listen to teens, and that they
have been extremely successful in areas of drug abuse,
education, and prevention in our schools in a simple-to-
understand, right-and-wrong model. This program needs to be
expanded and replicated in other States.
My son thanks The Salvation Army and the criminal justice
system for saving his dad's life. It took both working
together. My son does not know his dad to be under the
influence of drugs. He has never visited his father in prison.
And he has never been in foster care. And now at 16, he is
definitely not enjoying how involved his dad is in his life
right now.
I am very much enjoying my role as an involved parent just
as God designed me to be. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Taylor, for sharing your
story and for what you are doing.
Can you just describe a little bit in greater detail the
program that works so phenomenally well?
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, we give
a Band-Aid mainly to people that are suffering from addiction.
In other words, if you are losing your children as a result of
addiction, that means that you are far along in your addiction.
Addiction progresses over time.
So by the time that it is either go to prison or you have
been to prison, is that we then send them to a 1-or 2-day
class. What really works--and Salvation Army has been doing
this for over 150 years. The Salvation Army started in the
streets of London in 1865 to handle alcoholics on the streets
of London.
So we have learned a lot in those years. We feel that long-
term residential drug treatment is the most effective. You add
the faith-based component to that. And we do not require that
anyone believe, the Christian model. If you are a Jewish client
of ours, then we will take you to a Jewish temple. If you are--
we even had a devil worshiper come through, and The Salvation
Army officer stood up and said, ``We love devil worshipers.''
We can not dictate how people believe, but we can treat it as
the health issue that it is. We get people healthy, their days
into days, their nights into nights. We have good nutrition.
They go to work every day.
All of the trucks that you see driving around town that are
Salvation Army trucks, they are in our drug treatment program.
So they are earning that treatment bed. And incidentally, the
model does not accept nor seek any government funding. It is
self-supporting. It is a long-term residential treatment, 6
months with transition.
Chairman Johnson. Now, Jeff----
Mr. Taylor. Only as good as your transition. Excuse me.
Chairman Johnson. Jeff, is the program working in prisons?
Mr. Taylor. The program that we have in the prison is
actually not in the prison. Drug treatment in a prison
environment is not nearly as effective as drug treatment out of
the prison environment.
So briefly, this program releases inmates 90 days early. It
is only a 90-day early release, so there's no sentencing reform
involved. And during those 90 days, that individual is in a
highly monitored drug treatment program, but it is also case
managed, meaning that that person is enrolled in parenting
classes, safe housing, everything that you need when you get
out.
I have been released from our prison system with $42 in my
pocket, homeless, and with a felony conviction. And now it is
like: Now, do not go back. Of course, people are going to go
back.
So that program is called intensive outpatient and, quite
frankly, it has been much more successful than I thought it
would be.
Chairman Johnson. I met with former prisoners in Wisconsin,
too, and we make it almost impossible for them to succeed once
they leave.
While we are still talking about this subject, Senator
McCain, Senator Flake, any questions for Mr. Taylor?
Senator Flake. Thank you so much for your testimony. That
was just riveting. Really was. You mentioned that you graduated
college and then went off to work, but it was an old football
injury that had you hooked.
Were you prescribed oxycodone or something during that
time, and it took years to develop an addiction, or you could
not get that prescription anymore so you turned to illicit
drugs? How did that transition?
Mr. Taylor. I did not get addicted--Senator Flake, excuse
me.
I did not get addicted right away. At that time, I was a
pre-med student. I was worried about getting behind in school,
and then I took a narcotic pain medication that was prescribed,
and all of a sudden, I did not worry. It is called having a
false sense of well-being.
And I did not get addicted in college. It is when I got out
of college. But that part in my brain, that was the fix to high
anxiety or things that I worry about. And then I became a stock
options trader which, as we all know, is a highly stressful
business.
Most addicts are people that do not have an off switch. I
just do not have an off switch. So what I had to learn in
treatment is how to take that excessiveness and turn it in the
right direction. For example, the other day I woke up, and I
got on my bike and I rode to Prescott. That is a little
healthier, though. It is downhill coming back, though.
Chairman Johnson. Sure. Go ahead.
Senator McCain. I would like to thank all of the witnesses.
And thank you, Mr. Taylor, for that very compelling
testimony. It gives us all a great deal of food for thought.
