U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

26–396 PDF 2017

ENDING THE CRISIS: AMERICA’S BORDERS AND 

THE PATH TO SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

Serial No. 115–2 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 


Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

WILL HURD, Texas 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York 

J. LUIS CORREA, California 

VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida 

NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGA ́ N, California 

BRENDAN P. SHIELDS, Staff Director 

JOAN V. O’HARA, General Counsel 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

HOPE GOINS, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 3 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 6 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8 

WITNESSES 

PANEL I 

Hon. John F. Kelly, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11 

PANEL II 

Mr. Steven C. McCraw, Director, Texas Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 88 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 90 

Mr. Joe Frank Martinez, Sheriff, Val Verde County, Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 99 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 101 

Mr. Leon N. Wilmot, Sheriff, Yuma County, Arizona: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 103 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 105 

Hon. Eddie Trevino, Jr., County Judge, Cameron County, Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 113 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 116 

FOR THE RECORD 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security: 

Letter to Chairman Michael T. McCaul ............................................................. 4 

The Honorable James R. Langevin, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Rhode Island: 

Brief, Response to Emergency Motion, Exhibit P .............................................. 25 

Article, New York Times ...................................................................................... 34 

The Honorable Will Hurd, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Texas: 

Slides ..................................................................................................................... 51 

Page

IV 

The Honorable Bonnie Watson Coleman, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of New Jersey: 

Article, New York Times ...................................................................................... 54 

The Honorable Martha McSally, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Arizona: 

Statement of Anthony M. Reardon, President, National Treasury Employees 

Union ................................................................................................................. 57 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas: 

Article, Houston Chronicle .................................................................................. 67 

The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security: 

Letter ..................................................................................................................... 86 

The Honorable Nanette Diaz Barraga ́n, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of California: 

Statement of the American Immigration Council ............................................. 136 

APPENDIX 

Questions From Honorable Will Hurd for John Kelly .......................................... 149 

Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for John Kelly ............ 149 

(1) 

ENDING THE CRISIS: AMERICA’S BORDERS 

AND THE PATH TO SECURITY 

Tuesday, February 7, 2017 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in HVC– 

210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Michael T. McCaul (Chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives McCaul, King, Rogers, Duncan, 

Barletta, Perry, Katko, Hurd, McSally, Ratcliffe, Donovan, Gallagher, Higgins, Rutherford, Garrett, Fitzpatrick, Thompson, Jackson 

Lee, Langevin, Richmond, Keating, Payne, Vela, Watson Coleman, 

Rice, Correa, Demings, and Barraga ́n. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Committee on Homeland Security will come 

to order. The committee is meeting today to examine America’s borders and the path to security. 

I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

First, I want to welcome General Kelly to his first hearing before 

Congress since his confirmation as Secretary of Homeland Security. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us here today. This committee is eager to work with you and we stand ready to help you 

and the Department succeed. Your job will not be easy, as you 

know. But as we talked about last week, your leadership is vital. 

The Trump administration has inherited porous borders, failed 

immigration policies, and a grave and growing terror threat; 2 

weeks ago the Trump administration took action to address these 

dangers. First the President signed an Executive Order for a border security surge. Today we will get an update on that effort and 

how you plan to create multi-layered defenses to keep criminals, 

drug cartels, and potential terrorists out of the country. 

After the Secretary’s testimony we will welcome a panel of frontline defenders from Texas and Arizona for a frank discussion about 

the challenges at the local level. 

Second, the President signed an Executive Order to put a pause 

on immigration and refugee admissions from high-threat parts of 

the world. The pause will give us time to enhance security checks 

to stop terrorists from using our immigration system as a Trojan 

horse, as they have already done in Europe. Last year I helped to 

draft a memo to then-candidate Trump explaining how we could intensify the vetting process while ensuring our doors remain open 

to peaceful, free, and loving people regardless of race or religion. 

I also authored the American SAFE Act, which called for temporary pausing of the Syrian refugee program so we could improve 

2 

security screening, and it passed the House with a bipartisan vetoproof majority. 

I am encouraged the President has paid attention to those recommendations, but the roll-out of his Executive Order has been 

problematic. It caused confusion here in Congress, across the country, and around the world, and it caused real problems for people 

with lawful green cards and visas, who in some cases were already 

in the air when the order was signed. 

Secretary Kelly, you and I have spoken about my concerns, and 

I am reassured that you have taken positive steps to help correct 

the order’s deficiencies. 

Now we will wait to see how the matter is handled in the courts. 

In the mean time, let me stress that the words we use about this 

Executive matter. This is not a Muslim ban and even the suggestion that it could will alienate our allies and embolden our adversaries. This is a temporary suspension on visas from high-risk terror threat countries and a pause on the refugee program. This will 

allow the administration to put in place enhanced vetting to keep 

terrorists out and keep Americans safe. 

These countries were selected because of a law drafted by this 

committee which designated four nations as terror hotspots, including all State sponsors of terror. The Obama administration later 

added these additional countries to the list, bringing the total number of countries to seven. 

This is what the Trump administration relied on, a law based on 

risk not on religion. I urge my colleagues and the media to avoid 

reckless statements to the contrary. 

Now is the time for DHS to move forward with common-sense, 

21st-Century vetting changes. I hope the Department will follow 

this committee’s guidance. We have been focused—more focused 

than any other panel in Congress on shutting down terror pathways into this country. 

In 2015 we created a bipartisan task force that conducted one of 

the widest reviews of security gaps since the 9/11 Commission. 

That review produced more than 50 recommendations to stop 

jihadists from entering the United States undetected. Some of 

these were enacted into law while others were not. We need to address them as soon as possible, especially visa and refugee security 

improvements. 

Finally, because of the law drafted by this committee the President will be required to submit a National strategy to combat terrorist travel to this Congress this summer. We look forward, sir, to 

receiving it and reviewing the Trump administration’s long-term 

plan for denying jihadists entry into the United States, including 

at the border. 

Americans are eager to see results. Washington’s open-border 

policies and weak immigration screening have failed our people and 

our committee—communities time and time again. That is why I 

am pleased today, sir, we have a no-nonsense Secretary of Homeland Security, a former Marine, who is ready to do what others 

could not by finally securing our territory. 

Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you again for joining us today. 

You are charged with confronting adaptive threats and insidious 

3 

enemies. I want you to know that this committee and this Congress 

stand ready to work with you to secure America. 

[The statement of Chairman McCaul follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL T. MCCAUL

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

The Trump administration has inherited porous borders, failed immigration policies, and a grave and growing terror threat. Two weeks ago, the Trump administration took action to address these dangers. 

First, the President signed an Executive Order for a border security ‘‘surge.’’ 

Today, we will get an update on that effort and how you plan to create multi-layered 

defenses to keep criminals, drug cartels, and potential terrorists out of our country. 

After the Secretary’s testimony, we will welcome a panel of front-line defenders from 

Texas and Arizona for a frank discussion about the challenges at the local level. 

Second, the President signed an Executive Order to put a ‘‘pause’’ on immigration 

and refugee admissions from high-threat parts of the world. The pause will give us 

time to enhance security checks to stop terrorists from using our immigration system as a Trojan Horse—as they have already done in Europe. 

Last year, I helped to draft a memo to then-candidate Trump explaining how we 

could intensify the vetting process while ensuring our doors remain open to peaceful, freedom-loving people, regardless of race or religion. I also authored the American SAFE Act, which called for temporarily pausing the Syrian refugee program 

so we could improve security screening. It passed the House with a bi-partisan vetoproof majority. 

I am encouraged the President has paid attention to those recommendations. 

But the roll-out of his Executive Order has been problematic. It caused confusion 

here in Congress, across the country, and around the world. And it caused real problems for people with lawful green cards and visas, who in some cases were already 

in the air when the order was signed. 

Secretary Kelly, you and I have spoken about my concerns, and I am reassured 

that you have taken positive steps to help correct for the order’s deficiencies. Now 

we will wait to see how the matter is handled in the courts. 

In the mean time, let me stress that the words we use about this Executive Order 

matter. This is not a Muslim ban. And even the suggestion that it is could alienate 

our allies and embolden our adversaries. 

Again, this is a temporary suspension on visas from high-risk terror threat countries and a pause on the refugee program. This will allow the administration to put 

in place enhanced vetting to keep terrorists out and keep Americans safe. 

These countries were selected because of a law drafted by this committee, which 

designated four nations as terror hotspots, including all ‘‘state sponsors of terror.’’ 

The Obama administration later added three additional countries to this list, 

bringing the total to seven. 

That is what the Trump administration relied on—a law based on risk, not on 

religion. 

I urge my colleagues and the media to avoid reckless statements to the contrary. 

Now is the time for DHS to move forward with common-sense, 21st-Century vetting changes. I hope the Department will follow this committee’s guidance. We have 

been more focused than any other panel in Congress on shutting down terrorist 

pathways into this country. 

In 2015, we created a bipartisan task force that conducted one of the widest reviews of security gaps since the 9/11 Commission. That review produced more than 

50 recommendations to stop jihadists from entering the United States undetected. 

Some of these were enacted into law, while others were not. So we need to address 

them as soon as possible, especially visa and refugee security improvements. 

Finally, because of a law drafted by this committee, the President will be required 

to submit a ‘‘National strategy to combat terrorist travel’’ to Congress this summer. 

We look forward to receiving it and reviewing the Trump administration’s long-term 

plan for denying jihadists entry into the United States, including at the border. 

Americans are eager to see results. Washington’s open-border policies and weak 

immigration screening have failed our people and our communities time and again. 

That is why I am pleased we have a ‘‘no-nonsense’’ Secretary of Homeland Security, 

who is ready to do what others could not by finally securing our territory. 

Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you again for joining us today. You are charged 

with confronting adaptive threats and insidious enemies. And I want you to know 

4 

that this committee and this Congress stand ready to work with you to secure 

America. 

Americans are eager to see results. Washington’s open-border policies and weak 

immigration screening have failed our people and our communities time and again. 

That is why I am pleased we have a ‘‘no-excuses’’ President and Secretary of 

Homeland Security, who are ready to do what others could not by finally securing 

our territory. 

Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you again for joining us today. You are charged 

with confronting adaptive threats and insidious enemies. 

And I want you to know that this committee and this Congress stand ready to 

work with you to secure America. 

Chairman MCCAUL. With that, the Chair now recognizes the 

Ranking Member, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you for holding today’s hearing entitled, ‘‘Ending the Crisis: America’s Borders and the Path to Security.’’ 

Let me welcome our new Secretary. 

We are glad to have you. Your record speaks for itself. 

Some of us served on the Hill when you were on the Hill. You 

had a few less stars and other things associated with that service, 

but thank you very much for your service. 

However, I would note, Mr. Chairman, that the urgent border 

crisis facing our Nation is not occurring at our Southern Border, 

but rather is a one of President Trump’s own making. His Executive Order banning all travel from seven majority-Muslim countries 

and suspending our refugee program under the guise of security 

does nothing to make us safer. 

Blocking the admission of green card holders who are doctors, 

scientists, business owners, and other valued members of our society does nothing to make us safer. Suspending the admission of refugees, like this teddy bear-holding, 4-year-old Somali girl who had 

to be vetted for years, does nothing to make us safer. 

To the contrary, the Executive Order makes America less safe by 

serving as a recruitment and propaganda tool for terrorist groups, 

complicating coordination with allies and partners in the fight 

against terrorism, and distracting border security personnel from 

the job of thoroughly screening all travelers to this country on an 

individualized basis. 

No amount of fear-mongering via Twitter or alternative facts will 

change the fact that on January 27, with a stroke of a pen, President Trump changed this Nation’s standing both at home and 

abroad. Democratic Members have many questions about President 

Trump’s unconstitutional Muslim ban and have signed a letter to 

Chairman McCaul asking for a hearing to allow for a thorough examination of the issues. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include 

the letter in the record. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

LETTER TO CHAIRMAN MICHAEL T. MCCAUL

February 6, 2017. 

The Honorable MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCCAUL: We are writing to request that you hold a Full Committee hearing to examine President Trump’s ‘‘Muslim Ban’’ Executive Order, entitled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States. 

5 

1 Exec. Order No. 13769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977. 2 Id. 3 Mica Rosenberg & Lesley Wroughton, ‘‘Trump Travel Ban Has Revoked 60,000 Visas for 

Now,’’ Reuters (Feb. 3, 2017), http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-visasidUSKBN1512EW (last visited Feb. 5, 2017). 4 https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states. 

This Executive Order, signed on January 27th, imposed, with limited exceptions, 

an immediate prohibition on citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, 

and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days.1 The Executive Order also 

suspends the entry of Syrian refugees indefinitely, requires the State Department 

to suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days, and lowers the total 

number of refugees allowed to be admitted to the U.S. for fiscal year 2017 to 

50,000.2 Upon issuance of the Executive Order, the State Department revoked approximately 60,000 visas 3 belonging to those covered by the order and U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) instructed air carriers to deny boarding to covered individuals at overseas airports.4 The rollout of the ‘‘Muslim Ban’’ created havoc not 

only for the air carriers and their passengers, but also CBP Officers who were put 

in the untenable position of having to enforce the order without guidance. 

While we recognize that the future of the ‘‘Muslim Ban’’ is presently a question 

for the Federal Judiciary, we have an obligation, as co-equal constitutional partners 

to the Executive and Judicial branch, to do robust oversight of the ‘‘Muslim Ban’s’’ 

immediate and long-term homeland security and national security implications. To 

that end, we look forward to working with you to ensure that that a hearing is 

scheduled soon to receive testimony from Departmental officials, national and homeland security experts and the private sector (including air carriers) to address the 

far-reaching impacts of the ‘‘Muslim Ban’’. 

Should you have questions about this request, please contact Hope Goins on the 

Democratic staff. 

RESPECTFULLY, 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Ranking Member. 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE. 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN. 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND. 

WILLIAM R. KEATING. 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR. 

FILEMON VELA. 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN. 

KATHLEEN M. RICE. 

J. LUIS CORREA. 

VAL BUTLER DEMINGS. 

NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGA ́ N. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

We look forward to beginning to get some answers at today’s 

hearing. I want to thank our witnesses, Secretary of Homeland Security, again, John F. Kelly, for testifying before this committee 

today. 

Frankly, it is somewhat unfair that Secretary Kelly is being 

called on to defend an Executive Order that, by most accounts, he 

was required to implement with almost no notice. The White House 

officials who directed the roll-out of the Executive Order should be 

here to answer this debacle. 

But we appreciate your willingness, sir, to come before us as Secretary. 

I also appreciate the witnesses on our second panel being here 

today to share their perspectives on the security of our Southern 

Border. President Trump’s words and actions related to the Southern Border and the government and people of Mexico have been 

counterproductive, to put it mildly. Like the Muslim ban, President 

Trump’s proposed border wall will do little to better secure America’s borders, but will cost Americans billions. 

6 

The Department of Homeland Security has no matrix to show 

that border walls enhance security in a way that justifies their exorbitant cost. Putting the wall on the American taxpayers’ credit 

card, knowing that Mexico has absolutely no intentions of paying 

for it, will surely leave American taxpayers stuck with the bill. 

Instead, we need border security policy that keeps terrorists, 

their instruments, criminals, and contraband out of this country 

while upholding American values and ensuring the flow of legitimate travelers and commerce that is vital to our Nation’s economy 

and our way of life. 

I look forward to engaging the witnesses and Members today in 

a discussion about how we can do just that. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding today’s hearing and yield 

back the balance of my time. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

I would note that the urgent border security crisis facing our Nation is not occurring at our Southern Border, but rather is one of President Trump’s own making. 

His Executive Order banning all travel from seven majority-Muslim countries and 

suspending our refugee program under the guise of security does nothing to make 

us safer. 

Blocking the admission of green card holders, who are doctors, scientists, business 

owners, and other valued members of our society, does nothing to make us safer. 

Suspending the admission of refugees like this teddy-bear holding 4-year-old Somali girl who had been vetted for years, does nothing to make us safer. 

To the contrary, the Executive Order makes America less safe by serving as a recruitment and propaganda tool for terrorist groups, complicating coordination with 

allies and partners in the fight against terrorism, and distracting border security 

personnel from the job of thoroughly screening all travelers to this country on an 

individualized basis. 

No amount of fear-mongering via Twitter or ‘‘alternative facts’’ will change the 

fact that on January 27, with the stroke of a pen, President Trump changed this 

Nation’s standing both at home and abroad. 

Democratic Members have many questions about President Trump’s unconstitutional Muslim ban, and have signed a letter to Chairman McCaul asking for a hearing to allow for a thorough examination of the issues. 

I want to thank our witness, Secretary of Homeland Security, General John F. 

Kelly, for testifying before the Committee today and for his long and distinguished 

record of service to our Nation. 

Frankly, it is somewhat unfair that Secretary Kelly is being called on to defend 

an Executive Order that, by most accounts, he was required to implement with almost no notice. The White House officials who directed the roll-out of the Executive 

Order should be here to answer for this debacle. 

President Trump’s words and actions related to the Southern Border and the government and people of Mexico have been counterproductive, to put it mildly. 

Like the Muslim Ban, Trump’s proposed ‘‘border wall’’ will do little to better secure America’s borders but will cost the Americans billions. 

The Department of Homeland Security has no metrics to show that border walls 

enhance security in a way that justifies their exorbitant cost. 

Putting the wall on the American taxpayers’ credit card, knowing that Mexico has 

absolutely no intention of paying for it, will surely leave the American taxpayers 

stuck with the bill. 

Instead, we need border security policy that keeps terrorists, their instruments, 

criminals, and contraband out of this country, while upholding American values and 

ensuring the flow of legitimate travelers and commerce that is vital to our Nation’s 

economy and our way of life. 

7 


h:\seals\115218.eps
8 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank the Ranking Member. Members are 

reminded they may submit statements for the record. 

[The statement of Hon. Jackson Lee follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

Thank you Chairman McCaul, and Ranking Member Thompson, for convening 

this opportunity for the Homeland Security Committee to hear from Secretary Kelly 

and from experts who can speak on the topic of ‘‘Ending the Crisis: America’s Borders and the Path to Security.’’ 

I join my colleagues on the committee in welcoming the Secretary of Homeland 

Security John F. Kelly to receive his testimony, which will give Members an opportunity to learn more about the President’s Executive Orders and the enforcement 

role of DHS. 

On Friday, January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order suspending all resettlement of Syrian refugees indefinitely, and resettlement of all 

other refugees for 120 days. 

The order also imposed a 90-day ban on entry of nationals from seven predominately Muslim countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. 

There is little reason to doubt that the motivation behind the Trump Executive 

Order was to target and exdude persons whose religious faith is Mllslim. 

Simply put, the Executive Order on its face is a ban on Muslims masquerading 

as a measure to protect the homeland. 

It has been widely reported that former New York City Mayor Rudy W. Giuliani 

is quoted as daiming that the President wanted a ‘‘Muslim ban’’ and requested that 

the former mayor assemble a commission to show him ‘‘the right way to do it legally.’’ 

I was at my local airport the following night (as were many of my colleagues) 

seeking answers for frantic parents, children, relatives, and friends of those traveling who reached out to my office for help when their loved ones failed to appear 

outside of the international debarkation areas at Bush Intercontinental Airport. 

Custom and Border Protection officers were ill-equipped with information or guidance on what they were supposed to do with arriving passengers. 

What ensued was chaos. 


h:\seals\115219.eps
9 

Federally-issued travel documents were routinely ignored, along with the laborious work that went into vetting people who were legal permanent residents such 

as green card holders and thoroughly-vetted refugees who had undergone an 18–24 

month process to gain admittance into the United States. 

The President has tried to equate his Muslim ban with the enhanced screening 

of Iraqi visa applicants started by President Obama in 2011 in response to a specific 

security threat. 

This is a false equivalence, and one which earned the President two Pinocchio’s 

from the Washington Post’s Fact Checker. 

The facts are these: President Obama did not impose a ban on visa applications, 

and his policy did not seek to prevent all citizens of Iraq, including green-card holders, from traveling to the United States. 

Members of Congress take a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution 

of the United States and keep the American people safe. 

Democrats intend to honor that oath by opposing the President’s dangerous and 

unconstitutional Muslim ban. 

As Americans, we are at our best when we are true to the values we hold dear, 

beginning with fidelity to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. 

The Executive Order issued nearly 2 weeks ago by the President is a radical departure from these principles and I call upon him to rescind this order immediately. 

My staff is in touch with communities that I serve in the Houston area to ensure 

they know that the rule of law will triumph in the end. 

I applaud the first temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Ann 

Donnelly of the Eastern District of New York that enjoined the Trump administration from, in any manner or by any means, removing individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. 

Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, 

and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States. 

It is my understanding that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will 

hear argument this evening in San Francisco, California regarding the administration’s attempt to vacate the stay and permit the Executive Order to be implemented. 

As a Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I find it outrageous that the 

President has launched yet another vicious personal attack against a sitting Federal 

judge simply because the judge issued a ruling that displeased the President. 

We saw him do so for the first time last June when candidate Trump impugned 

the integrity of U.S. District Judge Gonzalvo Curiel, claiming he was not fit to preside over the Trump University fraud case ‘‘because he’s a Mexican.’’ 

The independence of the Federal judiciary, and its role in providing a check on 

Legislative and Executive branches, is one of the crown jewels of American democracy and is indispensable to our system of government. 

I thank the ACLU and other non-governmental organizations that went to work 

immediately to challenge the Constitutionality of the Executive Order and for their 

success in winning temporary stays of the order enjoining the Trump administration 

from taking action to deport refugees and immigrants currently being detained. 

I look forward to Secretary Kelly’s testimony and the testimony of the second 

panel of witnesses, which include: 

• Mr. Steve C. McCraw, Director, Texas Department of Homeland Security; 

• Mr. Joe Frank Martinez, Sheriff, Val Verde County, Texas 

• Mr. Leon N. Wilmot, Sheriff, Yuma County, Arizona; and 

• The Honorable Eddie Trevino, Jr. County Judge, Cameron County, Texas. 

Thank you. I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Chairman MCCAUL. We have two distinguished panels here 

today. 

We will hear first from the Honorable John F. Kelly. He was recently sworn in as the fifth Secretary of Homeland Security. Secretary Kelly was born and raised in Boston, Massachusetts. He enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1970, was discharged as a sergeant 

in 1972. Following graduation from the University of Massachusetts in 1976, he received his commission as a Marine Corps officer. 

In 2002 he was elected to the rank of brigadier general and did 

multiple tours during combat in Iraq. By 2012, was nominated his 

fourth star and command of the United States Southern Command. 

After last—less than a year in retirement Secretary Kelly was ofVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:32 Sep 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17FL0207\FINAL\26396.TXT HEATH
10 

fered the opportunity to serve the Nation again as Secretary of 

Homeland Security. I am personally pleased at the President’s 

choice. 

I recently read a moving excerpt from a speech you gave, sir, 

while serving in the Marine Corps, and I would like to read it 

aloud today. You said, ‘‘We Marines believe that God gave America 

the greatest gift he could bestow to man while he lived on this 

Earth, and that is freedom. We also believe He gave us another gift 

nearly as precious: Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Coast Guardsmen 

and Marines, to safeguard that gift and guarantee that no force on 

this Earth can ever steal it away.’’ 

Those are great words. I want to thank you for being here today. 

Chair now recognizes Secretary Kelly for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KELLY, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary KELLY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Thompson, and all the Members of the committee. It is my 

honor to appear here today to discuss the Department’s crucial 

mission of securing the border and many other issues. 

For 45 years I was privileged to serve both as an enlisted Marine 

and as an officer. I am humbled again to answer the call to duty 

and take over at the Department of Homeland Security. 

Our Nation faces diverse challenges and dangerous adversaries 

who do not respect the rule of law or of borders. While long aware 

of its great work, I have recently had the opportunity to witness 

first-hand the pride, experience, and professionalism of the DHS 

work force. I am proud of our men and women, as the Nation 

should be as well. 

As Secretary, you have my commitment to vigorously protect our 

country, secure our borders, and enforce our laws, all while facilitating lawful trade and travel. In doing so, know that I take seriously our responsibility to balance security with the protections afforded by law, privacy rights, and our civil rights and liberties. 

Securing a Nation’s borders is one of the primary responsibilities 

of any sovereign nation, including ours. Under my leadership and 

the direction of President Trump, we will finally do so. 

We will build appropriate physical barriers, which will be monitored and supported by trained professionals within the Department of Homeland Security. We will work to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and terrorists—and I include 

here narcoterrorists—from entering our Nation. 

We will enforce our immigration laws in an efficient and effective 

manner. We will work closely with our State and local law enforcement partners, some of whom are here today. All of this consistent 

with, of course, Federal law. 

It is our duty to protect our citizens from terrorism and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit our 

generous immigration laws. The President’s Executive Orders on 

border security immigration enforcement will enhance public safety 

for all of our citizens. 

The President’s recent Executive Order to temporarily suspend 

entry for foreign nationals from seven countries we believe is lawful and Constitutional, and the review ordered by the President is 

11 

necessary and appropriate. It will enable us to assess the adequacy 

and availability of information we need from all countries to adjudicate all visa applications, or other benefits under our existing immigration laws, and to determine if the person seeking the benefit 

is, in fact, who they say they are and would not present us a 

threat. 

While some of the core tenets of this order are the subject of ongoing litigation, it is my belief that we will prevail and be able to 

take the steps necessary to protect our Nation. Americans must 

feel safe to walk down the street, go to the mall, or to a night club 

anywhere and anytime. Fear must not become the status quo as it 

has in so many parts of the world. 

My responsibility and that of the tremendous men and women of 

the Department is to carry out those lawful measures in a manner 

that best protects the safety of all Americans. The safety of American lives is and will always be my foremost concern. 

Before I conclude, I would like to thank the committee for its 

continued leadership, notably in seeking to reauthorize the Department. I appreciate your efforts, especially in securing the memorandum of understanding, which will help facilitate the reauthorization we currently need. 

The threats and challenges have changed since Congress created 

DHS some 15 years ago. We need to update the authorities to successfully complete our mission today. I look forward, sir, to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Kelly follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN F. KELLY

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thompson, and distinguished Members of the 

committee: It is a great honor and privilege to appear before you today to discuss 

the crucial mission of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to protect the 

homeland and secure our Nation’s borders. 

Over the past 45 years, it has been my privilege to serve my Nation as both an 

enlisted Marine and an officer. I have worked with our allies across agencies, the 

private sector, and with independent experts to identify innovative, comprehensive 

solutions to current and emerging threats. These assignments—while varied—share 

the common characteristics of working within and leading large, complex, and diverse mission-focused organizations while under great pressure to produce results. 

I am humbled to once again to be called to serve, this time with the men and 

women of DHS. As a Department, we face diverse challenges and adversaries that 

do not respect our rule of law or our borders. As Secretary, you have my commitment to tirelessly protect our country from threats, secure the border, and enforce 

the law while expediting lawful trade and travel. In pursuit of those missions, 

please know that I take seriously our legal responsibilities to balance the security 

of our homeland with the protection of privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. 

THE PRESIDENT’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS

During his first 2 weeks in office, President Trump issued Executive Orders to 

secure our borders, enforce our immigration laws, and protect the Nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States. The President has gotten right to work, 

fighting on behalf of American families and workers—and these moves will 

strengthen our National security. 

The purpose of the order on border security is to direct Executive departments 

and agencies to deploy all lawful means to secure the Nation’s Southern Border, 

prevent further illegal immigration into the United States, and to repatriate illegal 

aliens swiftly, consistently, and humanely. 

12 

This Executive Order establishes the foundation for securing our Southern Border 

by providing the tools, resources, and policy direction for DHS’s dedicated men and 

women who are responsible for securing the border—to prevent illegal immigration, 

drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism. In accordance with existing law, 

DHS is immediately taking all appropriate steps to plan, design, and construct a 

physical wall along the Southern Border, using the materials and technology that 

will most effectively achieve operational control of the Southern Border. In addition, 

DHS is immediately taking all appropriate action to ensure that the parole and asylum provisions of Federal immigration law consistently applied with the requirements of the law, and not exploited to prevent the removal of otherwise removable 

aliens. 

The Executive Order on interior immigration enforcement provides DHS with the 

tools it needs to enforce Federal immigration laws within the United States. It will 

remove many of the obstacles that have been making it more difficult for the dedicated men and women of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to carry 

out their mission, which includes arresting, detaining, and removing illegal aliens 

from the United States. Essentially, it will restore the highly successful Secure 

Communities Program, which allows ICE to target more easily criminal aliens for 

removal. 

A third Executive Order, signed by the President on January 27, will protect all 

Americans from certain foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in 

the United States by preventing such individuals from exploiting our immigration 

laws. The order suspends entry into the United States from Iran, Iraq, Somalia, 

Sudan, Syria, Libya, and Yemen until we complete comprehensive review. It directs 

Federal agencies to implement uniform screening standards across all immigration 

programs. It suspends the Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days, giving us time 

to assess the vulnerabilities in the program and establish additional procedures to 

ensure refugees admitted do not pose a threat to National security or public safety. 

It orders completion of the biometric entry-exit system. It also ensures that applicants for visas are personally interviewed before their visas are approved in compliance with Section 222 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

As the President has stated, ‘‘Homeland Security is in the business of saving lives, 

and that mandate will guide our actions.’’ These Executive Orders further that goal 

by enhancing border security, promoting public safety, and minimizing the threat 

of terrorist attacks by foreign nationals in the homeland. More important, however, 

these Executive Orders emphasize the rule of law as a bedrock principle of our immigration system and provide clearly-defined consequences for those who would violate our laws. 

BORDER SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

As a Nation, control of our borders is paramount. Without that control, every 

other form of threat—illicit drugs, unauthorized immigrants, transnational organized crime, certain dangerous communicable diseases, terrorists—could enter at 

will. DHS was created to prevent terrorist attacks against the United States. The 

principal means of prevention within the United States is effective border control, 

denying admission to aliens who seek to harm Americans or violate our laws, and 

countering efforts to recruit individuals to undertake terrorist acts. 

Achieving this priority begins with physical obstacles like a border barrier and 

supporting infrastructure and surveillance capabilities. In this effort, I am committed to executing President Trump’s plan to secure our Southern Border with effective physical barriers, advanced technology, and strategic deployment of law enforcement personnel. While the presence of physical barriers and additional technology is essential, it must be bolstered by persistent patrol and the vigilance of the 

dedicated men and women of DHS. 

We must augment our expanded border security initiatives with vigorous interior 

enforcement and administration of our immigration laws in a manner that serves 

the National interest. This effort will include greater cooperation and coordination 

between DHS’s operational components, which are responsible for administering immigration benefits and enforcing our Nation’s existing immigration laws. 

Within DHS and our Federal, State, local, and international partners, we must 

expand our vetting of those seeking to enter our country—particularly of those individuals from high-risk countries—including refugees. We currently lack a comprehensive strategy with uniform screening standards to prevent terrorists from entering the country. Unfortunately, our country has recently admitted some foreign 

nationals without an adequate understanding of their allegiances and intentions. 

Additionally, because they are apprehended by DHS law enforcement agents, we 

13 

know there continue to be any number of so-called ‘‘special interest aliens’’ that 

make their way into our country illegally each year. 

Last year, more than 415,816 migrants, mostly from Central America and Mexico—including over 137,614 unaccompanied children and individuals travelling in 

family units—were apprehended on our Southern Border. Many of those arriving at 

our Southern Border have fled violence, poverty, criminal networks, and gangs in 

their native countries. While the vast majority are fleeing violence or seeking economic opportunity, a small number of individuals could potentially be seeking to do 

us harm or commit crimes. Regardless of purpose or circumstance, the ease with 

which human smugglers have moved tens of thousands of people to our Nation’s 

doorstep also serves as another warning sign: These smuggling routes are a potential vulnerability of our homeland. 

Our vigorous response to these threats must include increased border security infrastructure, personnel, and technology. However, we cannot just play defense in securing our borders. Border security requires a layered approach that extends far beyond our shores, throughout the hemisphere, in partnership with our neighbors to 

the south and north. 

Along nearly 7,000 miles of land border, approximately 95,000 miles of shoreline, 

and at 328 ports of entry and numerous locations abroad, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) has a critical role in preventing the illegal entry of people and 

goods into the United States. 

Across the wide expanses of our Nation’s land, air, and maritime environments, 

CBP has worked to address the changing demographics of attempted border crossers 

and to maintain border security through significant investments in enforcement resources, technology, infrastructure, and enhanced operational tactics and strategy. 

Through advances in detection capabilities, such as fixed, mobile, and agent-portable surveillance systems, tethered and tactical aerostats, unmanned aircraft systems, and ground sensors, which work in conjunction with tactical border infrastructure and agent deployment, CBP is enhancing its ability to quickly detect, identify, 

and respond to illegal border crossings. 

At our Nation’s air, land, and sea ports of entry, more travelers and cargo are 

arriving than ever before. To maintain the security of growing volumes of international travelers, CBP performs a full range of inspection activities and continues 

to enhance its pre-departure traveler vetting systems and integrate biometric technologies. CBP has also made significant developments in its intelligence and targeting capabilities to segment and target shipments and individuals by potential 

level of risk to identify and stop potentially dangerous travelers or cargo before 

boarding an aircraft or conveyance bound for the United States. 

Beyond managing the influx of people and cargo arriving in the United States, 

CBP is working with other DHS agencies to strengthen its capabilities to identify 

foreign nationals who have violated our immigration laws, as well as to track suspect persons and cargo exiting the country. CBP is also leveraging its newly-established Counter Network Program, which focuses on detecting, disrupting, and dismantling transnational criminal organizations, by expanding information sharing, 

increasing partnerships and collaboration that enhance border security, conducting 

joint exploitation of intelligence, and co-managing of operations with interagency 

and international partners. These efforts are building toward a safer and more secure border environment, one that supports the safety and success of each agent and 

officer in the field. 

In the maritime environment, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) utilizes a multi-faceted layered approach to interdict threats far from the borders of our Nation to combat the efforts of transnational criminal organizations. Targeting the primary flow 

of illicit drug traffic has a direct and damaging impact on these networks. 

Successful Coast Guard interdictions in the maritime transit zones feed a cycle 

of success—subsequent prosecutions lead to actionable intelligence on future events, 

which produces follow-on seizures and additional intelligence. Suspects from these 

cases divulge information during prosecution and sentencing that is critical to indicting, extraditing, and convicting drug kingpins and dismantling these sophisticated networks. 

USCG secures the maritime domain by conducting patrols and coordinating with 

other Federal agencies and foreign countries to interdict aliens at sea, denying them 

illegal entry via maritime routes to the United States, its territories and possessions. Thousands of aliens attempt to enter this country illegally every year using 

maritime routes, many via smuggling operations. Interdicting these aliens at sea reduces the safety risks involved in such transits. We can quickly return these interdicted aliens to their countries of origin, avoiding the costlier processes required if 

they successfully enter the United States. 

14 

INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

As Secretary, I will advocate for expanding cooperation inside the interagency and 

with partner nations, particularly Canada and Mexico. Interagency relationships 

and bilateral cooperation are critical to identifying, monitoring, and countering 

threats to U.S. National security and regional stability. While DHS possesses 

unique authorities and capabilities, we must enhance and leverage our coordination 

with Federal, State, local, and Tribal partners. The magnitude, scope, and complexity of the challenges we face—illegal immigration, transnational crime, human 

smuggling and trafficking, and terrorism—demand an integrated counter-network 

approach. 

Regionally, we must continue to build partner capacity. Illegal immigration and 

transnational organized crime threaten not only our own security, but also the stability and prosperity of our Latin American neighbors. In Colombia, for example, we 

learned that key principles to defeating large cartels and insurgents are the same 

as defeating criminal networks: A strong, accountable government that protects its 

citizens, upholds the rule of law, and expands economic opportunity for all. It taught 

us that countering illicit trafficking and preventing terrorism often go hand-in-hand, 

and that U.S. interagency cooperation, coupled with a committed international partner, can help bring a country back from the brink. I believe we can apply these lessons across our many international partnerships and in furtherance of our Government’s many missions beyond our borders. 

Presently, we have a great opportunity in Central America to capitalize on the 

region’s growing political will to combat criminal networks and control hemispheric 

migration. Leaders in many of our partner nations recognize the magnitude of the 

tasks ahead and are prepared to address them, but they need our support. As we 

learned in Colombia, sustained engagement by the United States can make a real 

and lasting difference. 

CONCLUSION

The security challenges facing DHS and our Nation are considerable, particularly 

along the Southern Border. We have the laws in place to secure our borders. We 

also have outstanding men and women working at DHS, and in other Federal, 

State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies, who are committed to the border 

security mission. Finally, we now have a clear mission objective and the will to complete that mission successfully. We must accelerate our collective efforts to enforce 

the laws on the books and support those sworn to uphold the law. You have my 

commitment to work tirelessly to ensure that the men and women of DHS are empowered do their jobs. 

I believe in America and the principles upon which our country and way of life 

are guaranteed, and I believe in respect, tolerance, and diversity of opinions. I have 

a profound respect for the rule of law and will always strive to preserve it. As I 

mentioned in my confirmation hearing, I have never had a problem speaking truth 

to power, and I firmly believe that those in power deserve full candor and my honest 

assessment and recommendations. As Secretary, I recognize the many challenges 

facing DHS and I will do everything within my ability to meet and overcome those 

challenges, while preserving our liberty, upholding our laws, and protecting our citizens. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today and for your continued support of DHS. I am confident that we will continue to build upon the momentum by our previous operational achievements around the world. I remain committed to working with this committee to forge a strong and productive relationship 

going forward to secure our borders and help prevent and combat threats to our Nation. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I now recognize myself for questioning. 

We look forward to working with you on that authorization, 

which is long overdue. 

Let me say first I agree with the policy of the Executive Order. 

It is consistent with a memo I drafted with—to then-candidate 

Trump, with Mayor Giuliani, Attorney General Mukasey, advocating a shift from a Muslim ban, which he was campaigning on, 

which we thought was unconstitutional, to, rather, an enhanced 

15 

vetting process of immigrants and refugees based on risk, not religion, from high-threat areas. 

It is consistent with the visa waiver security bill that was signed 

into law by President Obama. It is consistent with the SAFE Act 

that passed the House with a bipartisan veto-proof majority. 

My concern, as you and I have talked, is how it was implemented 

and the execution of this order. 

First, lawful permanent residents with green cards were denied; 

military advisers who risked their lives to help U.S. forces overseas, as you know, were denied; and students were trapped overseas with visas. Let me say, I applaud you for quickly correcting 

what I consider to be errors by quickly granting the exception and 

waiver to green card holders, which went a long way to remedy, I 

think, this Executive Order. 

My other concern was the lack of coordination both within the 

Executive branch and also with Congressional leaders like myself. 

I applaud the President for trying to get things done quickly, and 

that is what leadership is all about. He is fulfilling campaign promises. 

But as we move forward, what do you consider to be the lessons 

learned here from this Executive Order? 

Secretary KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I think as we have talked—I 

have talked to many Members of—some Members of this committee 

and certainly Senators, as well, the Executive Order was developed 

certainly before I ever—began to be developed before I ever became 

the Secretary of Homeland Security, before my confirmation. 

Just after the inauguration my staff, a very small number, and 

myself had some initial cuts on that. Some changes were made. 

It was released, I think, as you recall, the third one I am talking 

about now, was released on—late on a Friday. We knew it was 

going to be released that day. 

The desire was to get it out. The thinking was to get it out quick 

so that potentially people that might be coming here to harm us 

would not take advantage of some period of time that they could 

jump on an airplane and get here, or get here in other ways. 

So that was the thinking. In retrospect, I should have—this is all 

on me, by the way—I should have delayed it just a bit so that I 

could talk to Members of Congress, particularly to the leadership 

of committees like this, to prepare them for what was coming. Although, I think most people would agree that this has been a topic 

of President Trump certainly during his campaign and during the 

transition process. 

As the great men and women particularly of the border protection people, as they unfolded that or started to implement it, I 

should say, they got back to us with some suggestions about how 

we could alter it. We did that, as I think the order was signed or 

released at 18 on Friday, 6 p.m. Before midnight we had made an 

adjustment. The next day, made a couple of other adjustments to 

kind-of fine-tune it. 

We did have to step back and kind of re-cock that—in that first 

24-hour period because of action by one of the Federal courts. That 

changed things a bit, so we had to kind-of step back. 

But for the most part, you know, again, I know it can be an inconvenience, but what was done at the counter, so to speak, and 

16 

at the very many airports where people are coming into the United 

States, everyone was treated humanely. 

I have read the reports about people standing up for hours on 

end. Didn’t happen. That people were insulted—I guess insults are 

in the eyes of the beholder, but I would tell you the kind of men 

and women that I serve with do not insult people. They are very, 

very matter-of-fact. They are very business-like. 

But going forward, I would have certainly taken some time to inform the Congress and certainly that is something I will certainly 

do in the future. 

Chairman MCCAUL. We look forward to moving forward in the 

future with you. I applaud your quick correction of it, and I hope 

the courts act quickly. Because, as you stated, every day we are 

putting American lives at danger. 

Let me shift to the border. When you were commander of 

SOUTHCOM you and I met several times to talk about the threats 

coming from south of the border, whether it be transnational criminal organizations or their potential ties to terrorism. Being from a 

border State, Texas, I understand this very well. 

I appreciate you coming down to my State and visiting with the 

Governor and DPS—Steve McCraw is going to testify—and the 

good men and women of CBP down there. 

Can you tell us what—the Executive Order came out for the border surge. I want to work closely with you on this. Can you tell us 

what this wall is going to look like? You may not be able to answer 

this one, but how much it is going to cost, and how are we going 

to pay for it? 

Secretary KELLY. As far as the wall goes, Mr. Chairman, I specifically went down to the most affected part of the border, South 

Texas, down around McAllen—specifically went down there to talk 

to local law enforcement, which I did—the Governor was there— 

and to talk to my people on the border, ICE as well as CBP. 

We are not going to be able to build a wall everywhere all at 

once. So part of the reason I went down there, first and foremost, 

was to ask the people that know more about this than anyone else 

on the planet. We have walls. There are walls there, parts of walls 

in strategic places in McAllen on the border. But do we need more 

wall? 

They said, well, you know, Secretary, we need to extend some 

walls; we need to fill in some places with physical barriers. Their 

preference would not be something they couldn’t see through. That 

was a finding for me. 

But they very definitely said, ‘‘Yes, sir, we need a physical barrier backed up by people like us’’—meaning CBP and local law enforcement—‘‘with technology where it is appropriate.’’ 

They had in their mind that many hundreds of miles of that sector, they had places where they wanted a physical barrier constructed, you know, tomorrow, or actually yesterday, and then tomorrow—today, tomorrow, and you see the point. They did point 

out there are parts of the border that are right now not as much 

of an issue as they are, say, right here in McAllen. 

I will go to Tucson sector later in the week, and then push over 

to San Diego sector. I suspect I will hear the same thing, because 

17 

it is certainly what my leadership in the Department of Homeland 

Security level are telling me. 

So that is where we are on the wall. Not going to build it all in 

an afternoon, so we will build it in the places that the people that 

work that border say we need it right now. There are places on 

that border, I am told, we need it right now. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Well, I couldn’t agree with you more. I am 

glad you see that perspective. 

Every sector is different, multi-layered defense, fencing, but also 

technologies, aviation assets. I think 100 percent visibility is what 

you want because if you can see the threats you can stop them. So 

I look forward to working with you on that very important task. 

I have been trying to get this done, sir, for the last 6 terms in 

Congress and I think now we finally have the political will to do 

it. So thank you. 

With that, the Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You referenced former Mayor Giuliani in your comments about 

helping draft this Executive Order, and I call your attention to—— 

Chairman MCCAUL. If the gentleman would yield, that is an incorrect statement. We drafted a memo back last May or June to 

then-candidate Trump to advocate why a Muslim ban was unconstitutional and to look at vetting and high-threat areas. I had no 

participation in this Executive Order—nor did Mayor Giuliani. 

Mr. THOMPSON. No, he claims—— 

Chairman MCCAUL. I will yield back. I will yield back. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I am just saying that he has indicated that it is 

a Muslim ban. So I can only take for what he is saying, he takes 

credit for drafting it. 

Mr. Secretary, President Trump tweeted because the ban was 

lifted by a judge ‘‘many very bad and dangerous people may be 

pouring into the country.’’ As you know, your Department is responsible for visa security, screening travelers to this country, and 

determining admissibility at ports of entry. Now, do you believe 

that because of this court order we have let some dangerous people 

into the country? 