I would like to recognize Agent Judd who I have had the
honor of working with as we attempted to become more successful
in stabilizing the compensation and retirement and other
aspects of personnel for our Border Patrol agents, which, I
think, Brandon Judd would agree was a real problem with both
retention and recruitment.
And without your leadership, Mr. Judd, we would not have
done it. Without the active involvement of the Border Patrol
agents that you are the president of, we would not have been
able to achieve it.
I would like to go back for a second to this issue of
corruption that you and I were just talking about, because it
is very concerning.
If we have corruption within those who we place our trust
and confidence, then I think it is pretty obvious the results
of that. And you pointed out there have been several occasions
where this corruption has been discovered. In fact, I seem to
remember one case on our border that was really very serious a
couple years ago.
What is the extent of this corruption problem, and what do
we need to do to fix it?
Agent Judd. The corruption problem----
Senator McCain. And, again, thank you for your leadership.
Agent Judd. Senator, if it was not for this committee
taking up that issue, we would have been in trouble. Period.
You allowed us to have the manpower on the border to help us
secure the border, so that was huge, and I greatly appreciate
that.
But talking about the corruption issue, we just had an
agent assigned in Laredo, Texas, a couple weeks ago that was
just arrested and indicted for murder inside the United States.
And it is my understanding that we just had an agent here in
Tucson Sector that was arrested for having 80 pounds of--I am
sorry--80 kilograms of cocaine on his home by the Federal
Bureau of Investigations (FBI).
Corruption is a huge problem. And when you allow corruption
within an agency that is tasked with stopping drugs and
narcotics and smuggling of illegal aliens and especially
persons from countries that we know would like to do harm to
our country, it is a huge problem.
I really believe, Senator McCain, that what we have to do
is we have to listen to those agents. It is the agents that are
going to report this corruption. That is what is going to
happen. We have case after case after case where our agents
have gone to their managers and said, ``Look, I know that this
person is corrupt. I know it.''
In fact, a couple years ago we had agents that went to
managers and said, ``I know that this agent is corrupt.''
Management did nothing about it. Two years later that agent was
arrested by the FBI for bringing in money for drug cartels.
Who knows what that agent did in those 2 years and how much
harm that agent caused the agency? We need to listen to our
agents. We need to take what our agents----
Senator McCain. Excuse me.
As Commissioner Kerlikowske pointed out that they started
finally an Internal Affairs branch. Is that something you think
would be important?
Agent Judd. It is. But, again, we are a long way from where
we need to be. What we see in the government is we see the
government just acts way too slow. So we might have started an
Internal Affairs branch to combat corruption, but we probably
will not see the results of it for several years.
I mean, Secretary Jeh Johnson said this is a new
organization. We have been around for over 10 years, and he
says that it is going to take awhile until we get the morale
up. And I have to say, again, that is what we see and that is
the reality of the Federal Government. It is just way too slow
in its reaction.
Senator McCain. Why is there such a shortage on our border,
Mariposa Port of Entry of 200 agents? What can we do about
that?
Agent Judd. You are going to have a very hard time
recruiting people to areas that are less desirable areas. And
let us be frank. You know about Ajo, Arizona.
You know where Ajo is. Who's going to want to live in Ajo,
Arizona? And so you have a hard time looking at retentions in
Ajo, Arizona.
Senator McCain. Is there such a thing as extra incentive?
Agent Judd. There should be. And we have been pushing for
that. We have been pushing for that to give that extra
incentive to allow that.
Senator McCain. We have military when somebody goes to a
hardship region.
Agent Judd. And we should have it in the Border Patrol. Why
management is not taking it seriously, I do not know.
Senator McCain. How about sending to the committee a
recommendation?
Agent Judd. I will be happy to do that again.
Senator McCain. So we can try to address it legislatively.
Agent Judd. I will be absolutely happy to do that.
Senator McCain. I thank you for your leadership.
Agent Judd. Thank you, sir.
Senator McCain. Sheriff Dannels, just briefly, how is your
coordination with the Border Patrol?
Sheriff Dannels. We work very closely with them.
Senator McCain. But you have a good relationship?
Sheriff Dannels. Yes. We have a good relationship with the
three PACs in our county to include one in Lordsburg and also
the agents. We rely heavily on their support, especially in the
rural parts to get to the situation where we can get there and
neutralize it so we can investigate it from that point on. We
do have a good relationship with the Border Patrol.