Secretary KELLY. It is certainly entirely possible. Again, the 

whole reason for this pause is to get our arms around the term 

‘‘vetting.’’ My people that I trust, as well as State Department people—I had a meeting yesterday with Rex Tillerson—Secretary 

Tillerson and Mike Pompeo, formerly of this party and now the director of the CIA, about the issue of vetting. So it is entirely possible, yes, sir. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I understand. But in other words, before 

this order, we were letting bad people into the country. Your people 

were not doing their job. 

Secretary KELLY. That is not true at all. My people have always 

done their job. 

Mr. THOMPSON. That is what I am trying to get at is, is there 

any difference between the issuance of this Executive Order and 

the job your people were doing so that whatever decision the courts 

make, is it putting us at risk? 

18 

Secretary KELLY. The reason for the pause was for us to take 

some time, take a look at the vetting from the seven countries in 

question and how refugees are vetted. 

I can tell you, because my people tell me, that for the last number of years, the vetting is at best loose and the amount of information—you take some of these countries we are talking about that 

are in really state of failed states—in the state of a failed state, 

there is very little, my people will tell me and I believe, very little 

confidence that the information that we receive from those countries relative to an individual who wants to come to the United 

States is the kind of information that we would bet the security of 

our citizens on. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Again, I am convinced your men and women are 

doing a good job. I am just concerned about this notion that because the court has ruled—and they have the right to rule—that 

if in effect they have somehow put this country at risk by this ruling, so say the President. 

Now if, in fact, there have been some people let in since the court 

ruled, can you provide this committee with those apprehensions of 

people who otherwise would not have been let in? 

Secretary KELLY. I am not so sure I understand the question. 

Let’s just say, for instance, a person who is trying to get to the 

United States to do some harm, some terrorist attack, is coming in 

during this period that the courts have put a stay on our enforcement. We won’t know that until that—an individual is a bad person until they do something bad. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. 

Secretary KELLY. But it is entirely possible that someone that is 

coming in, whether it is during this stay, during the court action, 

or previous to this period, came here to do us harm. 

Mr. THOMPSON. But you don’t have any proof at this point. 

Secretary KELLY. Not until the boom. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Not until what? 

Secretary KELLY. Not until they act and blow something up or 

go into a mall and kill people. So we won’t know until then. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. I understand the danger. I just want to 

make sure the system that we are presently using, Mr. Secretary, 

is a good system and if, in fact, up until this point, we have 

stopped the boom, as you referenced. 

Now, because of a court order saying we still have to follow the 

laws, and our President somehow says because this Executive 

Order is being paused we are now going back to how we used to 

do it. I am trying to figure out if how we used to do it puts us at 

risk. 

Secretary KELLY. Mr. Congressman, again, my feeling is the vetting on the other end in those seven countries are suspect. Mr. 

Trump, and certainly in my view, we have to do a pause, which we 

have—which he ordered, now is, you know, under court action, so 

that we can take a look at what we are doing on the other end. 

I believe the vetting on the other end right now is not adequate to 

protect the Nation. 

Then, of course, we are considering other measures, adding to 

the vetting on the other end so that we can ensure even more so 

19 

that the right people are coming to the United States, and not bad 

people. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

The other issue is in reference to the guidance. Your men and 

women who are tasked with carrying out this Executive Order, 

when we met in the SCIF I asked for the guidance and the time 

line associated with the guidance. We heard from people from Atlanta, Los Angeles, New York, different stories as to how things 

were being carried out. Can you provide this committee with the 

guidance that went with the Executive Order when it was signed 

and bring it forward? 

Secretary KELLY. We can. I am going to have to take—I would 

have to take that a little bit for the record, but I would tell you 

that the CBP—the head of CBP and Homeland Security, the guidance was: This is the E.O. Implement it. 

They started implementing it almost right away. 

Again, we had some issues related primarily to the first court 

order that then caused some confusion at the desks at the entry 

points. But as I said, we adjusted to that pretty quickly. But we 

didn’t—I can—I am assuming we have a system by which we contact out of headquarters—CBP has a system by which they contact 

the substations around the country to pass information to them. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, we just would like to—— 

Secretary KELLY. Sure. 

Mr. THOMPSON [continuing]. See the guidance. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

New York, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary KELLY. let me thank you for your years of service. 

Thank you for taking on this responsibility. 

I must say that at a time when there was so much confusion, 

when there was so much media talk and there was so much frenzy 

coming from all sides, it was really, I think, vital to have such a 

stable voice at the center of this, at the center of the storm. 

So thank you for restoring the order that you did. Thank you for 

giving the country a sense of consistency and constancy that it 

needed, so thank you for that, among all your other many achievements in public service. 

As a follow-up to the Ranking Member’s question, it seemed to 

me that when we face an enemy which is constantly adapting, constantly changing, constantly revising its tactics, that it only makes 

common sense for us to be constantly reexamining our defensive 

measures, our counterterrorism measures, especially when we 

know that ISIS has said it attempts—it is going to attempt to infiltrate terrorists with refugees, trying to sneak people into the country. We have seen what has happened in Europe. 

So I commend you for what you are trying to do. I think it is essential and I think, again, a 90-day pause is—if that saves American lives, then it is certainly a pause worth taking. 

But if you could perhaps clarify exactly where the seven countries came from, whether you think any should be added to that 

or should anybody be subtracted from that—from that list of seven? 

20 

Secretary KELLY. The countries, of course, the seven countries 

identified came as a result of not only the previous administration’s 

actions, but, as I understand it, Congressional action. So I think 

that was a good start point. 

They are countries, you know, two of the seven, of course, are 

still listed as State sponsors of terrorism. So we don’t trust them 

at all because they are State sponsors of terrorism, and they don’t 

cooperate with us to the degree that certainly President Trump and 

now certainly I am confident that what we get from those countries, which is very little cooperation to really determine who are 

the people that want to come here, first issue. 

Second issue, the other—among the other five are nearly failed 

states in many respects, I would argue with the exception of Iraq, 

where we have a very solid presence there and I have served there 

quite some time. We will take a look-see—we will take a look at 

all of these countries going forward as to whether they remain on 

the pause list. 

But you know, the other four countries, we don’t even have embassies there. I am at a total loss to understand how we can vet, 

you know, people from various countries when in four of—at least 

four of those countries we don’t even have an embassy. 

So I think the pause made, you know, an awful lot of sense. 

Going forward, we would like to—we would hope that there are 

countries that will come off the list. But the countries are a list 

that came from the last administration, certainly from the last 

Congress. 

There are, by the way, and I have—I don’t—I simply don’t know 

where this rumor came from, but I had—I read something where 

there were an additional 12 countries being considered to be put 

on the list. That is not true. Good friends of mine from various 

countries that were on the list asked, called and said is it—I said, 

no it is not true. 

We are right now contemplating no other countries because it 

is—even though some of these other countries are at, you know, 

are questionable in terms of their internal, you know, organization, 

police, that kind of thing, we are satisfied that most other countries 

have enough that they could provide the information that we are 

looking for to start to make the determination to send people here. 

But I would offer to you, Congressman, that we are looking at 

some additions. We may just focus on certain countries—not additional countries, but additional vetting schemes, vetting processes 

that will go further to satisfy me, and presumably the President, 

that we are—we know who we are dealing with, we know what 

their backgrounds are. 

If they don’t want to cooperate with the additional vetting, just 

like if they don’t want to cooperate now, then they don’t come to 

the United States. There is no right to come here, and if they don’t 

want to cooperate, so be it. 

But there are no other countries right now being contemplated 

being put on any type of a travel pause. But I would offer to you 

that some of those countries—some other countries out there can 

be improved, and we hope to work with them to help them improve, just like we hope to work with one, two, three, whatever of 

the countries, of the seven countries to help them improve their 

21 

vetting to satisfy us so that we can, you know, open our doors to 

their citizens. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Secretary. 

Also, let me take this opportunity to welcome back Kevin Carroll, 

who was my counsel for a number of years on this committee, and 

I am confident that you will be very well served by Kevin. 

Secretary KELLY. Well, I kind-of trust him, Congressman. So, we 

will see. 

Mr. KING. But he is not a Marine though, you know. 

Secretary KELLY. I know. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KING. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 

Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to join my colleagues, Secretary Kelly, and express my appreciation for your service to this Nation and the love and affection 

that you have for your country, by evidence of the most dynamic 

service you gave in the United States military. Particularly, I want 

to thank you for the dialog that you have engaged with, I know, 

many of the Members since you have come on. 

Please accept my assessment as separate and apart from the 

great efforts that you have taken to try and steer this ship in the 

way it should be steered, which is really to stand guard for the security of the American people. But I must begin my remarks by recounting a number of issues that, when I conclude, I will have to 

offer an assessment. 

Although this is the Homeland Security Committee, the Yemen 

military action evidenced a action that warrants review. Tragically, 

we lost a Navy SEAL, the target was not captured, now taunts and 

provokes the President of the United States. 

The basis of it was Obama’s administration was not bold enough, 

so we did it. An Executive Order that threw into hysteria the lives 

of the forlorn, the desperate and those who sought to come to this 

country; and, of course, the selection of Mr. Bannon to the National 

Security Council with evidence that the President didn’t know 

what that meant. 

Fiery rhetoric of a campaign should not be the governing standard for this Nation, and I believe this administration is off its 

wheels and needs to get back on its wheels. 

I raise this question about the countries. Syria, Iran, Iraq, and 

Yemen, and Libya are countries that are on the list—Somalia and 

Sudan. Mr. Secretary, do you have evidence of anyone who has 

come to this country in the last 5 years or before that committed 

a terrorist act from these particular countries? 

Secretary KELLY. We have evidence that citizens of those countries have done terrorist acts in Europe. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That is correct. I apologize, Mr. Secretary. I 

have a short period of time. 

You are absolutely right. Even some of those individuals who are 

here in the United States left to go to the fight. But there is no 

evidence that any of these persons—and many of those who are 

here were self-radicalized here in the United States, that evidence 

22 

I do have. So no one from these countries have committed an act 

on the soil of the United States, is that correct? 

Secretary KELLY. I think that that is correct. But I would offer 

the Congresswoman that I am not going to base my protection— 

my view of protecting the American people on hoping that they will 

never come here and commit an act. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I understand. But the basis of this Executive 

Order was supposed to be on facts and evidence that was before us 

at that time. Let me wonder why you think Saudi Arabia was not 

included? 

Secretary KELLY. Again, I would go back to the—kind-of some of 

the original comments. This is all about—this travel pause is all 

about countries that are not cooperative or can’t be cooperative because of the conditions within the country to provide us, to provide 

the President, to provide me now a confidence that the people that 

we are dealing with are the people who—you know, who say they 

are. 

Saudi Arabia, by contrast, we may not like some aspects of how 

they live their lives within their culture, but they do have very—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. My time is short, so, thank you. 

Thank you very much. 

Secretary KELLY. I know that, but let me finish, if I could. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I will let you finish, I just want to get to my 

next question. 

Secretary KELLY. OK. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Go ahead, sir. 

Secretary KELLY. But the issue is places like Saudi Arabia do 

have very, very good police forces, intelligence forces, so we know 

when someone comes here from Saudi Arabia who they are and 

what they have been up to. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

You have a 120-day delay on the refugee resettlements, one of 

the most desperate groups of people and populations. Certainly 

America has been known for her refuge for refugees. 

What excuse do you give for this little one not being able to come 

into the United States, or this little one not being able to come into 

the United States, or this family not being able to be reunited? 

What do you say to those individuals whose papers will be expired, 

who have been waiting on the list for 12 years, who have been vetted, who are standing at the airport? 

What is the purpose for refugees, who, again, you stated at the 

beginning of this testimony that you have no evidence that anyone 

from these countries perpetrated a terrorist act on this soil? Would 

you answer that, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary KELLY. Well, I can’t see the pictures you are holding 

up, but I am assuming they are—again, I can’t see them from this 

distance. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am sorry. 

Secretary KELLY. But I am assuming they are pictures of families or little girls or something like that. The point is, this is right 

now a pause as we re-cock and start to look and evaluate how well 

these various countries can vet people. 

23 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think we will be causing a great deal of suffering and I would ask the administration to review its posture. I 

thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Mike Rogers, from Alabama, is recognized. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary KELLY. it is good to have you here. I have enjoyed the 

many years of working with you through my role in the Armed 

Services Committee. Never thought I would be working with you 

on this committee, too, but I am glad that we have got your leadership here. 

President Trump and you have both indicated your commitment 

to securing the Southwest Border, and as you stated in answering 

Chairman McCaul’s question, that requires a combination of 

things. But over the last 10 years we have seen a multibillion-dollar failure in SBInet, we have seen the neutering of the Secure 

Fence Act, and a hodgepodge of equipment investments, most of 

which really haven’t worked well together. 

So I am really interested in specifically how you see that securing of that border coming together, with what technologies, what 

kind of wall. I am imagining that you are talking about a virtual 

wall that would have fencing supported by technology and personnel, but could you be more specific about how you envision it? 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, Congressman. As I mentioned earlier, I 

mean, the men and women on the border right now—and this includes very much the local law enforcement, not just DHS personnel—they could tell you and have told me down in that South 

Texas session—sector, they can tell you where they want, you 

know, exactly where they want a barrier, a wall built right now. 

In a world of finite time, resources, that kind of thing, we would 

like, you know, 20 miles of wall built here. If you have more time, 

more money, there is another place over here. So they know and 

we are going to rely on them for their recommendations. 

As we build the wall out to whatever length it ultimately becomes, as we build the wall out we will certainly back that up with 

personnel, you know, patrolling, that kind of thing, and technology. 

Aerostats work very well, sensors on the ground. 

One of the things I was informed when I went down to the sector 

was that, I mean, some of the sensors are really kind of 1980’s 

technology. They have their own complications with them. There is 

better equipment out on the market today, so we are going to take 

a long, hard look at that kind of thing. 

But I think as—in those places, ultimately, we don’t—where you 

can’t get to the—to build a wall quickly, we can certainly look to 

controlling that part of the border, initially at least, with aerostats 

and responsive patrolling and that kind of thing. 

What they tell me out there is that, you know, the—it is very 

predictable how the drug traffickers—that is one group, and how 

the people traffickers—that is another group—how they do their 

business. Most of the time it is as close as they can be to the—to 

either a quick get-away from the border, if you will, or to get into 

a urban area pretty quickly and they just meld in. 

24 

So that is where the CBP professionals—men and women have 

told me, it is really in those places and they are very, very up-front: 

Sir, this is—I can tell you where to put the wall right now. 

Mr. ROGERS. What is your time line, do you think, that you will 

have it secured? 

Secretary KELLY. Well, I mean, it is hard to say. It depends, actually, you know, on funding and all the rest of it. But I would like 

to see that we would be well under way within 2 years. 

You know, one of the things, just as a comment, we are—we have 

650 miles of barrier now on the border that we maintain. I was just 

told this morning that there is some wall being built in the San 

Diego sector that was financed and under construction before this 

administration took over. So it would appear to me that the former 

administration had a sense that physical barriers made sense, as 

well. 

But this is going to take some time. But there are places I think 

we can right away get at this problem, Congressman. 

Mr. ROGERS. Great. 

Well, another thing that the President has suggested is that we 

want South Americans. in particular Mexico, to help pay—or to pay 

for this securing of the Southwest Border. It is my understanding 

we have over $30 billion a year that are sent in remittances out 

of this country to South American countries, mostly to Mexico. 

I intend to introduce legislation entitled the Border Funding Act 

of 2017 that would put a 2 percent tax on those remittances, such 

as Western Union and MoneyGram remittances. That would generate close to $1 billion a year. That is one method. 

Have you heard other suggestions as to how we are going to pay 

for this securing of the border? Because keep in mind, this additional layers of security you are talking about are on top of the 

costs that we are already spending. 

Secretary KELLY. I have not. Clearly, the White House is working this and the State Department would—it would fall to them, 

at least initially, to start to work with countries, Mexico, to come 

to some accommodation. But have not heard any specifics, Congressman. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode 

Island, Mr. Langevin. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Kelly, I want to welcome you before the committee and 

thank you for your testimony. I certainly want to thank you for 

your decades of service to our Nation, and I certainly have enjoyed 

working with you in my role in the Armed Services Committee, 

whether it is meetings that you and I have had in my office or the 

testimony provided before the committee. 

I appreciate your work and I certainly look forward to working 

with you on this committee as well, particularly on issues relating 

to cybersecurity, which you and I share an interest and which I 

consider to be the top National security challenge of our age. 

But, like many of my fellow colleagues, I am going to begin my 

questions with the President’s Executive Orders. So you may be 

aware that a number of top National security officials from the 

25 

Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations filed a brief with the 

9th Circuit Court yesterday. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask that that report—that brief be entered into 

the record. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Response to 

Emergency Motion 

Exhibit A

 Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10302892, DktEntry: 28-2, Page 1 of 17


h:\seals\11521.eps
26 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 17-35105 

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al. ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) 

 ) JOINT DECLARATION OF 

 vs. ) MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT, 

) AVRIL D. HAINES 

) MICHAEL V. HAYDEN 

) JOHN F. KERRY 

) JOHN E. McLAUGHLIN 

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the ) LISA O. MONACO

 United States, et al., ) MICHAEL J. MORELL 

) JANET A. NAPOLITANO 

 Defendants-Appellants. ) LEON E. PANETTA 

 ) SUSAN E. RICE 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

We, Madeleine K. Albright, Avril D. Haines, Michael V. Hayden, John F. Kerry, John E. 

McLaughlin, Lisa O. Monaco, Michael J. Morell, Janet A. Napolitano, Leon E. Panetta, and 

Susan E. Rice declare as follows: 

1. We are former national security, foreign policy, and intelligence officials in the 

United States Government: 

a. Madeleine K. Albright served as Secretary of State from 1997 to 2001. A 

refugee and naturalized American citizen, she served as U.S. Permanent 

Representative to the United Nations from 1993 to 1997 and has been a 

member of the Central Intelligence Agency External Advisory Board since 

2009 and the Defense Policy Board since 2011, in which capacities she has 

received assessments of threats facing the United States. 

b. Avril D. Haines served as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency 

from 2013 to 2015, and as Deputy National Security Advisor from 2015 to 

January 20, 2017. 

c. Michael V. Hayden served as Director of the National Security Agency from 

1999 to 2005, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 

2009. 

d. John F. Kerry served as Secretary of State from 2013 to January 20, 2017. 

 Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10302892, DktEntry: 28-2, Page 2 of 17


h:\seals\11522.eps
27 

 

2 

e. John E. McLaughlin served as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence 

Agency from 2000-2004 and Acting Director of CIA in 2004. His duties 

included briefing President-elect Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush. 

f. Lisa O. Monaco served as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security 

and Counterterrorism and Deputy National Security Advisor from 2013 to 

January 20, 2017. 

g. Michael J. Morell served as Acting Director of the Central Intelligence 

Agency in 2011 and from 2012 to 2013, Deputy Director from 2010 to 2013, 

and as a career official of the CIA from 1980. His duties included briefing 

President George W. Bush on September 11, 2001, and briefing President 

Barack Obama regarding the May 2011 raid on Osama bin Laden. 

h. Janet A. Napolitano served as Secretary of Homeland Security from 2009 to 

2013. 

i. Leon E. Panetta served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 

2009-11 and as Secretary of Defense from 2011-13. 

j. Susan E. Rice served as U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations 

from 2009-13 and as National Security Advisor from 2013 to January 20, 

2017. 

2. We have collectively devoted decades to combatting the various terrorist threats 

that the United States faces in a dynamic and dangerous world. We have all held the highest 

security clearances. A number of us have worked at senior levels in administrations of both 

political parties. Four of us (Haines, Kerry, Monaco and Rice) were current on active 

intelligence regarding all credible terrorist threat streams directed against the U.S. as recently as 

one week before the issuance of the Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order on “Protecting the Nation 

from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (“Order”). 

3. We all agree that the United States faces real threats from terrorist networks and 

must take all prudent and effective steps to combat them, including the appropriate vetting of 

travelers to the United States. We all are nevertheless unaware of any specific threat that would 

justify the travel ban established by the Executive Order issued on January 27, 2017. We view 

the Order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than 

making us safer. In our professional opinion, this Order cannot be justified on national security 

or foreign policy grounds. It does not perform its declared task of “protecting the nation from 

foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” To the contrary, the Order disrupts thousands of 

lives, including those of refugees and visa holders all previously vetted by standing procedures 

that the Administration has not shown to be inadequate. It could do long-term damage to our 

national security and foreign policy interests, endangering U.S. troops in the field and disrupting 

counterterrorism and national security partnerships. It will aid ISIL’s propaganda effort and 

serve its recruitment message by feeding into the narrative that the United States is at war with 

Islam. It will hinder relationships with the very communities that law enforcement professionals 

need to address the threat. It will have a damaging humanitarian and economic impact on the 

lives and jobs of American citizens and residents. And apart from all of these concerns, the 

Order offends our nation’s laws and values. 

 Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10302892, DktEntry: 28-2, Page 3 of 17


h:\seals\11523.eps
28 

 

3 

4. There is no national security purpose for a total bar on entry for aliens from the 

seven named countries. Since September 11, 2001, not a single terrorist attack in the United 

States has been perpetrated by aliens from the countries named in the Order. Very few attacks on 

U.S. soil since September 11, 2001 have been traced to foreign nationals at all. The 

overwhelming majority of attacks have been committed by U.S. citizens. The Administration has 

identified no information or basis for believing there is now a heightened or particularized future 

threat from the seven named countries. Nor is there any rational basis for exempting from the 

ban particular religious minorities (e.g., Christians), suggesting that the real target of the ban 

remains one religious group (Muslims). In short, the Administration offers no reason why it 

abruptly shifted to group-based bans when we have a tested individualized vetting system 

developed and implemented by national security professionals across the government to guard 

the homeland, which is continually re-evaluated to ensure that it is effective. 

5. In our professional opinion, the Order will harm the interests of the United States 

in many respects: 

 

a. The Order will endanger U.S. troops in the field. Every day, American 

soldiers work and fight alongside allies in some of the named countries who 

put their lives on the line to protect Americans. For example, allies who 

would be barred by the Order work alongside our men and women in Iraq 

fighting against ISIL. To the extent that the Order bans travel by individuals 

cooperating against ISIL, we risk placing our military efforts at risk by sending 

an insulting message to those citizens and all Muslims. 

b. The Order will disrupt key counterterrorism, foreign policy, and national 

security partnerships that are critical to our obtaining the necessary 

information sharing and collaboration in intelligence, law enforcement, 

military, and diplomatic channels to address the threat posed by terrorist 

groups such as ISIL. The international criticism of the Order has been intense, 

and it has alienated U.S. allies. It will strain our relationships with partner 

countries in Europe and the Middle East, on whom we rely for vital 

counterterrorism cooperation, undermining years of effort to bring them closer. 

By alienating these partners, we could lose access to the intelligence and 

resources necessary to fight the root causes of terror or disrupt attacks 

launched from abroad, before an attack occurs within our borders.

c. The Order will endanger intelligence sources in the field. For current 

information, our intelligence officers may rely on human sources in some of 

the countries listed. The Order breaches faith with those very sources, who 

have risked much or all to keep Americans safe – and whom our officers had 

promised always to protect with the full might of our government and our 

people. 

d. Left in place, the Executive Order will likely feed the recruitment narrative 

of ISIL and other extremists that portray the United States as at war with 

Islam. As government officials, we took every step we could to counter 

violent extremism. Because of the Order’s disparate impact against Muslim 

travelers and immigrants, it feeds ISIL’s narrative and sends the wrong 

message to the Muslim community here at home and all over the world: that 

 Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10302892, DktEntry: 28-2, Page 4 of 17


h:\seals\11524.eps
29 

 

4 

the U.S. government is at war with them based on their religion. The Order 

may even endanger Christian communities, by handing ISIL a recruiting tool 

and propaganda victory that spreads their message that the United States is 

engaged in a religious war. 

e. The Order will disrupt ongoing law enforcement efforts. By alienating 

Muslim-American communities in the United States, it will harm our efforts 

to enlist their aid in identifying radicalized individuals who might launch 

attacks of the kind recently seen in San Bernardino and Orlando. 

f. The Order will have a devastating humanitarian impact. When the Order 

issued, those disrupted included women and children who had been victimized 

by actual terrorists. Tens of thousands of travelers today face deep uncertainty 

about whether they may travel to or from the United States: for medical 

treatment, study or scholarly exchange, funerals or other pressing family 

reasons. While the Order allows for the Secretaries of State and Homeland 

Security to agree to admit travelers from these countries on a case-by-case 

basis, in our experience it would be unrealistic for these overburdened 

agencies to apply such procedures to every one of the thousands of 

affected individuals with urgent and compelling needs to travel.

g. The Order will cause economic damage to American citizens and residents. 

The Order will affect many foreign travelers, particularly students, who 

annually inject hundreds of billions into the U.S. economy, supporting well 

over a million U.S. jobs. Since the Order issued, affected companies have 

noted its adverse impacts on many strategic economic sectors, including 

defense, technology, medicine, culture and others.

6. As a national security measure, the Order is unnecessary. National security-based 

immigration restrictions have consistently been tailored to respond to: (1) specific, credible 

threats based on individualized information, (2) the best available intelligence and (3) thorough 

interagency legal and policy review. This Order rests not on such tailored grounds, but rather, on 

(1) general bans (2) not supported by any new intelligence that the Administration has claimed, 

or of which we are aware, and (3) not vetted through careful interagency legal and policy review. 

Since the 9/11 attacks, the United States has developed a rigorous system of security vetting, 

leveraging the full capabilities of the law enforcement and intelligence communities. This vetting 

is applied to travelers not once, but multiple times. Refugees receive the most thorough vetting of 

any traveler to the United States, taking on the average more than a year. Successive 

administrations have continually worked to improve this vetting through robust informationsharing and data integration to identify potential terrorists without resorting to a blanket ban on all 

aliens and refugees. Because various threat streams are constantly mutating, as government 

officials, we sought continually to improve that vetting, as was done in response to particular 

threats identified by U.S. intelligence in 2011 and 2015. Placing additional restrictions on 

individuals from certain countries in the visa waiver program –as has been done on occasion in 

the past – merely allows for more individualized vettings before individuals with particular 

passports are permitted to travel to the United States. 

7. In our professional opinion, the Order was ill-conceived, poorly implemented and 

ill-explained. The “considered judgment” of the President in the prior cases where courts have 

 Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10302892, DktEntry: 28-2, Page 5 of 17


h:\seals\11525.eps
30 


h:\seals\11526.eps

case: 17·35105, 02/0612017, 10: 10302892, DktB'IIry: 28·2, Page 6 ol17 

deferred was based upon administrative records showing that tl'e President's decision rested on 

cleared views from expen a&encies with broad expericooe on the matters presented to him. 

Here. there LS Little ev&deoee that the Order underwent a thorou~ mterasency legal and poLicy 

processes desisned ro address current terrorist threats, which would ordinarily include a review 

by the career professionals charged with implementing and carrying out the Order, an 

interagency legal review, and a careful policy analysis by Deputies and Principals (at the cabinet 

level) before policy recommendations are submitted to the President. We know of no 

interagency process underway before Januruy 20, 2017 to change current vetting procedures. and 

the repeated need for the Administration to clarify confusion aAer the Order issued susgest that 

that Order received little, if any advance scrutiny by the Departments of State, Justice, Homeland 

Security or the Intelligence Community. Nor have we seen any evidence that the Order resulted 

from experienced inteUigence and security professionals recommending changes in response to 

identified thJeats. 

8. The Order is of unprecedented scope. We know of no case where a President has 

invoked his statutory authority to suspend admission for SU(;b a broad class of people. Even after 

9/11, the U.S. Government did not invoke the provisions of law cited by the Administration to 

broadly bat entrants based on nationality. national origin, or reJigious affiliation. ln past cases. 

suspet~sions were limited to particular individuals or subclasses of nationals wbo posed a specific. 

articulable threat based on their known actions and affiliations. ln adopting this Order, the 

Administration alleges no specific derogatory factual information about any particular recipient 

of a visa or green card or any vetting step omitted by currcot procedures. 

9. Maintaining the di.strict court's temporary restrafling order while the underlying: 

legal issues are being adjudicated would ootjeopatdi2e national security. It v.ould ~mply 

preserve the status quo ante, still requiring that individuals be s•bjected to all the rigorous legal 

vetting processes that are currendy in place. Reinstating the Executive Order would wreak 

havoc on innocent lives and deeply held American values. Ours is a nation of immigrants, 

committed to the (aith that we are all equal undet the law and abhor discrimination. whether 

based on race, religion, sex, or national origin. As government officials, we sought diligently to 

protect our oountry, even \Uiile maintaining an immigration system free from intentional 

discrimination. that applies no religious tests. and that measures individuals by their merits, not 

stereotypes of their countries or groups. Blanket bans of certain oountries or classes of people are 

beneath the dignity of the nation and Constitution that we each took oaths to protecl. Rebranding 

a proposal first advertised as a "Muslim Ban .. as ~Protecti g the Nation from Foreign Terrorist 

Entry into the United States" does not disguise the Order's discriminatory intent, or make it 

necessary, effective, or faithful to America's Constitution, laws. or values. 
31 


h:\seals\11527.eps h:\seals\11528.eps h:\seals\11529.eps

case: 17-35105.02/0612017, 10: 10302892, OktEnoy: 28-2, Page 7 ol17 

10. For all of the foregoing reasons, in our professional opinion, the JMUal)' 21 

_Executjve Order does not further - but instead harms- sound U.S. national security and foreign 

policy. 

Respectfully submitted, 

sll\tADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT• 

siA VRJL D. HAINF.S 

sll\IIC HAEL V. HAYDEN 

siJOKN F. KERRY 

siJOKN E. McLAUGHLIN 

s/LISA 0. MONACO 

sll\IICHAEL J. MORELL 

siJAN:ET A. NAPOLITANO 

s/LEO N E. PANETTA 

s/SUSAN E. RICE 

•AIIorigin.al sisnaruresareon filewilh Harold Honsju Koh, RuleorLawCiinic, Yale Law School, 

New Haven, CT. 0652~8215 203-432-4932 

We declare under penalty of petjury wtder !he laws of the United States of America !hat !he 

foregoing is true and correct. [lndiwdual sisnarure pages followJ 

case: 17-35105.02/0612017, 10 : 10302892, OktEnoy: 28-2. Page 8 of 17 

case: 17-35105.02/0612017, 10 : 10002892, OktEnoy: 28-2. Page 9 of 1 7 
32 


h:\seals\115210.eps h:\seals\115211.eps h:\seals\115212.eps h:\seals\115213.eps h:\seals\115214.eps

Case: 17-35105, 02106/2017, ID: 10302892, Dl<tEntry: 28-2, Page 10 of 17 

U«~W~ •• ..,., .....,..,.., ~ y,d L 

\IIC II <\ EL II ~ 

case: 17-35105, o2106/2017, 10: 10302892, Dl<tl':ntry: 28-2, Page 11 of 17 

Case: 17-35105, 02106/2017, ID: 10302892, Dl<tEntry: 28-2, Page 13 of 17 

EXECUTED 11111 5" day of FebN•ry. 2017 

~~70~ 

USA 0. MONACO 

Case: 17-35105, 02106/2017, ID: 10302892, Dl<tEntry: 28-2, Page 14 of 17 
33 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So the brief pretty clearly outlines my chief concerns with the 

E.O., namely that it was not based on specific credible evidence of 

a threat and that it puts our troops in harm’s way. So to begin 

with, was the refugee ban based on specific new evidence of a 

threat to the homeland? 

Secretary KELLY. The ban, once again, Congressman, was based 

on countries that we don’t have any real confidence in right now 

that they can help us vet people to come to the United States, 

countries that are in, you know, clearly disarray. We know, as an 

example, in the Syrian case there are thousands of—and I can’t get 

too into it in this open session—there are thousands of fighters who 

are available and have—we have pretty good confidence have the 

kind of papers that could get them passed into Western Europe and 

certainly, by extension, into the United States. 

So the threat is real. This pause—and that is what it is, is a 

pause—will give me, working with CIA, DOD, and Justice, not to 

mention State Department, give us an opportunity to step back and 

decide what additional vetting we might add to what we already 

have, which is minimal in my view, and then come out of that and 

say, ‘‘OK, these are the new rules.’’ It may be that some of these 

countries remain on the list for some time because they are in such 

chaos. 


h:\seals\115215.eps h:\seals\115216.eps h:\seals\115217.eps
34 

But again, I go back to sworn to protect the Nation, and hope is 

not an option when it comes—from my perspective at least—when 

it comes down to that. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. I understand that. The point is, though, the ban 

was put in place not based on any new credible threat intelligence 

to a direct threat to the United States. Just to quote—— 

Secretary KELLY. Well, Congressman, I would say—— 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Let me just finish, if I could—— 

Secretary KELLY. If I could give you the full answer, it is based 

on the fact that we know—— 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Right. 

Secretary KELLY [continuing]. That there are thousands of fighters coming out of the caliphate fight that have papers that could 

easily—not easily—could bring them to certainly Western Europe 

and the United States. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you. 

To quote from the brief, ‘‘We all agree that the United States 

faces real threats from terrorist networks and must take all prudent and effective steps to combat them, including the appropriate 

vetting of travelers to the United States. We are all, nevertheless, 

unaware of any specific threat that would justify the travel ban established by the Executive Order issued on January 27, 2017. We 

view the order as one that will ultimately undermine the National 

security of the United States rather than making us safer. 

In our professional opinion, this order cannot be justified on national security or foreign policy grounds. It does not perform its declared task of protecting the Nation from foreign terrorist entry 

into the United States.’’ 

So they would disagree. There is already strong vetting in place 

right now and that vetting has kept us safe. 

But let me move on to another question. Last Friday the New 

York Times reported—the headline was, ‘‘Travel Ban Drives Wedge 

Between Iraqi Soldiers and Americans.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I ask that this story be inserted into the record. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

TRAVEL BAN DRIVES WEDGE BETWEEN IRAQI SOLDIERS AND AMERICANS

New York Times, Feb. 3, 2017 

By David Zucchino 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/world/asia/travel-ban-drives-wedge-between-iraqi-soldiers-and-americans.html 

BAGHDAD.—Capt. Ahmed Adnan al-Musawe had survived another day battling 

Islamic State fighters in Mosul last weekend when he heard startling news: The 

new American president had temporarily barred Iraqis from entering the United 

States and wanted tougher vetting. 

Captain Musawe, who commands an infantry unit of the Iraqi Army’s elite 

counterterrorism force, considers himself already fully vetted: He has been trained 

by American officers in Iraq and in Jordan. And backed by American advisers, he 

has fought the Islamic State in three Iraqi cities, including three months of brutal 

street combat in Mosul. 

‘‘If America doesn’t want Iraqis because we are all terrorists, then America should 

send its sons back to Iraq to fight the terrorists themselves,’’ Captain Musawe told 

a New York Times reporter who was with him this week at his barricaded position 

inside Mosul. 

35 

President Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order has driven a wedge between many 

Iraqi soldiers and their American allies. Officers and enlisted men interviewed on 

the front lines in Mosul said they interpreted the order as an affront—not only to 

them but also to fellow soldiers who have died in the battle for Mosul. 

‘‘An insult to their dignity,’’ said Capt. Abdul Saami al-Azzi, another officer with 

the counterterrorism force in Mosul. He said he was hurt and disappointed by a nation he had considered a respectful partner. ‘‘It is really embarrassing.’’ 

The American and Iraqi militaries have negotiated an often tenuous and strained 

relationship over the years. But few episodes have so blindsided the current generation of Iraqi soldiers, who are accustomed to viewing the United States as their 

partner in a shared struggle to defeat insurgents and build a viable nation. 

The timing of the order hit the Iraqi military in Mosul like an incoming rocket. 

Iraqi forces have reached a pivotal moment, seizing half of Mosul and preparing to 

assault the remaining half—supported by American advisers, Special Operations 

forces and airstrikes by the United States-led coalition. 

Why, some soldiers asked, had Mr. Trump chosen this moment to lump together 

all Iraqis as mortal threats to America—soldiers, civilians and terrorists alike? 

‘‘This decision by Trump blows up our liberation efforts of cooperation and coordination with American forces,’’ said Brig. Gen. Mizhir Khalid al-Mashhadani, a 

counterterrorism force commander in Mosul. 

Astounded by the announcement, General Mashhadani, who speaks English, said 

he asked his American counterparts about the president’s order. He said several 

told him they considered the decision hasty and its consequences poorly considered. 

The travel ban was all the more perplexing to those Iraqi troops who had heard 

Mr. Trump vow as a candidate to wipe out the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, 

ISIL or Daesh. Some also heard the president promise, when issuing the order, to 

keep ‘‘radical Islamic terrorists’’ out of the United States. 

For some soldiers, those comments seemed to equate Iraqi soldiers—by virtue of 

their nationality and religion—with the very terrorists they were fighting. 

President Trump was ‘‘unjust and not right,’’ said Maj. Sabah al-Aloosi, 37, another counterterrorism force officer in Mosul. It is Iraqi soldiers, he said, ‘‘who are 

fighting terrorism on behalf of the world and sacrificing themselves.’’ 

Col. John L. Dorrian, the spokesman in Baghdad for the American-led operation 

against the Islamic State, emphasized that the president’s order was temporary, 

calling it ‘‘a pause.’’ 

Told of critical comments by Iraqi soldiers and officers, Colonel Dorrian said: ‘‘For 

our part, we continue to do every single day what we’ve been doing all along in the 

campaign to defeat Daesh.’’ 

Colonel Dorrian said those efforts included continuing to train and advise Iraqi 

security forces, and providing intelligence, artillery and airstrikes in support of Iraqi 

troops. ‘‘None of these things are affected,’’ he added. 

One counterterrorism soldier, Ismail Khalid, said the president’s ban on Iraqis did 

not affect his will to fight the Islamic State—or his survival instincts. ‘‘I’ve been 

fighting terrorism for months and what matters to me is to return home,’’ he said. 

The counterterrorism force soldiers spoke before the American Embassy in Baghdad on Thursday cleared the way to enter the United States for former interpreters 

and other Iraqis who had assisted the American government or military. 

The interpreters and their families had been issued special immigrant visas because of their service to the United States. The ban on so-called S.I.V. holders was 

lifted after the Pentagon recommended that the White House exempt Iraqis who 

have tangibly demonstrated their commitment to supporting United States forces, 

a Pentagon spokesman said. 

But Iraqis who hold valid refugee visas, some because their association with 

Americans exposes them to danger in Iraq, remained barred from entry to the 

United States. 

Before the Jan. 27 ban was announced, two counterterrorism force officers in 

Mosul said they had begun making plans to visit the United States after the battle 

for Iraq’s second-largest city. 

Captain Musawe, who had hoped to vacation in the United States, said he was 

not making any travel plans at the moment. ‘‘The decision by Trump has wasted 

my dreams,’’ he said. 

Major Aloosi said he even asked his American counterparts for advice about the 

visa process for Iraqi soldiers seeking to visit the ‘‘wonderful sights and tourism’’ 

he had seen on American TV programs. ‘‘But all that has vaporized because of the 

decision by Trump,’’ he said. 

General Mashhadani said that despite bitter feelings among many of the soldiers 

he commands, he continues to work closely, if under trying circumstances, with his 

American counterparts. 

36 

‘‘My American friends who are officers promised to let me in their country in case 

I decide to go there—even if they have to use illegal ways,’’ he said. 

An employee of The New York Times contributed reporting from Mosul, Iraq, and 

Falih Hassan contributed from Baghdad. 

A version of this article appears in print on February 4, 2017, on Page A12 of the 

New York edition with the headline: Travel Ban Strains Ties to Troops Across Iraq. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. So based on your experience in Iraq, do you believe that the ban will improve the safety and security of U.S. 

forces there? 

Secretary KELLY. I believe the travel pause from all of those 

countries will give us time to evaluate those countries and the information they can provide us, which will ultimately lead to safety 

for the American people. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I would just say that we have strong measures in place to keep 

the country safe, and putting the ban in place, in my opinion, ultimately will do more harm than good. We could have done this in 

a more effective way by—if we need to enhance vetting, fine. If 

there is credible intelligence that we need to act upon, fine. But I 

think in the long run this ban will do more harm than good, both 

to our security but also to our troops in the field. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chair recognizes the gentleman from South 

Carolina, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary KELLY. General, thanks for being here. Thanks for 

your service to the United States Marine Corps. As chairman of the 

Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, you and I had a chance to 

work together when you were at Southern Command, and I appreciate your work. 

Ask you a series of yes or no questions. Is President Trump’s Executive Order a Muslim ban? 

Secretary KELLY. No. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Would you agree with this statement: Because we 

cannot properly vet those from Syria because of the lack of information coming out of the country, because they are in the midst 

of a civil war, do you believe that this in necessary in order to ensure America’s safety? 

Secretary KELLY. Yes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. We have had a series of hearings in this committee 

and on Capitol Hill with regard to Syrian refugees. Your predecessors and those appointed by President Trump’s predecessors 

came to the Hill and made some very interesting statements. I 

would like to read some of those in my time. 

John Brennan, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said 

this, 11/18/2015: ‘‘I think it makes it even more incumbent on the 

security and intelligence professionals to make sure that we are 

able to look at individuals who are coming into this country with 

an eye toward what it is that we might know about individuals or 

ways that terrorist organizations might try to secret people into 

these networks, into these refugee flows.’’ 

Would you agree with that statement? 

Secretary KELLY. That the terrorists are attempting to gain access to the United States, passing themselves off potentially as refugees? I do believe that they have got that in mind. 

37 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, sir. 

Your predecessor, Secretary Johnson, said this, 10/21/2015: ‘‘It is 

true that we are not going to know a whole lot about the Syrians 

that come forth in this process; that is definitely a challenge. We 

know that organizations like ISIL might try to exploit this, the Syrian refugee resettlement program. The good news is that we are 

better at vetting than we were 8 years ago. The bad news is that 

there is no risk-free process.’’ 

He went on to say, 10/8/2015, I guess that was a little earlier: 

‘‘The Syrian refugees are a population of people that we are not 

going to know a whole lot about.’’ 

They testified over and over that Syria is in a civil war and that 

the records, (A), were never very good to begin with; (B), have been 

destroyed, have been stolen, have been commingled. In fact, you 

can go to Turkey and change your identity with a new passport 

based on what we know. 

Director of National Counterterrorism Center in this committee 

on 10/8/2015 said this, Nicholas Rasmussen: ‘‘The intelligent picture we have had of this, the Syrian conflict zone, isn’t what we 

would like it to be. You can only review refugees’ submitted background data against what you have.’’ 

How this is different than Iraq is we had people in Iraq; we were 

working with the Iraqi government. We don’t know a whole lot 

about the Syrians. 

General Clapper, retired general and director of National Intelligence, said this: ‘‘As Syrian refugees descend on Europe, one of 

the obvious issues that we worry about, and in turn as we bring 

refugees into this country, is exactly what is their background. We 

don’t obviously put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives 

among these refugees. That is a huge concern of ours.’’ 

Director of FBI, James Comey, said this: ‘‘We can only query 

against that which we have collected, and so if someone has not 

made a ripple in the pond in Syria on a way that would get their 

identity or interest reflected in our databases, we can only query 

our databases until the cows come home, but nothing will show up 

because we have no record of that person.’’ 

Ladies and gentlemen, the issue at hand that President Trump 

has recognized is that we don’t have a whole lot of information on 

people from the war-torn areas. ISIL has said they are willing to 

infiltrate the refugee resettlement program and the immigration 

migration into Europe. 

This is a pause for 90 days so that our intelligence folks can try 

to get this right. It turns off the Syrian refugee program until the 

President says we can properly vet those whom we are going to 

allow to live amongst us. This is good policy to keep America safe. 

It is not a Muslim travel ban. It targets an area of the world that 

is torn with civil war and has elements—ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko 

Haram, Abu Sayyaf—that are intent on doing Americans harm. I 

support this. 

General Kelly, thank you. I look forward to your continued leadership at the Department. I look forward to working with you here. 

With that, I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Richmond. 

38 

Mr. RICHMOND. General, let me just ask you a couple yes or no 

questions. 

Is Steve Bannon, adviser to the President, a Department of 

Homeland Security employee? 

Secretary KELLY. No. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Are you a standing member of the National Security Council? 

Secretary KELLY. I am. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Has an adviser to the President ever been a 

standing member of the National Security Council? 

Secretary KELLY. I don’t know specifically, but I would imagine 

that there have been advisers to the President. In reality, we are 

all advisers to the President. It would be hard for me to believe 

that there hasn’t been some that have been advisers. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Well, let me just state for the record that while 

I understand the Secretary of Homeland Security has not traditionally been a standing member of the National Security Council, I do 

want to go on record saying that I find it appalling, disgraceful, 

and dangerous that Steve Bannon, a white supremacist and the architect of the ban, is on the National Security Council. 