Senator McCain. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, again, I hate to
keep harping. I sound like hometown. But I have forgotten how
many tens of millions of dollars to improve our Mariposa Port
of Entry and, yet, we are not using it because we do not have
the people. So maybe, Mr. Chairman, we could take up this in
January this issue. Maybe an incentive kind of a pay or
benefits or something to try to attract men and women. And as
Brandon Judd just said, it does get pretty hot. Hotter than
Milwaukee.
Chairman Johnson. It gets hot. But ours is a humid hot,
too.
No. Listen, when you hear about the high levels of
unemployment once the finest among us that, veterans coming
back from Afghanistan and Iraq, and then to hear jobs are not
being filled, it seems like it is a pretty common sense
solution.
Agent Judd, it is disturbing that you have talked about
these documented cases that are not acted upon. We have had a
number of hearings on retribution. Not only just within
Department of Homeland Security, but across the Federal
Government. Coming from the private sector, I just find it
shocking how much retribution there really is against
whistleblowers.
Is that part of the problem why the agents do not continue
to followup on their accusations? Have they experienced
retribution? Do they fear it?
Agent Judd. Yes. If you look at the most recent reports,
especially about the Afghanistan and Pakistanis that were just
arrested here in Arizona, and you talk about the Syrians that
are giving up at the port of entry, all of these news outlets
are saying from sources that do not want to be named.
Well, there is a reason why they do not want to be named.
If they are named, they know darn good and well that they
are going to face repercussions from the agency. And it is
known that this agency will take action against agents. We just
had an agent, Chris Cabrera, who testified before your
committee.
Chairman Johnson. I was going to point out that agent.
Agent Judd. And right after his testimony, Internal Affairs
wanted to investigate him because he is telling you what is
happening on the border. And I am sorry, Senator. I just had
one of my local presidents was just proposed termination for
absolutely--it's ridiculous what this proposed termination is
for. So, yes, we have a lot of problems within our agency as
far as them taking action when we come up and we give them
commonsense approaches to effectuating law enforcement
activities.
Senator, you have heard me many times, although I am
elected to be in the National Border Patrol Council, you know
darn good and well that the National Border Patrol Council's--
our concern is border security. Always has been. Always will
be.
Chairman Johnson. It was interesting that that exact same
instance of Chris Cabrera, we heard prior to our hearing that
he was going to have an interview with Internal Affairs. And,
of course, I will put the best structure on it. I was assuming
that Internal Affairs was going to ask him about the disparity
in his testimony that we were only apprehending 30 to 40
percent. He probably wanted to get to the bottom of that. I
raised that issue in the hearing, and the interview was
canceled.
Agent Judd. Yes, it was, and I appreciate that.
Chairman Johnson. Which kind of tells me they were not
going to talk about their concern about a lower apprehension
rate and cooking the books basically in terms of information
they were provided.
Agent Judd. Yes.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Flake.
Senator Flake. Sure. Sheriff Dannels, you talked about the
plan developed in 1990s that just do not apply today. Can you
give us some examples of what changes there have been to
smuggling routes and methods and strategies employed by the
cartels?
Back in the 1990s, the cartels really did not control what
they do today in terms of the traffic across the border. I am
assuming so. Can you give us some examples of what needs to be
updated?
Sheriff Dannels. Well, the plan in the 1990s, the latter
part of that plan was to reroute that illegal activity, the
disturbances into the rural parts of the southwest border with
the thought that they would never do that because of the
mountainous and the desert terrain, and they would not conquer
that.
Well, move forward, they did. They have conquered it. They
like it. They like being in the mountainous area as the Border
Patrol can tell you also. They like being out in the desert. So
they have taken advantage of that, and the fact that now that
the voice speaking on that are rural folks, ranchers, legacy
ranchers, folks that have lived out there in these rural parts
for a long time that have become numb to this byproduct of this
plan. And their voice is so little, a minority voice out there,
that it does not have a voice like El Paso or Yuma or, like,
Maricopa where they can actually bring a noise to it, and
solution is right away.
So for 20 years they have been living this. And over these
20 years the cartels have solidified their efforts, their
smuggling efforts, and their criminal act in these rural parts
of the southwest border, and this falls directly onto the
sheriffs.