I feel this inclusion weakens our Nation’s security and makes 

your job even more complicated. 

Now, let me just spend 1 second again on the order, because 

some of my colleagues asked about Saudi Arabia. You indicated 

that we, as a country, was comfortable with the vetting that is 

done from—on the Saudi Arabia side. 

In the ban it mentions 9/11; 15 of the 19 terrorists involved in 

9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. That doesn’t give us any concern? 

Secretary KELLY. Of course it does, but again, that is some years 

ago. That is exactly why President Trump has decided to take a 

pause in countries we know are very, very high-risk in terms of not 

only terrorists or potential terrorists, but very high-risk in terms 

that they don’t have really any databases we can work with, police, 

FBI, that kind of thing, where Saudi Arabia does have, you know, 

functioning police and intelligence services that we can work with. 

So at least we know that people that are coming out of that country are, (A), who they say they are; (B), why they are coming to 

the United States—whatever reason, tourists or otherwise. But it 

is pretty hard—it is impossible to get into someone’s head. 

I believe if we put someone like Saudi Arabia on the list, given 

their very good intelligence, very good police work and all that kind 

of thing, then you could make the argument this is about religion. 

It is not. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Well, you say it is not about religion, but the 

President in a TV interview said that he would prioritize and even 

exempt persecuted Christians. How does that work? If we have a 

pause, how do we un-pause it for persecuted Christians? 

Secretary KELLY. Again, you know, we have—both myself and 

Secretary Tillerson have authority within the Executive Orders to 

make case-by-case—and I certainly did in the early hours—to make 

case-by-case exemptions, a couple of Iraqis, as an example. I mean, 

the first lawsuit that was brought against the pause, one of the 

E.O.s, the two people that were wronged, allegedly, had long been 

admitted into the United States. 

39 

So we have a case-by-case on this, and have let in some Iraqi 

generals, some other people, dual citizens, of course. So there is a 

way to, on a case-by-case—the little girls that the Congresswoman 

referenced. I mean, these are people that we said, OK, let’s let 

them in. So there is a way to do that. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Well, and I am glad that there is a way to do 

that, but I guess what I am specifically asking is whether you or 

the Secretary of State are going to take the directive that the 

President stated, which is he favored preference for persecuted 

Christians. So are we going to put persecuted Christians over everyone else, as he suggested, is my question. 

Do you intend on implementing it like that or executing it like 

that? 

Secretary KELLY. We will look at every individual case that we 

are presented for exemption and make a decision not based on only 

religion, but on persecution and those kind of things. 

Mr. RICHMOND. So we won’t put religion as a priority over other 

religions? We won’t pick a religion and put them as a priority over 

another religion. 

Secretary KELLY. The way we are implementing this we will not 

use religion, but persecution for sure—why someone is being persecuted. But there is no, you know, no Muslims, but all Christians; 

nothing like that, Congressman. 

Mr. RICHMOND. OK. 

The former director of homeland security placed our voting apparatus as critical infrastructure. So my last question is, No. 1, do 

you plan on taking that designation away? Then the second part 

of that question would be, because it is designated critical infrastructure, the fact that the President believes 3 million to 5 million 

people voted illegally, and I guess he assumes they didn’t vote for 

him, how do we proceed? 

If the number is 3 to 5 million, it really could change some 

States like Michigan and Pennsylvania. He may well not be a 

President. He may be a so-called President, or in his terms, a fake 

President. 

So, are we going to institute that investigation and follow it to 

its logical conclusion? Or why should we have the confidence that 

these 3 to 5 million people didn’t steal an election if, in fact, they 

did vote illegally? 

Secretary KELLY. Mr. Chairman, we are a minute past the 5 

minutes. OK to answer that question? 

Chairman MCCAUL. Yes, sir. 

Secretary KELLY. I think the, Jeh Johnson, good friend of mine, 

in his final days determined that, you know, the voting system was 

critical infrastructure. I believe we should help all of the States— 

provide them as much help as we can to make sure that their systems are protected in future elections. So I would argue that, yes, 

we should keep that in place. 

Everything after that, I can’t find the question, just a statement. 

So—— 

Mr. RICHMOND. I am past my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I think the Secretary reminds us that we 

have a 5-minute rule. I think in the interests of all the Members 

40 

here to get a question in let’s try to adhere to that as much as possible. 

Mr. Barletta is recognized. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Kelly, the Federal judge who paused the Executive 

Order on January 27 stated from the bench that no one from the 

seven countries named in the order has been arrested for terrorist 

activities in the United States since 9/11, reading from an Associated Press article in the Seattle Times. 

He asked the Justice Department lawyer, ‘‘How many arrests of 

foreign nationals from the countries have occurred since 9/11?’’ 

When the lawyer said she didn’t know, the judge answered his 

own question. He said, ‘‘Let me tell you. The answer to that is 

none, the best I can tell. You are here arguing on behalf of someone 

that says we have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries, and there is no support for that.’’ 

I can’t help but note that at least in one instance he is right. The 

young man who stabbed a number of people at Ohio State this past 

November was in the United States through the refugee program. 

He came here from Somalia, one of the seven countries we are talking about. But in this one case, the judge was right. He was not 

arrested because he was killed at the scene by police. 

I have here a study by a professor from the University of North 

Carolina which finds that in all the arrests made for terror-related 

activities in the United States since 9/11 almost a quarter of them 

have direct family ties to those seven countries. 

In your opinion, Mr. Secretary, are these critics correct? Have 

there been no problems at all with people from these seven countries? 

Secretary KELLY. I think, Congressman, the first thing I would 

say is people like me are paid to do—in my case, protect the Nation 

in the home game, protect the homeland. Hope is not a course of 

action for people like me, and police officers and sheriffs and members of the CBP, people like that. Hope we can never rely on, ‘‘Gee, 

I hope nothing bad happens.’’ 

In the case, and I have nothing but respect for judges, but in 

their world it is a very academic, very almost in-a-vacuum discussion. Of course, in their court rooms they are protected by people 

like me. 

So they can have those discussions and if something happens bad 

from, you know, from letting people in they don’t come to the judge 

to ask him about his ruling, they come to people like me. There are 

bad people in the world. They come from all over the world. Some 

of them are home-grown, and people like me are doing the best we 

can to get after the problem. 

So again, I have nothing but respect for our judges, but they live 

in a different world than I do. I am paid to worst-case it; he is paid 

to, in a very academic environment, make a call. 

I don’t criticize him for that. That is his job. But I am the one 

that is charged with protecting the Nation, the homeland, and I intend to do that and never hope that some people coming from some 

part of the world are coming here for the right reasons. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. 

41 

Secretary Kelly, one of the principal reasons I ran for Congress 

was my frustration with the Federal Government for refusing to 

enforce our existing immigration laws. My city of Hazelton, which 

I was mayor of, was overrun by illegal aliens who brought with 

them gangs, drugs, identity theft, fraud, other crimes that I had to 

deal with. 

No one was speaking for the victims of these crimes. I always 

heard that, you know, we have to have compassion for the person 

that comes here illegally, but I had to sit with people who were— 

who lost loved ones who were victims. I have compassion for them, 

so I commend the Trump administration for recognizing these 

crime victims, the victims. 

As you know, the Executive Order of January 25, enhancing public safety in the interior of the United States, establishes an office 

of victims of crimes committed by removable aliens. Can you please 

speak to when this office will be set up and what services it would 

provide? 

Secretary KELLY. The office is being set up kind-of as we speak. 

Even though it is actually down inside the ICE organization, I have 

told my people that I want that particular office to work for me. 

So we are raising it up to the Secretary level. 

Generally speaking, these criminals who are here illegally are 

generally going through a criminal justice system in the States, for 

the most part. First of all, our view would be that those people can 

expect from us, if they call and say, ‘‘How is that case going, you 

know, the person that murdered my daughter with a gun or ran 

over my son with an automobile or killed a police officer on the side 

of a road, how is that going?’’ 

So we hope to be—we will be able to say, ‘‘It is in court,’’ and 

you know, give them a description of what it is. 

But further down the line that office will be able to tell those 

people, ‘‘OK, the convicted person that killed your daughter, murdered your son, killed a cop, he has got, you know, 10 years, 9 

years, 8 years, 7 years. OK, he is going to be paroled, and you can 

bet that my people will be standing there when he is paroled to 

take him into custody and send him back to wherever he came 

from.’’ 

That is what I see that office doing, sir. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. Thank you for your service to our 

country. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 

Keating, is recognized. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your extraordinary service to our 

country, and particularly assuming this role as a native of Massachusetts. 

Mr. Secretary, I have heard the administration reference the 

Boston Marathon bombings as an example of a domestic attack 

that would have been prevented by the President’s Executive 

Order. The Boston Marathon bombing, as we all know, is a heinous 

and personal attack on all of us as Americans. 

But the year following the attack this committee led an extensive 

bipartisan investigation into the Tsarnaev brothers, their families, 

their motivations, and I can tell you with confidence that the 

42 

Tsarnaev brothers would not have been denied entry into this 

country under that Executive Order. 

Now, in your opening statement you said fear should not be the 

status quo. If you could, words matter. If you could comment on the 

importance of every official clearly defining and being accurate 

when they discuss issues such as that that provoke such public 

concern and fear, as this Executive Order did. 

Secretary KELLY. I agree. Public officials at every level should, 

you know, to the greatest degree that they can, understand the 

specifics of given cases and—— 

Mr. KEATING. That includes the President. 

Secretary KELLY. I think all public officials—but I will also say 

this: Since the regional—the third E.O. was put in order, the number of Members of Congress as well as international—my counterparts on the international scene that called me with really anecdotal, ‘‘This is what is happening, it is horrible, these people are 

all being rounded up and all of this.’’ 

I said, ‘‘OK, give me specifics.’’ Not a single member but one was 

able was able to give me a specific, and that led to us getting a 

young girl out of a camp in Uganda and reunited with her family 

in Minneapolis, I think. 

So, all members of—that serve the Nation should be exacting. I 

will tell you, the biggest problem I had from that Friday until 

about Tuesday was the misrepresentation of what was taking place 

in the various airports, in particular. As I say, I was just inundated 

with—— 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you for making that a priority of yours. I 

hope every official at all levels—— 

Secretary KELLY. We all have to be exact. 

Mr. KEATING [continuing]. Take that responsibility seriously. 

Secretary KELLY. None of us should be talking about anecdotes. 

Specifics are—matter. 

Mr. KEATING. Yes. Quick question I had. All your predecessors 

since I have been on this committee, and I think before I was on 

this committee, have stated that the No. 1 security concern domestically has been home-grown violent extremists. Would you agree 

with all your predecessors that that is the most immediate and 

pressing danger that we have? 

Secretary KELLY. I don’t think I would say ‘‘the most’’ because 

there are others that are equally as dangerous and just about as 

likely as home-grown terrorism. 

Mr. KEATING. Fair enough. 

As a general you are familiar with the chain of command more 

than, I think, anyone in this room, given your years of experience. 

Looking at what happened, the chaos surrounding the Executive 

Order, what would you do going forward differently yourself to impact that process so there was a very clear chain of command with 

communications not just within government but also in the private 

side, with the airlines, and everyone else that is a traveler? 

Secretary KELLY. For the record, again, if you talk to the men 

and women of CBP, there was no chaos as they received people 

from various countries. You know, in the first 24 hours of the Executive Order from aviation, coming in by air, about 325,000 or 

330,000 people, over half of whom were foreigners, most of whom 

43 

get in without any problem, and then a small number, relatively 

small number, were held up for additional vetting. The vast—I 

think all of them, but a very small number get in, in pretty short 

order. 

So if you ask the CBP people that were working the counters, 

they don’t know what you are talking about when you are talking 

about chaos. Now, if you then look out to where the demonstrators 

were—and, with all due respect, some public officials—there was 

chaos, but that were—that was due to other factors. 

Mr. KEATING. We had some airlines allowing people entry and 

some airlines didn’t—— 

Secretary KELLY. That came actually in the last few days. It was 

very quick. The airlines were very cooperative, as they always are. 

They are great partners, and when they were told, ‘‘Don’t board 

these people,’’ they didn’t. Now, we have got a little bit of a difference—— 

Mr. KEATING. Are you satisfied with that chain of command, 

then, that took place during that period? 

Secretary KELLY. The chain of command is from the President to 

me to CBP in this case. I am satisfied with that chain of command. 

Mr. KEATING. Just quickly, is that what happened in this case? 

Is that the chain of command? 

Secretary KELLY. It is. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Mr. Perry, from Pennsylvania, you are recognized. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and let me offer my gratitude for your service to our Nation. 

As the Chairman of the Oversight and Management Efficiency 

Subcommittee on this committee, I have been concerned about an 

employee survey that DHS once again ranked dead last by its employees as the worst place to work in the Federal Government. 

Now, as you know, the—there are five core missions at DHS, two 

of which are to secure and manage our borders. Through the previous administrations, countless internal directors, in my opinion, 

the border became less secure and immigration agents literally 

could be fired for attempting to enforce Federal immigration laws. 

I am just wondering, the question is at this point, do you think 

the previous administration’s actions, coupled with the mainstream 

media’s demonization of securing our border and what it means, 

sometimes turning people away that want to come across the border, has had an adverse impact on the attitude of your now employees? 

Secretary KELLY. I believe that. If I could just make a comment, 

Congressman, the frustration—and I am very new at this job, but 

I am really good at interacting with people and really good at leading them. When I talk to the members, particularly where the rubber meets the road, or, as I have learned down on the Rio Grande 

the other day, where the hull meets the water, and you talk to 

them about why they have been frustrated—great Americans, magnificent men and public servants in uniform, sometimes out of uniform, they would tell you that, ‘‘You know, sir, hard to do a job and 

not allowed to do it until a couple of the E.O.s came on.’’ 

44 

Their particular frustration is when they see people who are, in 

fact, here illegally who are—have committed some crimes and then 

are let go. So I think their morale has suffered because of the job 

they were hired to do, and then in their sense they are kind of hobbled or, you know, hands tied behind their back, that kind of thing. 

Now they feel more positive about things. I bet if you watch the 

morale issue you will be surprised going forward. 

Mr. PERRY. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I guarantee you 

we are going to be watching. 

I do want to make a statement in regard to the gentlelady from 

Texas regarding the attacks of refugees. I just want to just quickly 

point out a Somali who planned to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon, an Iraq refugee who set off a bomb in a 

Social Security office in Arizona, Somali refugee who went on a 

stabbing spree in St. Cloud. Of course, the one that Mr. Barletta 

referenced, a Somali refugee with the successful attack in Ohio. 

As a person who has worn the uniform, sir, I want to remind us 

both of the two Iraqis convicted on charges that they assisted alQaeda in Iraq and may have killed American service members who 

lied on their immigration paperwork. While it might be inconvenient for some people to be stopped at the airport, I don’t have the 

photographs of the families who—mothers and fathers, brothers 

and sisters and children—who never saw their parents come home 

from the war zone or from some place out in their community 

where they were attacked by some of these people. 

So if we are going to bring up anecdotes, I imagine we can bring 

up some of the blown-up—pictures of blown-up parts of individuals 

and innocent civilians who were victimized by these people. I hope 

we don’t have to be reduced to that level. 

Mr. Secretary—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. PERRY. No. I have another question for the Secretary. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Secretary, just looking at some of the comments from—and 

I am looking at a report from November 17 on NPR from the Border Patrol Union head, who said law enforcement has been handcuffed and the criminals are being let go. And another CNS news 

report from June 27, 2014, where agents were forced without 

documentations to accept the claims of immigrants and treat them 

as minors and turn them over to HHS within 72 hours pretty much 

feeling full well that they have been involved in gang activities, 

were above the age of minority, were above the age of 18, but without documentation were forced to do it. 

These folks then enter up—enter into the interior, and then the 

other concerns of dangerous drugs like heroin, health circumstances like polio, leprosy, small pox, the infiltration of alQaeda, et cetera. I am wondering if you can tell us tangibly today— 

today, starting right now or before—what has changed in those 

policies that led the head of the union to say that they were being 

handcuffed while criminals were being let go? 

What has changed already for Border Patrol under your leadership and under a new administration? 

Secretary KELLY. The 10-second answer, because that is all I 

have, is they are now—the various policies and whatnot that did 

45 

restrict them—and I hear this all the time—that did restrict them 

have now been lifted and they are out there doing the job. 

But one of the things, in 6 seconds or less, we really need to do 

is really re-enforce—surge, if you will—the number of immigration 

courts and judges and that kind of thing to really get after the 

numbers of illegal aliens. Because, you know, we can pick them up 

all day long but if the process takes a year or 2 or 5 or 10, it is 

pretty hard to deter people coming up from South America, good 

people overwhelmingly, if they know once they get here they are 

in. 

But they feel better about things now that they—the E.O. has 

lifted the restrictions and the—the policy restrictions. The laws are 

there. They are good laws. Now they are being executed. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 

Jersey, Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking Member. 

Mr. Secretary, we thank you for being here today and thank you 

for your service to this Nation. It goes without saying that you 

have been a great American with respect to your service in the Marines and all the way up. So I want to congratulate you on this opportunity to serve, as well. 

You know, there has been a lot of discussion today in reference 

to the Muslim ban on these seven countries that, you know, the— 

my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are citing incidents now 

of refugees from those countries. But the data we have says that 

there hasn’t been anyone from those seven countries that has— 

have made terrorist attacks. 

Countries that are not on that list, sir, are Lebanon, where we 

have had 159 Americans killed by their citizens; Egypt, 162; United 

Arab Emirates, 314; and Saudi Arabia, 2,369. So I would think 

that there might be reason to add other countries to that list. 

In terms of staffing for Customs and Border Protection, you 

know, the President’s Executive Order on border security directs 

hiring of an additional 5,000 Border Patrol Agents but gives no 

specifics. What is the time frame for hiring these additional 

agents? 

Secretary KELLY. OK, Congressman, a lot there. 

Under the general heading, if I could start by saying, you know, 

honest men and women can disagree on things and hold their own 

opinions. This is not a Muslim ban. 

The countries that you mentioned—Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and UAE—have systems within their countries that are, in 

our view, fairly reliable, although we are looking, in terms of their 

internal vetting, police records, things like that. 

The countries that are on the list that—put on the list, really, 

by the last administration, don’t have those. They are countries in 

chaos, really countries in collapse. 

If we had put countries on—predominantly Muslim countries on 

this pause list, my view that would be putting them on there because they are Muslims. But because they are not—the reason they 

46 

are not there is we have reasonable trust in their systems that we 

can rely on to begin the vetting first—— 

Mr. PAYNE. These seven countries are not Muslim? 

Secretary KELLY. They are overwhelming Muslim. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. 

Secretary KELLY. There are 51 countries on the planet that are 

Muslim, 26 of whom are over 80 percent. So of the 51—— 

Mr. PAYNE. We keep count of those? We keep—— 

Secretary KELLY. Of the 51 countries—— 

Mr. PAYNE [continuing]. Count of Muslim countries? 

Secretary KELLY. Of the 51 Muslim countries on Earth—predominantly Muslim countries—seven from that list are on the 

pause list, but not because they are Muslims but because their 

countries are in—they are failed states and we have no—they don’t 

have reliable systems by which we can right now depend on their 

information to us. It is not a Muslim ban. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. Well, you know, it is—as you said, we can disagree. It is even interesting that we are keeping count of the number of Muslim countries that there are in the world. 

To my Border Patrol—my time is running out. 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, on the Border Patrol. What I have told my 

people is that—and we have made this mistake in the military 

more than once, going back to certainly the Vietnam War. We will 

add to the ranks of the ICE and border protection people as fast 

as we can, but we will not lower standards and we will not lower 

training. So the people that—and I don’t believe we are going to 

get 10,000 and 5,000 on board within the next couple of years. 

I would rather have fewer and make sure that they are highquality people that are already serving in those organizations, already well-trained. But I will not skimp on the training and the 

standards. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Gentleman from New York, Mr. Katko, is 

recognized. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today, and thank you 

for your long and dedicated service to our country. 

You are embarking on a job now where your daily mission is to 

find a proverbial needle in a haystack, and I admire you for wanting to take it on and I appreciate you willing to do so. 

I just want to share with you briefly a story. Last year we were 

part of a Congressional delegation to the Middle East. We went to 

Israel and then on to Iraq, Turkey, Berlin, Brussels, and Paris. 

That was before all of them were attacked by ISIS-related terror 

attacks. 

When I went over there they were—all the security agencies had 

the exact mindset as you, and that is they don’t want it to have 

to happen. It hasn’t happened yet, but they didn’t want it to happen in their turf. I pray to God that it doesn’t happen here. 

So I appreciate all the efforts you and this administration are 

doing to try and keep our country safe. It is not enough to hope 

that we keep it safe. We have got to do everything we possibly can 

to keep it safe, so I appreciate you doing that. 

47 

Now I want so switch gears a bit and put on my old prosecutor 

hat, because I was a 20-year organized crime prosecutor, and I was 

on the Southwest Border, then in Puerto Rico, and the Northern 

Border. My questions are emanating from that experience. 

When I was in El Paso I saw first-hand the border and how 

much of a sieve it was, even around the El Paso sector. The fact 

that they have 650 miles of border fence now and we are simply 

contemplating adding to that does not make this a novel idea that 

the border needs to be more secure. 

In my district we are inundated with heroin, and the number of 

heroin deaths in our area are overwhelming, to say the least. I 

know much of it is coming across the Southwest Border. 

So by tightening up the border can you tell me what impact it 

will have on drug traffickers and their ability to ship this poison 

into our country? I ask you to draw upon your experience as part 

of the Southern Command, as well. 

Secretary KELLY. A lot of experience with drugs—not taking 

them of course, but interdicting them. 

Interdiction of drugs. If the drugs are in the United States we 

have lost. 

I will use an example of cocaine in Colombia. You know, last year 

our Colombian friends, the best, closest allies we have in Latin 

American, bar none, they eradicated tens of thousands of acres of 

coca; they seized 378 metric tons of cocaine before it ever left and 

they destroyed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of drug labs. 

So that is all cocaine that never even started the, you know, the 

trip up. 

Southern Command last year got a couple of hundred tons, with 

the Coast Guard getting a lot of that. 

Once it gets into Central America cocaine is—it is in Pennsylvania, it is in wherever. 

Heroin: 100 percent of the heroin consumed, generally—99 percent is produced in Mexico. Poppy is grown in Mexico and Guatemala and trafficked up into the United States. We get a lot before 

it gets here but, as you point out, it comes here in massive numbers. 

Then the vast majority of methamphetamines, once again, produced in Mexico in the hundreds of tons and trafficked into the 

United States. 

I think a huge partner here is Mexico. If we can help them get 

after the poppy production, as an example; if we can help them get 

after the production labs; if we can help them get after the heroin, 

methamphetamine as it is moving in relatively large amounts before it gets to the border. 

We are never going to get to zero, but, you know, we don’t have— 

we do not have a drug demand reduction. This is embarrassing. It 

is—well, we don’t have a drug demand production program in the 

United States to stop the use of drugs. Most of this stuff starts 

recreationally and then turns into addiction. 

We are never going to get to zero, but we know how to do this. 

We have done it before with other drugs and other things that 

were bad for our society. We are not even trying. 

The people in the south, if you are Guatemala looking north or 

in the south looking north, they will tell you, ‘‘How about stop lecVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:32 Sep 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17FL0207\FINAL\26396.TXT HEATH
48 

turing us about not doing enough to stop the drug flow? How about 

you stop the demand and then the drug flow will go away?’’ 

I would like to think as we go forward that this Congress, myself, 

the Homeland Security would maybe get into the business of drug 

demand reduction, because that is what is killing our folks. 

I will just finish with this: There has been a drug heroin—there 

has been a heroin problem in this country since I was a kid, because the vast majority of my friends died of heroin overdoses long 

ago, in the 1960’s and 1970’s. But the heroin problem has been primarily, up until recently, in the inner cities, black neighborhoods, 

working-class neighborhoods like I grew up in, Hispanic neighborhoods. For decades I guess as a society, we said, ‘‘Well, so long as 

it is just there who cares?’’ 

All of a sudden kids are dying in New Hampshire in large numbers, on the college campuses of places like Harvard, Stanford, in 

Capitol Hill, and Nob Hill, and Beacon Hill in Boston. Now it is 

a big issue. 

I think we should capitalize on the fact that it has got people’s 

attention and somehow put together a drug demand reduction 

strategy that works and can reduce the number of people using 

drugs. That is what I think. 

Mr. KATKO. Right. I appreciate it. My time is up. But briefly, by 

strengthening the Southern Border will that help prevent some of 

the drugs from coming across? 

Secretary KELLY. Yes. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you. I have more questions, but my time is 

up so I will have to submit it to you in writing. 

Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Vela. 

Mr. VELA. Thank you. 

Secretary Kelly, is President Trump’s promise to build a 2,000- 

mile, big, beautiful wall that will cost $14 billion and paid for by 

Mexico a viable option? 

Secretary KELLY. The President, Congressman, has tasked me to 

take a look at what we need on the Southwest Border and come 

up with recommendations to him. Yes, there are many, many 

places that we need some type of physical barrier right now backed 

up by men and women of Border Protection. There are other places 

where we need physical barrier, if we can afford it, in given time. 

But yes, I—there is no doubt in my mind that a physical barrier, 

backed up by men and women using technology, working with local 

law enforcement at the State and local level will go a long way to 

securing the Southwest Border. 

Mr. VELA. But building the 2,000-mile wall that was promised 

during the election is not the best way to achieve border security. 

Wouldn’t you agree? 

Secretary KELLY. I wouldn’t agree with that at all, no. 

I mean, it is a layered defense that starts with drug demand reduction. It continues with helping particularly the Central American countries socially and economically. That for sure will stop the 

movement—some of the movement of illegal aliens. 

For sure an immigration system that doesn’t take 2, 3, 4 years 

to return people, this will deter people coming up from the Central 

49 

American countries, most of whom are good people. I don’t criticize 

them at all for wanting to come to the United States. 

So there is no one single solution, but for sure, in my opinion, 

barriers and patrolling of the Southwest Border is a big part of it. 

Mr. VELA. Now, some of these things I think that we would be 

able to agree on, but I forcefully reject the idea of building a wall 

along the Southern Border. The fact is that Mexico is an ally. It 

is our third-largest trading partner, our second-largest export market. When you consider the relationship that we have with the 

country of Mexico that is right on our border and compare it to that 

of Russia, the idea that we would build a wall along that border 

doesn’t make any sense to me. 

But what I would like to talk to you about is the—— 

Secretary KELLY. Could I just ask—— 

Mr. VELA. Of course. 

Secretary KELLY [continuing]. If 100 percent of the heroin, 

methamphetamines, and cocaine are coming in through the Southwest Border, and hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are coming up through the Southwest Border, and billions of dollars’ worth 

of counterfeit goods are trafficked up through—you know, watches 

and electronics and things like that—are coming up through the 

Southwest Border, I mean, I think that argues for—that we do 

something on the Southwest Border. 

Again, the people that work the problem every day, CBP, are 

telling me—us, as—you all, as elected officials—that we need a 

combination of barriers, technology. 

I don’t see any other option. I mean, it is a gaping wound in our 

defenses; drugs, people, the whole bit. So we have got to do something down there and I don’t get your point about—— 

Mr. VELA. No, I agree that we have to do something. 

Secretary KELLY. OK. 

Mr. VELA. What I am saying is—and let me ask you this: Has 

somebody at CBP told you that we need a 2,000-mile wall built 

along that border? 

Secretary KELLY. The people at CBP that work the sectors don’t 

know about—like, if you go down to McAllen, Texas where I was 

they don’t know what they need in Arizona. They don’t even know 

what they need at the Big Bend of Texas. But they say, ‘‘Boss right 

here I need fence so I can control the flow of people and drugs.’’ 

But I would argue that we should look at the entire border and 

where it makes sense—and it may make sense to do it for 2,000 

miles—actually for 1,300 miles since there is already 600 miles of 

fence there—but to do it either—either to fill it in or to—maybe 

there are some places that are too rugged to put a wall and we 

cover that with patrolling and technology. But the people that work 

the border will tell you that physical barriers, and backed up by 

men and women on patrol, is what we need to secure the Southwest Border. 

Mr. VELA. I agree we have to do something, but what I am saying is—what I am asking is has anybody at CBP suggested that we 

should spend $14 billion to build a 2,000-mile wall along the Southern Border? 

Secretary KELLY. The people at CBP will tell you that we need 

physical barriers backed up by people and technology. 

50 

Again, the people that look at it holistically at the headquarters 

level will tell you, ‘‘Yes, we need a physical barrier.’’ The people locally, though—and that is really more importantly to me—they can 

tell you exactly where they want 10, 12, 15 miles tomorrow, and 

then 50 miles the next day, and then 100 miles. That is more important input to me than anything. 

Mr. VELA. Well, we are going to run out of time, and I appreciate 

some of your comments today and earlier in your Senate testimony 

with respect to the socioeconomic conditions in Central America 

and what we have to do to address that, and am particularly appreciative of your comments with respect to our country’s tendency 

over the past few decades to ignore the issue of demand, and I look 

forward to working with you on those things. 

But just real quickly, to talk about the terrorist threat, wouldn’t 

you agree that the threat of terrorists entering this country is a 

threat that exists at our international airports from Boston, New 

York, Washington, Miami, Chicago, San Francisco, Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles; at our sea ports along the Gulf Coast, Atlantic 

Ocean, Pacific Ocean, right; and at our Southern and Northern 

Border, correct? 

What I am wondering is if we obsess ourselves only with the 

Southern Border, are we not missing the boat? 

Secretary KELLY. Well, we are not obsessing ourselves. I mean, 

the immediate and the gaping wound, or the largest opening and 

the most uncontrolled part of our border is the Southwest Border. 

As far as our airports go, where people come here, as they say, 

you know, almost a million people a day come into our country; 

most of them are foreigners. But we do a real good job at the airports. A real good job at the airports. 

Our Northern Border, the good news with our Northern Border 

is Canada is an unbelievable partner and we don’t get much in 

the—I mean, there is some, but there is not much that flows in 

from Canada. 

So I think you have to, you know, look at—never forgetting Canada, never forgetting the seaports, never forgetting the airports, 

but right now we have a completely exposed flank called the Southwest Border. There is no doubt we have to do a lot of different 

things there. It starts 1,500 miles south of the Southwest Border. 

Certainly the Mexicans are important, but we have to look at the 

immediate problem, and the immediate problem is the Southwest 

Border. 

Mr. VELA. I have got more questions but I am out of time. Thank 

you, Secretary Kelly. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hurd, is recognized. 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, it is great to have you here. 

I think most of the people on this dais would probably agree that 

we live in a world that is probably more dangerous than our parents, and our children are probably going to inherit a world that 

is more dangerous than ours. I am glad you willing to continue 

your public service because I think you are the right man for the 

job and you have the right perspective. 

51 

My concern is that I feel like we need to stop talking about getting in the wall-making business and get in the border security 

business. Your concept of defense-in-depth I think is the right place 

to be. 

Now, we talk about physical borders, and I have 820 miles of the 

border with Mexico. I have more border than any Member of Congress. We have talked a lot about physical barriers, and we are 

going to see if this works. 

Can you advance to the first slide? 

Mr. Secretary, you have the pictures. The first picture is Amistad 

Lake and Amistad National Recreation Area. Would this be considered a physical barrier? Can we advance to the next slide to show 

where the actual international border—the international boundary 

is? 

[The information follows:] 

Secretary KELLY. In my view, that is a physical barrier so long— 

it is a physical barrier. But it is easily crossed unless we patrol it. 

Mr. HURD. Absolutely. Patrolling it, technology, making sure we 

know. But building a wall in the middle of Lake Amistad—lake— 

I guess it wouldn’t be a wall; it would be another dam—is probably 

not the right—is a misuse of funds. 

Because I would like for the money that would potentially go to 

building a wall in the middle of a lake go to hiring more people, 

to helping with National security collection in Mexico, to give your 

folks additional intelligence to stop the problem before it gets to 

our border. 

Director McCraw—he is the director of the Texas Department of 

Public Safety; he is going to be testifying in the next panel—in his 

written statement said the border is best secured at the border, 

and forfeiting territory to cartels is not acceptable. I would say 

even working with our partners to stop it from happening is important. 


h:\seals\115220.eps
52 

Can we advance to the next slide? 

[The information follows:] 

Mr. HURD. This next one is the Pecos River, and it flows into the 

Rio Grande. This is about 10 miles west of Comstock in Val Verde 

County. The perspective is hard to see, but again, there are cliffs 

on both sides. Would this be considered an additional physical barrier? 

Secretary KELLY. That is a physical barrier to movement, yes, 

Congressman. 

Mr. HURD. Thank you. 

I think we have one more picture. 

[The information follows:] 


h:\seals\115221.eps
53 

Mr. HURD. One of my favorite places in the 23d District of Texas, 

the Santa Elena Canyon in Big Bend National Park. It is south of 

Terlingua, and I think you can tell—again, can we show where the 

international boundary is? That looks like two or three physical 

barriers along the international boundary. Would you agree with 

that, Secretary? 

Secretary KELLY. That is a physical barrier to movement. 

Mr. HURD. Would there be any value of building a wall somewhere in that—— 

Secretary KELLY. Well, not to be cute, but I think I would like 

to talk to the people that patrol that region. It clearly won’t be 

down the middle of a river, but they may tell me that there is, you 

know, the flow of individuals that move through all of those pictures, that there may be need for some physical barrier, so—— 

Mr. HURD. Sure. 

Secretary KELLY. As we discussed yesterday on the phone, I look 

forward to getting down there, taking a look, kicking the tires, and 

talking to people. 

Mr. HURD. I would love to take you down there. One of the 

things that they are going to tell you is they need horses in this 

part in order to do pursuits. I don’t think you may—I don’t think 

the folks in San Diego sector are going to be asking for horses. 

Secretary KELLY. You know, it was amazing to me. I actually 

own now 4,200 horses. 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary KELLY. As a city guy I wouldn’t know how to even 

begin. But if they need horses there and that is what they need, 

then we will look at that for sure. 

Mr. HURD. Good copy. 

Well, Secretary, looking forward to working with you because, 

again, this is an important issue for all of us. I think you are the 

right person for the job. 


h:\seals\115222.eps
54 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Mrs. Watson Coleman, from New Jersey. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Congratulations, again. I am delighted to have an opportunity to 

talk to you. 

I have got a gazillion questions. I am going to ask them as quickly as I can, and I am going to ask if you will respond to them as 

quickly. 

I want to start with this. I think this is very telling: Donald J. 

Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States ‘‘until our country’s representatives can 

figure out what the hell is going on.’’ That is a quote. 

Now, Mr. Secretary, are we to take the President at his word? 

This is the sentiment that apparently drove this. So how can you 

say this is not a ban on Muslims when that is precisely what he 

promised? 

Secretary KELLY. Well, as the guy that is implementing the travel pause on the seven countries, I can tell you it is not being done 

for—because they are Muslim countries, but because they are countries that we don’t trust their vetting or their information. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Well, thank you. I can understand your 

needing to say that, as well. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent for the current 

refugee screening process, which has been stated by National security professionals as one of the most stringent in the world, to be 

entered into the record. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

REFUGEES ENTERING THE U.S. ALREADY FACE A RIGOROUS VETTING PROCESS

New York Times, January 29, 2017 

By Haeyoun Park and Larry Buchanan 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html 

President Trump has suspended entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 

days, and he has barred Syrian refugees indefinitely. The current screening process 

for all refugees involves many layers of security checks before entry into the country, and Syrians were subject to an additional layer of checks. Sometimes, the process, shown below, takes up to two years. 

1. Registration with the United Nations. 

2. Interview with the United Nations. 

3. Refugee status granted by the United Nations. 

4. Referral for resettlement in the United States. 

The United Nations decides if the person fits the definition of a refugee and 

whether to refer the person to the United States or to another country for resettlement. Only the most vulnerable are referred, accounting for less than than 1 percent of refugees worldwide. Some people spend years waiting in refugee camps. 

5. Interview with State Department contractors. 

6. First background check. 

7. Higher-level background check for some. 

8. Another background check. 

The refugee’s name is run through law enforcement and intelligence databases for 

terrorist or criminal history. Some go through a higher-level clearance before they 

can continue. A third background check was introduced in 2008 for Iraqis but has 

since been expanded to all refugees ages 14 to 65. 

9. First fingerprint screening; photo taken. 

10. Second fingerprint screening. 

11. Third fingerprint screening. 

55 

The refugee’s fingerprints are screened against F.B.I. and Homeland Security 

databases, which contain watch list information and past immigration encounters, 

including if the refugee previously applied for a visa at a United States embassy. 

Fingerprints are also checked against those collected by the Defense Department 

during operations in Iraq. 

12. Case reviewed at United States immigration headquarters. 

13. Some cases referred for additional review. 

Syrian applicants must undergo these two additional steps. Each is reviewed by 

a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services refugee specialist. Cases with 

‘‘national security indicators’’ are given to the Homeland Security Department’s 

fraud detection unit. 

14. Extensive, in-person interview with Homeland Security officer. 

Most of the interviews with Syrians have been done in Jordan and Turkey. 

15. Homeland Security approval is required. 

16. Screening for contagious diseases. 

17. Cultural orientation class. 

18. Matched with an American resettlement agency. 

19. Multi-agency security check before leaving for the United States. 

Because of the long amount of time between the initial screening and departure, 

officials conduct a final check before the refugee leaves for the United States. 

20. Final security check at an American airport. 

Sources: State Department; Department of Homeland Security; Center for American 

Progress; U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants; Refugee Council USA 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you very much. 

I am very concerned about the ban on the refugees. That is very 

concerning to me. 

Mr. Payne mentioned to you the fact that there were a number 

of countries in which we were calculating the number of people 

who have been killed in this country from those countries: Iran, 

zero; Iraq, zero; Libya, zero; Somalia, zero; Sudan, zero; Syria, zero; 

Yemen, zero. Are they included in this Muslim ban? Yes. 

Saudi Arabia, 2,369; United Arab Emirates, 314; Egypt, 162; 

Lebanon, 159. Are any of these countries included in this ban? No. 

One of the questions that was asked of you earlier was why 

wouldn’t some place like Saudi Arabia be included in this ban, and 

you answered somewhat to the effect, ‘‘Well, that happened such a 

long time ago.’’ 

So I guess my question to you, if we aren’t going to include a 

country in which there was this heinous genesis of activity even 10 

years ago or so, why would we include countries from which there 

is no evidence that there has ever been any killing in this country 

under those circumstances? That makes no—that doesn’t sound 

logical. 

Secretary KELLY. I don’t think I said that doesn’t count because 

it was so many years ago, but if that is how you took it let me clarify and say that pre-9/11 we did things differently than we do post9/11, so we have tightened up even more. 

Now, one of the things we have confidence in with, say that 

using the Saudis as an example, as when there is a Saudi citizen 

with a passport we can query or we can work with the Saudis to 

say, you know, ‘‘Is this your citizen?’’ 

‘‘Yes, he has got one of our passports.’’ 

What is the degree of reliability that you can give us through 

your police records, intel records, that this individual is not—— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary KELLY. So you don’t want the answer? 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. That would suggest that we would trust 

that country. 

56 

So I want to move on because I want to talk about the refugee 

process a little bit. 

The refugee process, or the whole vetting process, is really quite 

extensive. But the vetting process that involves refugees coming 

from Syria is even more layered. After they go through the regular 

vetting process, they have got to go through additional checks and 

balances. 

The majority of the people that have been coming from Syria who 

are seeking refuge in this country were old, ill, children, and 

women. So why are we compelled to think that there was a need 

to put a pause on letting those individuals, who were not any 

threat to this country, none whatsoever? 

What is the logic on putting a pause to their coming into this 

United States after years of vetting and even going through the 

United Nations? That just seems harmful, and hurtful, and mean, 

and un-American. So I would like you to just respond to that. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary KELLY. Sure. The logic is, the pause is put in place so 

we can evaluate the vetting process that these various groups go 

through and determine whether that is sufficient for me to recommend to the President that we change what the E.O. requires. 

I don’t think a pause puts any, you know, real hardship on people who are—have already, in many cases, been waiting a year or 

2 to come. But at the end of the day, we need to be sure. 

Frankly, I love the United Nations, but I trust my own people 

to determine whether the vetting is sufficient. As terrible as the 

conditions are in Syria, there is really almost no way to truly vet 

them in terms of records keeping and things like that. So, we will 

work through it. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. I appreciate that—— 

Secretary KELLY. But it is only—it is a pause, and we will work 

with them. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I really appreciate that. 

You keep referring to ‘‘your people,’’ and you are brand new so 

I am not sure if you are saying that your people are the people that 

have been there, the careers that have been at DHS, or if you are 

speaking about a whole bunch of new people that you are bringing 

in that you are referring to your people. 

But whatever people they are, I would like for them to refer to 

the refugees entering the U.S. already facing a very, very thorough 

vetting process. Nothing is perfect. We can always make a mistake; 

we can always miss something. But let us not ignore the good work 

that has been done previously. 

I thank you. 

With that, I yield back. 

Secretary KELLY. When I refer to ‘‘my people,’’ the quarter of a 

million people that are in DHS are my people. I brought no people 

into the organization since being Secretary. Right now we are relying overwhelmingly on the career people because, of course, the political—with the exception of myself, really, the political appointees 

will take months and months and months to get through the confirmation process. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chair recognizes Ms. McSally, from Arizona. 

57 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I have received a statement from CBP officers 

union on their concerns regarding staffing at our points of entry 

and efforts to support this. I ask unanimous consent it be included 

in the record? 

Chairman MCCAUL. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY M. REARDON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES

UNION

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, distinguished Members of the 

committee; Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. As president 

of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), I have the honor of leading a 

union that represents over 25,000 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers and 

trade enforcement specialists stationed at 328 land, sea, and air ports of entry 

across the United States and 16 Preclearance stations currently at Ireland, the Caribbean, Canada, and United Arab Emirates airports. 

NTEU’s CBP members are very concerned about lack of adequate staffing at the 

ports of entry. The most recent results of CBP’s Workload Staffing Model—factoring 

in the additional 2,000 CBP officers funded in fiscal year 2014 appropriations, but 

not yet fully-hired—shows a need for an additional 2,107 CBP officers through fiscal 

year 2017. The Agriculture Resource Allocation Model (AgRAM) calculates a need 

for an additional 631 CBP agriculture specialists for a total of 3,045. There is no 

greater roadblock to legitimate trade and travel efficiency than the lack of sufficient 

staff at the ports. Understaffed ports lead to long delays in commercial lanes as 

cargo waits to enter U.S. commerce and also creates a significant hardship for CBP 

employees. 

It is not yet known which CBP positions will be exempt from the freeze on the 

hiring of Federal civilian employees as directed by the President on January 23, 

2017. NTEU strongly supports exempting all CBP operational positions from the 

President’s hiring freeze under the public safety exemption. CBP operational positions include not just CBP officers, but also other uniformed and non-uniformed 

CBP employees that perform public safety work, such as CBP Agriculture Specialists that prevent plant and animal pests and diseases that could harm U.S. agriculture and CBP trade operations specialists that prevent illegal and dangerous 

counterfeit products from entering U.S. commerce. 

Also, NTEU continues to have concerns about the slow pace of hiring at CBP. Despite appropriated funding for the hiring of 2,000 additional CBP officers, CBP has 

realized a net gain of less than 900 officers as of January 2017, due to attrition and 

the amount of time it takes to bring on new CBP officers. 

CBP OFFICER HIRING CHALLENGES

As you know, CBP has struggled to fill the initial 2,000 positons Congress authorized in 2014. One factor that may be hindering hiring is that CBP is not utilizing 

available pay flexibilities, such as recruitment awards and special salary rates, to 

incentivize new and existing CBP officers to seek vacant positions at these hard to 

fill ports, such as Nogales. 

Another major impediment to fulfilling CBP’s hiring goal is that CBP is the only 

Federal agency with a Congressional mandate that all front-line officers receive a 

polygraph test. Two out of three applicants fail its polygraph—about 65 percent— 

more than double the average rate of eight law enforcement agencies according to 

data provided to the Associated Press. The eight law enforcement agencies that supplied information showed an average failure rate of 28 percent. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration failed 36 percent of applicants in the past 2 years. 

NTEU commends Subcommittee Chair McSally’s work last year to enact legislation and to include a provision in the Defense authorization bill that authorizes the 

CBP Commissioner to waive polygraph examination requirements for certain veterans applying for CBP job openings. 

NTEU does not seek to reduce the standards used by CBP in their hiring process, 

but believe that there may be a problem with how the polygraph is currently administered and asks for CBP to review its current polygraph policy to understand why 

CBP is failing applicants at a much higher rate than individuals applying to work 

at other Federal law enforcement agencies. 