We have ranchers that have had break-ins four and five
times. We have a small community that's got 75 homes in it. And
they have an average of 20, 25 burglaries a year in that
community. This is break-ins to their own homes, their
neighbors' homes. It's the illegals.
It is not a fair way or no quality of life for anybody to
live like that. But over time, we have forgotten the history of
this plan and taking it at face value, this is where our border
is. And we really need to take a deep look at where we have
gone with this plan.
And as Brandon Judd's talk, the agents on the ground know
what is going on. You solve problems at the lowest level,
working with your local sheriffs, working with your local
police chiefs and agents that work in the rural parts. They can
give you a lot of good answers, but you have got to get them to
the table before you do that.
Senator Flake. Ms. Mertz, what strategies do we have in
terms of combating these cartels and the movement of drugs,
human intelligence trying to infiltrate and getting
intelligence there, signals of intelligence? Communications?
Are we making full use of what we have, and as a privacy debate
that is been going on in Washington, have an impact on our
ability to infiltrate, know what is going on with cartels?
Ms. Mertz. In answer to that question, yes, it does. As
technology increases, we encounter encrypted phone-to-phone
transmissions. We are having difficulty un-encrypting them. We
can not do it. And as technology increases, our ability to
conduct these long-term investigations and figure out what they
are doing becomes more and more difficult.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Flake. We are rapidly
running out of time. I did want to follow up just quickly on
the 1990s plan.
Senator McCain. Can I just ask the sheriff one question?
What kind of intel sharing do you get in your work with the
Federal Government?
Sheriff Dannels. It is recently improved working with
HIDTA, working with Dawn here, addressing our concerns. So we
have more intel coming through.
It all depends on the leadership. It truly does. Good
leaders bring good intel.
Senator McCain. Thanks.
Sheriff Dannels. I truly see a big picture mission that
partnerships are beyond paper. We all talk about, ``Hey, we
have a partnership. We have this written on paper.'' A
partnership come from people sitting down, having a face-to-
face discussion. So it has improved. Can it get better? Of
course, it can.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. I started my questioning with the
Governor and the Commissioner really talking about what are the
top three things, actions. OK. Cooperation, funding, got that.
But to cooperate and fund what?
I want to go to the 1990s plan. We did succeed in
dramatically reducing flow of drugs and illegal trafficking in
different sectors; correct?
Can you just tell me, what did we do that worked? And,
obviously, we have redirected now. They have cracked the code
and figured out how to smuggle elsewhere. But talk about what
worked to guide our activity in terms of what we need to do
now.
Sheriff Dannels. Chairman Johnson, I will start by saying
it is got to have the will. Washington, D.C., has to have the
will to change it. We can not settle on the fact that, hey, we
have had successes in the three metro cities on the southwest
border: El Paso, Yuma, and San Diego.
And I use this analogy when I talk to groups and the fact
that 20 years ago when you turned on one of the three major
networks, and you would see a pursuit heading north from the
border, whether it be a Border Patrol chasing a motor vehicle,
a sheriff's office, and then you would see folks bailing out of
the pickup. Ask yourself: When is the last time you saw that?
Probably has not been much because the agency has been
addressed with staffing, technology, attention all the way
through intel sharing at a Federal level.
You need to take successes and say, hey, this has worked in
these metro areas, and we have done it. Take that because what
you have done is taken that illegal, those violent cartels, and
you have pretty much given up the rural parts of the southwest
border to let them operate in that area to bring across
special--like Brandon Judd was talking about this tunnel that I
was involved with also with them. And that is a VIP tunnel. I
testified before on that, where special products, special
people came through that. That should scare the heck out of all
of us in this room.
And so we need to put a huge effort on redefining this plan
of the 1990s and go back and see what history has taught us and
take that forward.
Chairman Johnson. Again, I want to talk about what we can
do. So we need the will, commitment, no doubt about it. We need
cooperation. We need funding to do what?
What is it? Talk about technology. Now, is it fencing?
Is it more manpower? I mean, what is it that we have to do?
Sheriff Dannels. If I can answer that, Chairman Johnson, is
one thing we do in our county that I think, all sheriffs and
all police chiefs on the local level do different things to max
their community needs, is to actually speak to a variety of
chiefs and sheriffs and say what is working in your county on
the southwest border?
There is 24 of us sheriffs, for example, and each one is
doing their own thing to make things work. We need to unify on
that, first of all, and make sure that that voice is heard from
the sheriffs and to our State partners and our Federal
partners.