58 

Not only is CBP not meeting its current staffing targets for Federally-funded CBP 

positions, CBP’s Workload Staff Model calls for Congress to fund the hiring of an 

additional 2,100 CBP officers. Both CBP and Congress must act to address significant delays in the current hiring process to meet both current and future hiring targets. 

Lastly, the best recruiters are likely current CBP officers. Unfortunately, morale 

continues to suffer because of staffing shortages. In addition to being overworked 

due to excessive overtime requirements, temporary duty assignments are a major 

drag on employees, especially those with families. Based on their experiences, many 

officers are reluctant to encourage their family members or friends to seek employment with CBP. I have suggested to CBP leadership that they look at why this is 

the case. 

TEMPORARY DUTY ASSIGNMENTS AT SOUTHWEST LAND PORTS OF ENTRY

Due to CBP’s on-going hiring delays, CBP has been diverting CBP officers from 

other air, sea, and land ports to the severely short-staffed Southwest land ports. 

Since 2015, CBP has diverted officers from their assigned ports to San Ysidro and 

more recently to Nogales POEs for 90-day temporary duty assignments (TDYs.) In 

November 2016, CBP issued an updated TDY solicitation that directs 14 CBP Field 

Offices to provide 200 CBP officers for TDYs to the San Diego and Tucson Field Office. For example, in this solicitation, CBP directed the New York Field Office to 

send 12 CBP officers to the San Diego Field and 13 CBP officers to the Tucson Field 

Office from January 9 through April 7, 2017. 

NTEU suggests Congress should ask that CBP supplement the TDY solicitation 

to include the following suggestions: 

• The size of the TDY pool should be immediately increased by including non-bargaining unit personnel such as qualified Headquarters staff, supervisors, and 

other employees on special teams such as Tactical Terrorism Response Team 

and the Strategic Response Team, and by including all officers who have graduated from Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and who have received 

a sufficient amount of post-academy training; 

• CBP should schedule TDYs in such a way that the supplemental staffing 

through TDYs remains constant, so there is not a gap between the departure 

of one round of TDYs and the arrival of the next; 

• CBP should establish an advertised cash award for individuals who volunteer 

for a TDY and should offer available incentives such as student loan repayments, overtime cap waivers, and home leave; 

• A surplus of volunteers for a TDY from one Field Office should be allowed to 

make up for a shortage of volunteers in another Field Office; and 

• Approved leave should continue to be allowed during a TDY. 

DIVERSION OF CUSTOMS USER FEES

Because of the on-going staffing shortage, CBP Officers’ funding streams cannot 

be compromised. In addition to appropriated funding, CBP collects customs user fees 

which include fees authorized by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 

Act of 1985 (COBRA) to recover certain costs incurred for processing, among other 

things, air and sea passengers, and various private and commercial land, sea, air, 

and rail carriers and shipments. The source of these user fees are commercial vessels, commercial vehicles, rail cars, private aircraft, private vessels, air passengers, 

sea passengers, cruise vessel passengers, dutiable mail, customs brokers, and barge/ 

bulk carriers. 

COBRA fees are deposited into the Customs User Fee Account and are designated 

by statute to pay for services provided to the user, such as 100% of inspectional 

overtime for passenger and commercial vehicle inspection during overtime shift 

hours. Of the 23,775 CBP officers currently funded, customs user fees fund 2,859 

full-time equivalent CBP officers. 

In addition to the on-going staffing shortage of over 1,100 CBP officers funded positions, CBP estimates that it would need an additional 2,107 CBP officers, over and 

above the 2,000 officers funded in fiscal year 2014, through fiscal year 2017 to meet 

optimal staffing. CBP proposes to pay for these additional officers with a $2 increase 

in both the immigration and customs user fees. NTEU reiterates that any increases 

to the Customs User Fee Account should be properly used for much-needed CBP 

staffing and not diverted to unrelated projects and should not result in any reduction in CBP-appropriated funding. 

In 2015, the highway bill enacted into law, indexed customs user fees to inflation, 

but diverted this increase in fees to pay for infrastructure projects and not to CBP 

officer pay and staffing, as intended. Indexing customs user fees to inflation raises 

59 

$1.4 billion over 10 years creating a $140 million per-year funding stream that could 

have helped pay for the hiring of additional CBP officers to perform CBP’s National 

security, law enforcement, and trade and travel facilitation missions. 

By diverting this fee, $140 million a year in additional customs user fees are 

being collected, but CBP is not receiving one additional dime to fund much-needed 

new CBP officer personnel needed to provide inspection and enforcement services 

to the users of these services. 

On February 1, 2017, Senator Deb Fischer (R–NE) introduced a bill that diverts 

the first $21.4 million of customs user fees collected to the Highway Trust Fund beginning in 2020. NTEU strongly opposes any attempts by Congress to raid customs 

user fees to pay for infrastructure projects. 

If Congress is serious about border security, wait times, international trade and 

travel enforcement, and job creation, Congress must reject any further attempts to 

divert custom user fees to fund other programs and restore the use of the fees collected from indexing to inflation to their original purpose. 

AGRICULTURE SPECIALIST STAFFING

CBP employees also perform critically important agriculture inspections to prevent the entry of animal and plant pests or diseases at ports of entry. For years, 

NTEU has championed the CBP agriculture specialists’ Agriculture Quality Inspection (AQI) mission within the agency and has fought for increased staffing to fulfill 

that mission. The U.S. agriculture sector is a crucial component of the American 

economy generating over $1 trillion in annual economic activity. According to the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, foreign pests and diseases cost the American economy tens of billions of dollars annually. NTEU believes that staffing shortages and 

lack of mission priority for the critical work performed by CBP agriculture specialists and CBP technicians assigned to the ports is a continuing threat to the U.S. 

economy. 

NTEU worked with Congress to include in the recent CBP Trade Facilitation and 

Enforcement Act (Pub. L. 114–125) a provision that requires CBP to submit, by the 

end of February 2017, a plan to create an agricultural specialist career track that 

includes a ‘‘description of education, training, experience, and assignments necessary for career progression as an agricultural specialist; recruitment and retention 

goals for agricultural specialists, including a timeline for fulfilling staffing deficits 

identified in agricultural resource allocation models; and, an assessment of equipment and other resources needed to support agricultural specialists.’’ 

CBP’s fiscal year 2016 AgRAM, shows a need for an additional 631 front-line CBP 

agriculture specialists and supervisors to address current workloads through fiscal 

year 2017, however, even with the 2016 increase in AQI user fees, CBP will fund 

a total of 2,414 CBP agriculture specialist positions in fiscal year 2017, not the 

3,045 called for by the AgRAM. 

Because of CBP’s key mission to protect the Nation’s agriculture from pests and 

disease, NTEU urges the committee to exempt CBP agriculture specialist positions 

from the hiring freeze and authorize the hiring of these 631 CBP agriculture specialists to address this critical staffing shortage that threatens the U.S. agriculture 

sector. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

To address the dire staffing situation at the Southwest land ports, as well as 

other staffing shortages around the country, it is clearly in the Nation’s interest for 

Congress to insist that all CBP operational employees be exempt from the hiring 

freeze. Congress should also authorize and fund an increase in the number of CBP 

officers and other CBP employees as stipulated in CBP’s Workload Staffing Model. 

Over the years, NTEU has worked with Congress on a variety of proposals that 

would increase CBP’s funding to support additional personnel, as well as to address 

other hiring challenges that create barriers to adding staff in a timely and efficient 

manner. For instance, we are hopeful that NTEU supported legislation that will 

allow recent military personnel to be hired as CBP officers without undergoing a 

polygraph will result in an increase in new hires. 

However, in addition to our longer-term goals of securing the proper staffing at 

CBP to address workloads, NTEU recommends that Congress call for a series of immediate steps that CBP should take to alleviate the immediate burdens being 

placed on CBP officers at the Southwest land ports of entry: 

• CBP should consider re-hiring recently-retired CBP officers (so-called reemployed annuitants) who could be brought on board quickly without the need for 

extensive new training or background checks. 

60 

• An immediate review should be undertaken of CBP’s current polygraph policy 

to understand why CBP is failing applicants at a much higher rate than individuals applying to work at other Federal law enforcement agencies; and • Immediate polygraph re-testing opportunities should be afforded to those with 

a No Opinion or Inconclusive result, including those with a No Opinion Counter 

Measures finding. 

Lastly, NTEU recommends that Congress pursue additional funding when considering funding for the final months of fiscal year 2017 and in the fiscal year 2018 

CBP funding bill to address the staffing and overtime funding shortages facing the 

ports of entry. The current demand for staffing at the Southwest land ports is causing CBP to burn through its overtime budget at a much higher than anticipated 

rate, which could result in extensive staffing shortages at large volume ports of 

entry Nation-wide during the peak travel season this summer. 

Congress should also redirect the recently-enacted increase in customs user fees 

from offsetting transportation spending to its original purpose of providing funding 

for CBP officer staffing and overtime and oppose any legislation to divert the fees 

collected to other uses or projects. 

The more than 25,000 CBP employees represented by NTEU are proud of their 

part in keeping our country free from terrorism, our neighborhoods safe from drugs, 

and our economy safe from illegal trade, while ensuring that legal trade and travelers move expeditiously through our air, sea, and land ports, but those working at 

the Southwest Border ports of entry especially need relief. These men and women 

are deserving of more staffing and resources to perform their jobs better and more 

efficiently. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony to the committee on their 

behalf. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Secretary Kelly. 

I represent southern Arizona, about 80 miles of the border, and 

we look forward to hosting you in our—the Tucson sector later this 

week. I am also the Border Security Subcommittee Chair on this 

committee. 

I would talk about our frustrations of border residents, ranchers, 

and Border Patrol agents, and myself in my role as someone who 

represents this community and chairs the subcommittee, in four 

areas. 

The first is the measurement of border security. The way that 

DHS has measured border security in the past has not been useful. 

The denominator is not included in the numerator of apprehensions 

or people that have turned themselves in. 

Last year in a hearing I got Chief Vitiello to admit that—when 

I asked him as fighter pilot, I think in simple terms, ‘‘What percent 

of the 2,000-mile border do you have situational awareness of? If 

something is breached, you see it.’’ 

The answer was 56 percent. 

So the first frustration is how we measure effectiveness, and I 

would like to hear your thoughts on that and adjusting that. 

The second one is, in rural areas like ours defense-in-depth, 

where we cede territory to the cartels. So we have individuals that 

are—when we are saying we have hours to days, we have families, 

ranchers, and others that are—this is a public safety threat. 

Transnational criminal organizations trafficking through our communities, creating a public safety threat. 

So this idea that we have, you know, days—or hours to days to 

intercept them in this defense-in-depth, it doesn’t work for a community like ours. Also the fixed checkpoints, which we have really 

not got good answers as to whether they are effective or not, which 

are impacting people going about their daily business and commerce. 

61 

But this is all part of the defense-in-depth, so that is another significant frustration that you will see. 

Then the last thing is the percentage of Border Patrol agents 

that are actually patrolling at the border, versus doing other queep 

and additional duties or other issues further away from the border. 

So these are really the four things. I would just like some of your 

thoughts on measuring effectiveness, this whole ceding territory 

issue, fixed checkpoints, and then percentage of the agents that are 

actually on the line. 

Secretary KELLY. I have got to tell you that is why I am going 

down to Tucson, to find out about these very things. The defensein-depth, in my mind, at least the way I think of it, is—it is more 

going south—Mexico, Central America, Colombia. If—— 

Ms. MCSALLY. Not what it is right now. 

Secretary KELLY. Right. If they get in—if the border is penetrated, we have lost. For the most part, we have lost. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Right. 

Secretary KELLY. So I am thinking it the other way, in terms of 

working with partners to the south and taking care of the issues. 

I won’t go into it again about the socioeconomic conditions in the 

Central. 

I don’t know how we—to be honest with you—I have heard a 

number of times from members and others. I don’t know what the 

metrics are. 

So going forward, as we look at a physical barrier and some of 

the other things we are looking at, I have asked the staff, ‘‘Tell me 

how we measure success or failure.’’ 

I mean, I suspect it has a lot to do with—not I suspect. They can 

tell me—us—how many people they have stopped, but, you know, 

how many people got through? Tell me what the metrics are here. 

So I am with you on—— 

Ms. MCSALLY. But you don’t know who you didn’t see—— 

Secretary KELLY. I know. Exactly. Exactly. 

Ms. MCSALLY [continuing]. Is the point, right? So our view is— 

and again we have got legislation on this—the percent that we 

have situational awareness of, and then percent we have operational control of, where we can actually intercept it. I mean we 

look forward to working with you later on this. 

Secretary KELLY. We will work to that. Yes, we will work—— 

Ms. MCSALLY. The current effective numbers don’t work. 

Secretary KELLY. Got it. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Then back to the defense-in-depth. Right now the 

strategy is fixed checkpoints that make cartels go around the 

checkpoints into our communities, while you catch Darwin-award 

winning low-level criminals going through known fixed checkpoints. It doesn’t work. Do you have any comments on that? 

Secretary KELLY. Again, going down there to talk to the people 

on the line that—to include, you know, hopefully ranchers and people like that. I mean, I have already been in contact with a couple. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Great. 

Secretary KELLY. Every bit, as you know—you know, McAllen is 

different than Tucson, which is different—— 

Ms. MCSALLY. Right. 

62 

Secretary KELLY. So I think the solution is different in every 

place, but I do believe it starts trying to prevent the border from 

being penetrated. As I say, after that we have lost. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Do you have any comments on kind of the level 

of effort Border Patrol agents actually reporting to patrol of the 

border, versus doing other duties? 

Secretary KELLY. It has been brought up to me, and folks are 

looking into it to satisfy me that there are—this is a common 

theme. They are involved in things that aren’t really Border Patrol. 

So I am going to get—I am going to find out what those things are, 

and then if they can be done by someone else so that we can maximize the number of people—— 

Ms. MCSALLY. Look forward to working with you on all these 

issues and visiting with you end of the week. 

Secretary KELLY. Sure. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thanks. 

I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Miss Rice from New York is recognized. 

Miss RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your service to our country and 

your willingness to take on this very profound and important role. 

It was reported over the weekend that President Trump’s chief 

political strategist, Steven Bannon, told you not to issue a waiver 

exempting green card holders from the travel ban. Some of the details of that report has since been called into question; others have 

been denied by the White House. 

But I figure since I have you in front of me I would just ask you 

directly. Did that happen? Did that conversation take place? 

Secretary KELLY. You know, I read that article Saturday morning and my—well, I would tell you that every paragraph, every 

sentence, every word, every space, every comma, every period was 

wrong. It was a fantasy story. And my concern to my public affairs 

people was, ‘‘Look, this reporter, whoever he is, got this so wrong 

that, assuming he is not making it up, you gotta get to him and 

tell him whoever his sources are, are playing him for a fool.’’ I don’t 

know if they did that, but it is untrue. 

Miss RICE. So Steve Bannon did not ask you not to issue the 

waivers. 

Secretary KELLY. The entire story is untrue. 

Miss RICE. So do you have concerns about—just objectively in 

your new role, do you have concerns about political operatives trying to influence the work of the Department of Homeland Security? 

Secretary KELLY. No. I work for one man. His name is, you 

know, Donald Trump, obviously. 

He has told me, ‘‘Kelly, secure the border,’’ and that is what I 

will do. I am mildly interested in what political people think about 

that mission. 

Miss RICE. Well, actually, you were chosen by him. You work for 

us. You work for the American people, first and foremost. 

Secretary KELLY. We all work for the—— 

Miss RICE. I am sure that is what you meant. 

Secretary KELLY. We all work for the American people. 

Miss RICE. As Secretary what are you doing to ensure that your 

leadership—because clearly had you been involved in creating this 

63 

Executive Order you would have a pointed out the issue with the 

visa holders and all of that. What are you doing to make sure that 

this kind of a, if you want to call it a roll-out or preparation of an 

Executive Order, if they are going to continue in the future, that 

you have some input in the area that you clearly have expertise in? 

Secretary KELLY. I was involved tangentially in the writing of it, 

so the point—the reporting that I never saw it, didn’t have anything to do with it, is untrue. We had a very small number of people in homeland security working with the White House as they developed it. 

I think in retrospect, as I think I have heard and pointed out a 

little earlier, but for sure have had discussions with Members of 

Congress, both sides of the Hill, both sides of the aisle, that a better way to have rolled that out—and we will do this in the future— 

will be to engage more fully at least the leadership of the House 

and Senate initially, and roll it; and then immediately after, as we 

start to execute, meet with additional Members of the House and 

the Senate. 

So, yes, I mean, lesson learned, on me. I should have slowed it 

down by a day, maybe two. Probably would not have put it out, you 

know, exactly on a Friday the way we did. But I was knowledgeable of the writing of it. I saw it twice Tuesday and I think Thursday, knew full well it was going to be released on a Friday. 

So again, there is an awful lot of misreporting, and I will assume 

that the members of press that got it wrong got it wrong because 

they are relying on people who were giving them information who 

didn’t know. 

Miss RICE. There is a lot to go on in terms of trying to interpret 

the meaning behind the Executive Order. We have about 18 

months of comments by candidate Donald Trump about his desire 

to institute a ban on Muslims entering the country. His language 

was unequivocal and very clear. 

I understand now you are using the frame—the term ‘‘temporary 

pause.’’ But I think one of the reasons why it is interpreted to be 

an outright ban is because it came—the Executive Order did not 

speak to or suggest ways that the vetting process, which we already know is one of the most rigorous there is, could be made better. The Executive Order was void of any suggestion on how that 

could be. 

So as you sit here now and you talk about the need to—now the 

desire is to make the vetting process better, what ways would you 

recommend, since you were really left with nothing other than an 

order that rightfully—my opinion, that is not because—I am not 

saying this because I am a Democrat, but we have a lot to go on 

in terms of interpreting the meaning behind this, especially since 

the order was void of any suggestions? 

Secretary KELLY. Well, first, I don’t have to tell you that there 

are a lot of things that are spoken about in campaigns that once 

you get in the seat you—just like in my case, I mean, sitting here 

in a job that I have never had before, I am looking at life fairly, 

you know, differently. I thought we could accomplish things coming 

into this job that I realize now will be slower, or whatever. 

64 

So, again, he said what he said in the campaign. He has tasked 

me to protect the Southwest Border, get control of it, which I will, 

of course, do. 

Miss RICE. Can I just stop, because there is one other question 

I want to ask you. So I trust that you will bring to us suggestions 

on how you will make the vetting process better. 

Secretary KELLY. Right. 

Miss RICE. OK. One other thing. 

Yesterday President Trump suggested that the, ‘‘very, very dishonest press doesn’t adequately report terrorist attacks.’’ Do you 

believe that statement? 

Secretary KELLY. I think the press gets—does the best job—responsible press do the best job they can to get the facts straight. 

But, of course, they will go with a story. It is what they do. It is 

their job. They will go with the story and the best information they 

have. 

Much of the world is aflame today, and we know tremendous 

amounts of things about what is going on but it is in the Classified 

realm. That is not shared with the press. Consequently, they do, 

I think, generally the best job they can. 

But in my mind, having worked with the press a great deal, the 

most responsible press won’t go with a story or will write it in such 

a way that they will acknowledge that they don’t have the definitive information. 

There are a lot of other questions you have asked me, but, you 

know, again, Mr. Chairman, we are way over, I think. 

Miss RICE. Well, you can’t blame the press for not knowing about 

Classified information that they are not privy to. 

Secretary KELLY. Of course not. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Gentlelady’s time—— 

Miss RICE. But do you know what terrorist attacks—just last— 

Mr. Chairman, please—what terrorist attacks President Trump 

was referring to when he said that? Yes or no? 

Secretary KELLY. I don’t know which ones—— 

Miss RICE. OK. 

Secretary KELLY [continuing]. Which ones he was referring to. 

Miss RICE. Thank you very much. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ratcliffe, is recognized. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Kelly, welcome. Let me join others in saying that I am 

very excited that President Trump selected someone with your experience and leadership to take the reins at the Department of 

Homeland Security and to implement his agenda for safety and security for all Americans. 

We have heard a lot about border security today, but the folks 

that I represent in Texas have heard a lot of tough talk for a long 

period of time with, frankly, little to show for it. They have seen 

a border security bill that was enacted in 2006 but never implemented. So many have rightfully, I think, lost faith in the Federal 

Government on this issue. 

I will tell you that for me it is personal. As U.S. attorney for the 

Eastern District of Texas I led an effort to arrest over 300 illegal 

65 

aliens in a single day who were committing Social Security fraud 

and identity theft to steal jobs from hardworking Americans. 

My fear then is the same as it is today, that after criminal aliens 

are deported from the United States, let’s say on a Tuesday, there 

is very little right now that stops them from coming back across 

that imaginary, unsecured line on a Wednesday. 

The fears with respect to that are not hypothetical. Last year I 

had to console my constituent, Courtney Hacking, when her husband Peter, a fire captain, and their 4-year-old daughter Ellie and 

their 2-year-old son Grayson, was killed by an illegal alien that had 

been previously deported. So heartbreaking and so real. 

Unlike the fake tears of one of our Democratic colleagues last 

week in calling for compassion for folks trying to come to this country from terror hotspots, I think we need to finally start showing 

compassion for people who are already here with real border security. 

So I am grateful. From everything that you have said today it 

is very clear to me that we finally have an eager and willing partner at the Department of Homeland Security to fulfill the fundamental role of the Federal Government to provide for the common 

defense. 

Now, let me shift gears, Secretary Kelly. 

Besides the threats coming across our physical borders Americans, as you know, face grave threats every day that are coming 

across our digital borders. I think you might agree with me that 

that is, frankly, more difficult to defend. We can’t simply build a 

wall or erect some barrier to fix that problem. 

Cybersecurity is, in my opinion, the National security issue of 

our time because weak cyber defenses affect our economy, they impact our critical infrastructure, and they impact the integrity of 

Americans’ most sensitive personal information. So I think we need 

a sustained, strategic attention to this issue. 

I will tell you, Mr. Secretary, that I frankly don’t envy you in the 

role that you are stepping into here. As you have learned, the Department of Homeland Security cyber mission is immense under 

current law. You have got responsibility for coordinating the operational security of our Federal systems, and you are tasked with 

overseeing Federal efforts to coordinate the protection of our critical infrastructure. That is only part of your mission. 

You are taking over an agency that has—while made great 

strides in some respects, still suffers from credibility issue with 

many Members in Congress and many members of the public. 