The other aspect of this is, I use a balanced approach of
education, prevention and enforcement. And each one has a
certain element to address a certain population of your
citizenry.
No. 1 is if you look at 66 percent of what we do is
education prevention, and you have that 33 percent for those
that just will not comply that we have to have that enforcement
consequence rule built into our laws.
So how can I say this? You really need to listen to your
locals. Because as you solve problems as in anything you are
doing in life, you always go to the lowest levels. And that
needs to start in our communities with our agents.
Chairman Johnson. There are always different solutions to
different parts. Again, very quickly, Ms. Mertz, Mr. Judd, Mr.
Taylor, I know you want one final comment. Ms. Mertz.
Ms. Mertz. I do think increasing our ability to use
technology as far as the encrypted phone transmissions would
assist us.
I agree with what Sheriff Dannels said: Use the information
from the sheriffs' departments, the police departments, and
roll that up into a bigger investigation, and use the
intelligence to ensure that you are targeting the correct
people.
And then the task forces can go after those people, and we
can enforce our laws, also reducing the demand in our country
for the illicit drugs.
Chairman Johnson. Has there ever been a meeting of all the
county sheriffs, by DHS to really find out what action plan we
have to do? And you have to do it quick.
Sheriff Dannels. Yes. And I can answer that question. I
know the four border sheriffs in Arizona, we recently met and
discussed issues. I know Southwest Border Sheriffs, the Western
Sheriffs Association, National Sheriffs Association, we just
had a conference in Sierra Vista, Arizona, where we brought us
all together and talked about what we are talking about today.
So we are trying to unify our thoughts and put that balance
of what we are doing and how to make it best for the people we
serve.
Chairman Johnson. Maybe this committee can convene
something like that. Keep that in mind. Mr. Judd.
Agent Judd. I will keep it very short.
We need to develop, increase, and expand our intel.
We need to be able to predict when, where, and how illegal
narcotics, persons are going to cross our border.
And we need to put our uniform law enforcement officers and
agents in a position where they can be successful. That is what
we need.
Chairman Johnson. Is that Homeland Security Investigations
(HSI) within DHS? Is that separate----
Agent Judd. It is actually----
Chairman Johnson. FBI?
Agent Judd. Well, FBI, HSI, Internal Affairs included.
But these task forces are huge. When we shut down a task
force because a task force is too successful we have to stop
politicizing the issue. When we shut down a task force because
the task force was extremely effective, which then shows that
our ports of entry were not effective, that is just wrong.
Chairman Johnson. Mr. Taylor, why don't you close it out.
Mr. Taylor. And to Senator McCain's point on corruption,
what I did not say in my statement today is I lived in Nogales.
I lived right above the Mariposa exit and entry into this
country and have been all up and down the border there.
The major cartel members do not try to corrupt. They are
amateurs that are trying to corrupt our government officials.
They always get caught. Maybe they get caught now; maybe they
get caught a year from now. But when they get caught, then that
is going to bring all sorts of heat that the cartel members do
not want brought into their area there. So it is much easier to
throw a lot of product at the border, because they are very
sophisticated in that. They know how much they throw at the
border and how much is getting caught.
So widespread corruption is highly publicized when one of
our people are corrupt. But the corruption that is widespread
is not on our side of the border.
And then what we need to do is that drug addicts do not
make great criminals. They get caught. We have got 20,000 that
are getting out this year. That means 10,000 are going to be
back in within 5 years. So when they get treatment, they do not
go back.
I do not buy drugs. It is pretty hard to do a drug-
motivated crime when you do not do drugs. It is pretty hard to
get a driving while intoxicated (DWI) if I am not intoxicated.
So we have put a lot of money in interdiction, and yet
drugs have never been more available, more plentiful, more
powerful, and cheaper than they are at this very moment. We
have to work on the demand side, and it works. We are getting
very good at it.
Chairman Johnson. Again, Mr. Taylor, thank you.
Thank all of our witnesses again for your service to your
community, State, and nation, for your thoughtful testimony,
your questions, and your answers to our questions.
I want to thank Senator McCain, Senator Flake, and the
State of Arizona, the Governor, for welcoming us here.
This has really been a very good hearing. We have learned a
lot, laid out more reality.
With that, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days
until December 8, 5 p.m., for the submissions of statements and
questions for the record. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]