So that is to say nothing of the broader policy issues. I know that 

what I am relating to you is not news to you. 

I want to take the opportunity here, as the chairman of the—in 

your first House appearance, as Chairman of the Cybersecurity and 

Infrastructure Subcommittee here in the House, to tell you that our 

subcommittee is willing to pedal as fast as you would like and are 

willing to tackle this critical National security issue. 

So I know you have only had a couple of weeks to settle in, but 

I want to get a sense of how things look to you so far in this respect. The biggest question, Secretary, that I am getting from 

stakeholders—they keep asking me, and it is something I am hoping you can shed some light on is, do you anticipate the DepartVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:32 Sep 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17FL0207\FINAL\26396.TXT HEATH
66 

ment of Homeland Security maintaining the role it is currently 

tasked with under the law, with respect to maintaining the dot.gov 

domain? 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, sir. On your last question I would say yes. 

That said, President Trump has ordered a kind-of—a complete 

top-to-bottom relook on cyber. That will include, you know, all 

stakeholders, and hopefully we are going to bring in—and we have 

been successful, I think, already in bringing in the private community. 

Because, you know, the one thing—the thing about cyber that a 

lot of people get—you certainly do, but others don’t, is that, you 

know, it knows no bounds, it knows no boundaries, it knows no 

law, or it knows no, you know, regulations. We do. Privacy issues, 

legal issues, all that kind of thing. So we have to—the threat is 

changing faster than we are keeping up with it. 

The good news is, you know, in overseas we can do things to protect ourselves as a Nation. I can’t, but others do. I was a beneficiary of a lot of that. 

You know, I know what we can do to people overseas. We obviously can’t do that and should not do that internally to the United 

States. But there is a way, I believe, to break down a lot of the 

boundaries within the law, and particularly working with our private partners because, you know, they have got huge equities in it. 

But again, I am very sensitive to this because I was one of the 

5 million or so Americans who had all of their information stolen, 

and the best I got out of the Federal Government a couple of years 

ago was, you know, ‘‘General Kelly, all of your data has been stolen 

with the OPM. Good luck.’’ 

We have got to do better than that, and we will. So I look forward to working with you, Congressman. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Well, again, I am so excited about your appointment and grateful for the chance to work with you. 

So with that, I will yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. If I could just add—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL [continuing]. I think my clearances were stolen, as well. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. If I could just say, as Chairman’s privilege, 

that I would hope this Executive Order coming down on cyber is 

done in coordination with this committee. We have passed a 

FISMA Reform and a Cyber Security Act, major landmark cyber 

legislation. 

I would hate to see any Executive Order come down that is inconsistent with current law. I think it would cause a lot of problems and a lot of consternation with the Members who have 

worked so hard to get this done. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I would like the witness to respond, if that 

is OK. 

Secretary KELLY. Absolutely, Chairman. 

We are working with your staff, the White—your staff is working 

with the White House—they have got it. There was a kind of a 

draft E.O. that had been leaked some time ago—a week or so ago. 

67 

I can tell you that the E.O. that is being contemplated is vastly 

different than that. I don’t know whose work that was, but it did 

send shivers to a lot, my own organization included. 

So we are working with the White House. We will work with the 

Congress, of course, to make sure that going forward that E.O. says 

the right things and gets at the right problems. 

Chairman MCCAUL. We certainly—because we have through a lot 

of—we don’t want to relitigate old battles, and certainly conforming 

with existing law I think is very important in this task. 

Chair recognizes—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, may I ask—— 

Chairman MCCAUL. The gentlelady has no time. Would somebody like to yield? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. No, I am not asking a question. I am asking 

unanimous consent to submit something into the record. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Yes. What is it? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. An article from the Houston Chronicle: In the 

midst of the Muslim ban Feds detain Katie, a high school student 

from Jordan, following President Trump’s immigration ban. The 

pictures that I held up. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

FEDS DETAIN KATY HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT FROM JORDAN FOLLOWING PRESIDENT

TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION BAN

Houston Chronicle, Updated 10:38 am, Thursday, February 2, 2017 

By Shelby Webb 

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Feds-detain-Katy-HighSchool-student-from-Jordan-10897205.php 

A 16-year-old Jordanian visa holder, who attends Katy High School west of Houston, has been detained by U.S. immigration officials for more than three days following President Trump’s controversial immigration executive order, according to 

his brother and an attorney representing the family. 

Mohammad Abu Khadra, who lives in Katy with his brother Rami, traveled to 

Jordan last week to renew his visa. When he flew into Bush IAH airport Saturday, 

officials with U.S. Customs and Border Protection detained him at the airport for 

about 48 hours. He was transferred to an Office of Refugee Resettlement shelter in 

Chicago Monday, where he remained as of Tuesday afternoon. The teen has no access to his cell phone or to a computer, his brother said. 

Mohammad is among dozens of visa holders and immigrants to be detained at 

U.S. airports since Trump signed an executive order Friday indefinitely barring all 

Syrian refugees from entering the United States and suspending all refugee admissions for 120 days. It also prohibits citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries 

from entering the United States for 90 days, whether they are refugees or not. 

Those countries include Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. 

Mohammad’s native Jordan is not on the list, and Mohammad is not a refugee. 

The ACLU of Texas said it was the only case its knows of where a minor has been 

detained for more than 24 hours since the executive order was signed. 

Mohammad and Rami’s attorney, Ali Zakaria, said he is filing a family reunification document with the shelter so the Office of Refugee Resettlement can release 

him to his brother’s custody in Texas. He said he has not yet heard back from U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement about why Mohammad was detained or how 

long his detention could last. 

Zakaria estimated Mohammad could be in custody anywhere from two weeks to 

two months. He did not know Mohammad’s visa status or which type of visa Mohammad tried to renew in Jordan. 

‘‘Obviously Mohammad’s case is extraordinary,’’ Zakaria said. ‘‘For a kid to be detained at an airport for 48 hours is unconscionable.’’ 

Rami, a 37-year-old green card holder who has been in the United States for five 

years, said he feels helpless. 

68 

‘‘My country is not one of seven countries on the list,’’ Rami said. ‘‘It’s like because 

he’s from the Middle East, he gets detained.’’ 

Rami said he hopes to hear from Mohammad Tuesday, but that his little brother 

is only allowed to call once a week for 30 minutes. 

Katy ISD would not comment on the situation, citing federal student privacy laws 

that prevent them from sharing information about individual students. 

Mohammad is not the only minor to be detained by immigration authorities at 

airports since the order was signed, but his detention appears to be among the longest yet. 

A 5-year-old was allegedly separated from his Iranian mother and detained at 

Dulles International Airport outside of Washington, D.C., for more than four hours 

Saturday before the two were reunited. A Somali woman and her two young children were detained at the same airport for 18 hours due to the executive order. 

Rami said he was able to visit Mohammad briefly at Bush IAH airport Sunday 

after he was peppered with questions from immigration officials curious about his 

relationships and his allegiances. He said his brother was exhausted after a 16-hour 

flight from Jordan and spending the night sleeping in an airport chair. 

‘‘He was very afraid,’’ Rami said. ‘‘Before I saw him, he was on a flight for 15 

or 16 hours, then was at the airport for 72 hours. He was very tired and frustrated. 

When he took the flight to Chicago, he called me, but he doesn’t know anything. 

He doesn’t know what’s going on.’’ 

Zakaria said he spent the weekend volunteering with the ACLU and working with 

other immigrants, visa holders, citizens and refugees at IAH airport. He said after 

that work and speaking with colleagues across the country, he’s convinced immigration officials are not just barring or delaying citizens from the seven countries listed 

on Trump’s executive order. 

‘‘It’s a lot of Muslims from other countries, too,’’ Zakaria said. ‘‘I think Mohammad 

is a prime example. Jordan is not on the list, but he’s still enduring this treatment. 

People say it’s not a Muslim ban, but they need to look at the facts on the ground 

and not the spin coming from the White House.’’ 

Rami said his parents, who still live in Jordan, are inconsolable over their son’s 

detention. He wished the U.S. government would just send Mohammad back to Jordan rather than have him languish in a bureaucratic limbo. 

‘‘I’m trying to fly out to Chicago, trying to reach out people. I just want to see 

him,’’ Rami said. ‘‘I’m trying very hard to just see him or hear from him or anything. 

I need to see if he needs money or anything.’’ 

Zakaria said keeping Mohammad in detention does nothing to keep Americans 

safe. 

‘‘It’s OK to enforce the law, it’s OK to be vigilant for terrorism, but stopping a 

kid at an airport for days does not accomplish that objective,’’ Zakari said. 


h:\seals\115238.eps
69 

Chairman MCCAUL. Mr. Correa, from California, is recognized. 

Mr. CORREA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Thompson, for holding this hearing today. 

Secretary Kelly, I want to thank you for your service to our great 

country. I know you and your family have made great sacrifices for 

this country. For that I thank you, a debt we can never repay to 

you and your family. 

Just wanted to say all of us share the mutual goals of a safe Nation, safe citizens, safe taxpayers. Before I discuss border security 

I just want to tell you where I live. 


h:\seals\115239.eps h:\seals\115240.eps
70 

I live in central Orange County: Anaheim, California, 

Disneyland, happiest place on earth, which also, by the way, we 

have a number of mosques in my community. I can tell you right 

now that many of my neighbors, all those folks are good American 

citizens, law-abiding citizens, and they are scared to death. The 

way this immigration Executive Order was presented, I believe, 

just backfired. 

I have spent many hours, invested many time in going to these 

communities and to tell them, ‘‘Please work with the authorities; 

make sure that we coordinate it. If you see anything out there that 

is going wrong, let us know.’’ 

Right now the Muslim community is very scared. 

I also have four children in central Orange County. I am very 

concerned about drugs. I am very concerned about their well-being. 

They go to school with a lot of kids whose parents are undocumented, who the kids are also DACA kids. All good. They have all 

been part of the California economic miracle. 

California is now, I think, the sixth-largest economy in the world, 

a couple of steps up. All those undocumented workers have been 

part of that economic miracle in the State of California. 

You call it the gaping wound, sir. I respect that. 

Want to address immigration? Let’s do it with good public policy. 

Mexico, California’s biggest trading partner. A lot of business; a 

lot of work. These people take care of our children, cook our food, 

provide a lot of services. Let’s give them green cards. 

No. 2, in terms of the drugs, which is something that is very concerning to me as a father. You know 20, 30 years ago most of the 

drug trade, most of those heavy drugs came through the Caribbean. 

We were so good as Americans in stopping that drug trade through 

the Caribbean that we just redirected it through an inland bridge 

called Mexico. 

We destabilized Mexico. People in Mexico are scared to death. 

I went down there 2 months ago. They said, ‘‘Don’t go out after 

8 p.m. because your life will be in danger.’’ 

The big gaping wound is our American drug demand for those 

drugs; our American dollars being spent on those drugs. So soon as 

we shut off the Mexican connection, will it be Canada next? Given 

the numbers, probably. 

Quick question to you, sir: Do you have a count of the number 

of special interest people that have been apprehended coming 

through Canada versus Mexico? 

Secretary KELLY. I don’t, Congressman. I can get that to you. 

Mr. CORREA. Thank you very much. 

A second question: As a State legislature in California I dealt a 

lot with the Baja California folks. One of the biggest concerns they 

had is when the Americans deported individuals, opened the gate, 

let folks essentially physically walk across the border, Mexican authorities had no idea if that was a person that got caught for a traffic ticket or as a rapist or murderer. 

What is it going to take for us to coordinate with our friends in 

the south to make sure we can keep track of these bad hombres 

so they won’t continue to do harm south of the border or north of 

the border? I hope you come up with something in that area, sir. 

71 

Secretary KELLY. Not familiar. But, I mean, if these are Mexican 

citizens who are being deported—— 

Mr. CORREA. Yes, sir. 

Secretary KELLY [continuing]. For sure, unless it is not legal— 

I am just trying to think of someone—for sure we should alert the 

Mexican authorities as to what they have done beyond being illegal 

aliens that we are deporting them. 

Mr. CORREA. General, and I look forward to working with you on 

that issue. That is an issue I have been bringing up to ICE, Homeland for a number of years. 

My final question—I know I am running out of time—is, you 

know, right now immigration from Mexico is going down. It is at 

all-time lows. 

Part of the reason is economic growth in Mexico. The middle 

class is finally growing. 

It is an old saying, when the United States sneezes Mexico 

catches pneumonia, in terms of the economy. We are looking at 

public policies today of taxing commerce with Mexico. You finally 

have a growing economy south of the border. We are creating jobs 

so folks can stay home, and we are messing with tax policy. Any 

thoughts on, you know, advancing economic growth in Mexico and 

tax policy? 

Secretary KELLY. Same argument I would make when I talk 

about Central America. If the countries to our south are better off 

economically and socially then their people will rightly stay home 

with their families and what-not. So I think it is important to have, 

you know, a good economy in Mexico, Central America, places like 

that. 

If I could on a couple of your other points, on the illegals and 

what-not, the DACA individuals, I would just ask you. You know 

I have to—I have sworn to uphold the law, so I have to uphold the 

law. I would just beg you, as a lawmaker, if it is bad law, change 

the law so I can take that particular issue off the plate. 

I plead with you to change the law because I have to do what 

you and people like you have told me to do within our laws. 

The demand reduction thing, you are spot-on, Congressman. It is 

all about demand. If we stop the flow of drugs up through Mexico 

and don’t reduce demand for those drugs, they are going to come 

up—they will come back up through the Caribbean into Florida on 

the East Coast. If we stop that, they will come another way. 

They are mailing it now, particularly getting into Puerto Rico 

and mailing it in. So we have got to reduce the demand and we 

have to put together a comprehensive demand reduction policy that 

goes everything from stopping the production of these drugs in the 

south all the way up to rehabilitation of drug addicts in the United 

States and everything in between. 

But we know how to do this. We have done this before, to affect 

people’s behavior. It is not necessarily law enforcement; it is just 

making sense to people to do the right thing. We are never going 

to get to zero, but if we don’t stop the demand, shame on us. 

Mr. CORREA. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Just one final comment 

if I may, and that is that I will work my colleagues here to change 

the laws as much as we can to reflect economic reality, the way we 

did in California. Thank you very much. 

72 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 

York, Mr. Donovan. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I hope you don’t get tired of hearing it because 

myself and my colleagues have all thanked you for your service to 

our country. We really do appreciate what you have done and what 

you will do for us. 

Secretary KELLY. I live for those comments. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Well, glad we could accommodate. 

I am the Chairman of a committee, of a subcommittee of this 

committee, that deals with not only preparedness and response to 

terrorist attacks, but also to natural disasters. Currently we don’t 

have a FEMA administrator. I was just wondering if we can anticipate when you and the President will get to a point where you will 

be nominating somebody as the FEMA administrator. We have recently had disasters in Mississippi and Georgia that we need some 

direction with. 

Secretary KELLY. It is a great question. I mean, this process of 

finding the right people, putting them in the job, getting—if they 

have to go through confirmation, is—I now know is a tedious one. 

But, you know, the really good news for not only this group of men 

and women but for America is the career public servants that are 

in the organization, the people that have stepped up into those 

jobs—FEMA is an example—are very, very capable people. 

In case just in the 2 weeks I have been in the job we have said 

yes to every single request that has come up through the system 

in the right way. I don’t mean to be bureaucratic. If they are not 

coming up the right way we help them, you know, do it, in terms 

of the requests for assistance. 

I have signed off in record time for every one of them. I have 

talked to the—like Mississippi, the Governor of Mississippi, the 

Governor of Georgia, when they had such terrible tornadoes. They 

were taken care of. We have said yes to snowstorms up in the Dakotas, I think, certainly Oregon. 

The fact that we don’t have a political appointee has not slowed 

down the business of homeland security, sir. But you are right, we 

need to get going on that. But I don’t know when. I can’t predict 

when we might have a political appointee in that seat. But have 

no fear, because we have got a very, very, very good career administrator. 

Mr. DONOVAN. That is very assuring. Thank you, Secretary. 

The other thing I would like to ask you, with another Executive 

Order that the President administered. You know, I live in New 

York City and we depend on Federal funding to secure our city. 

Our State depends on State security grants. 

The sanctuary city Executive Order may have some kind of effect 

on our ability to access those grants. I was just wondering if you 

are giving States and localities or at what point you would give 

them some kind of guidance on how they would be affected. 

Secretary KELLY. Never say all. I would just offer that the input 

I have received from chiefs of police around, you know—this is 

more anecdotal, but the numbers are low, but sheriffs and people 

like that are, ‘‘Look, please don’t penalize us for the actions of our 

elected officials.’’ They have to be loyal, and I get that. 

73 

In my view, if we are giving grants to a police department or a 

city specifically to help us in the execution of a, you know, say, 

ISIS mission, and that is not being done, it would seem to me it 

makes—there is no point in then giving grants to the city to execute that. 

We will do it—I will do it, in the grants that I control, in a measured way so that the good work of police departments all over the 

country, sheriff’s departments all over the country, are at least 

given a say in what we are about to do. 

But again, if we are specifically giving grants for cooperation for 

removal of illegal aliens and a given department city is no longer 

doing that, it would—it seems irresponsible for me to continue giving the money. 

But it will be case-by-case and we will work very closely with the 

homeland heroes of this country, and that is the sheriff departments and the police departments all over the country. 

Mr. DONOVAN. I know you are well aware of how essential localities are to protecting particularly a city like New York City so—— 

Secretary KELLY. Absolutely. 

Mr. DONOVAN [continuing]. I thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Gentlelady from Florida, Mrs. Demings, is 

recognized. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, as a former police chief I know how important it 

is to hear every now and then ‘‘thank you for your service.’’ 

As we all know, there can be an abundance of data available to 

the public safety community. But we also know just how important 

that data can be to helping public safety officials make decisions 

that they really need to get right the first time. 

Data analytics continue to evolve, and new applications for how 

to use data can often be a force multiplier for law enforcement. I 

believe that ensuring the deployment of assets and resources along 

the border is paramount to securing the border. Data analytics, I 

believe, may be helpful in that regard. 

Secretary Kelly your predecessor, Secretary Johnson, made joint 

operations and information sharing among DHS components about 

Southwest Border threats a priority through the Southern Border 

and Approaches Campaign. 

Do you see an expanded role for data analytics to be used to inform ICE, CBP, and the Coast Guard as they work together on the 

Southern Border? 

Secretary KELLY. You know, Congresswoman, I do. I think any 

time we can expand cooperation with anyone that is kind of in the 

same fight, has the same interest in terms of, in this particular 

case, Southwest Border. 

I had an interesting conversation the other day with the President-CEO of IBM about data analytics. Within about 30 seconds of 

conversation, you know, kind-of my eyes rolled back up into my 

head and—but she made some points about this topic that my staff 

are now delving into. 

But just some of her comments about useful and expansive the 

reliance on—or useful the reliance on data analytics would be. So 

to your point, yes. 

74 

My folks now, people that really understand the topic, are—and 

I would really like to see certainly a partnership with everybody, 

in this case it might be IBM, who can help us do better in this 

realm. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Have you had any opportunity to have any initial 

meetings with the stakeholders, private and public, to this point? 

Secretary KELLY. I have not. Again, not as a defense or an excuse, rather, but 2 weeks—a little more than 2 weeks in the job, 

and I can tell you the E.O.s took up a little bit of my time last 

week, so. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. DEMINGS. OK. Thank you. 

Secretary KELLY. I will do better. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Also, I believe that border security Executive Orders and the vetting process is what really brought us here today, 

so please bear with me. 

I believe you testified earlier that our refugee vetting checks are 

minimal, but yet we have also heard that we have one of the most 

robust vetting processes when we compare it to others throughout 

the world. 

Mr. Secretary, and I know you also indicated that you are going 

to share with us, when you get to that point, what some of the recommendations are for improving the process. 

Secretary KELLY. Right. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. But what is wrong with it? Is it minimal? Is it 

just not working? What is wrong with it? 

Secretary KELLY. The process now, whether it is Syria or anywhere else, but the process now is as good as it can be based on 

past philosophy—and that is not a criticism, but past philosophy— 

and the realities of a country, using Syria as an example, that is 

in collapse. 

So the people who are interviewing refugees, whether they are 

young men or old women and everything in between, about the 

best they can rely on—and it starts with the United Nations, and 

they are good people but they don’t have a lot to work with. So 

when someone says, ‘‘I am from this town and this was my occupation,’’ and all of those kind of things, they essentially have to take 

the word of the individual. 

I, frankly, don’t think that is enough. Certainly President Trump 

doesn’t think that is enough. 

So we have got to, you know, maybe add some additional layers. 

Some of the things we have talked about was finances. One of the 

ways we can track—follow the money, so to speak. 

So how have you been living? Who has been sending you money? 

It applies, under certain circumstances, to individuals who may be 

involved in being on the payroll of terrorist organizations. 

We could be looking at—we could be asking them about websites 

that they frequently visit, if they visit, and anything and everything of that nature so that we can get our arms around about 

what kind of an individual we are dealing with. 

But this is a pause right now as we sort these issues out. I would 

be less than honest with you if I told you that of the seven countries all of them will come off that status in 80 days or so, or when 

we owe the President the report. But I would like to think some 

75 

of them will, but—and the ones that won’t get off—because again, 

once again they just are countries that have basically failed. 

You know, I was just reading this morning where hundreds, perhaps even into the thousands, of individuals from Africa have fled 

to Yemen—again, a country that defines, almost, a country—a 

failed country—so that they can try to get on a list to come to the 

United States. Well, the people that are coming, to use that example, from another part of the world, Africa in this case, to go to 

Yemen are people that themselves may or may not have proper paperwork but they are going to a country that I absolutely do not 

trust right now in terms of what they provide us to vet people from 

Yemen. So it is a work in progress. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. So you have indicated that some may stay on the 

list, some may not. But is the list prioritized? 

Secretary KELLY. It is seven now. Again, two of them are on the 

list of the State sponsors of terrorism, and I think four or five of 

the others we don’t even have an embassy there. When you don’t 

have an embassy there is no Americans to sit there and do the 

interviews, the consular interviews, to start the process of determining if this person is the kind of person we want to come to our 

country. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. OK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Gallagher, 

is recognized. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Kelly, you and your family have sacrificed a lot for this 

country, and I thank you for that. Your willingness to step up 

again is inspiring. 

As a fellow Marine I just have to share that I am currently on 

an e-mail chain with about 10 of my basic school buddies, and they 

are all debating whether with you and Jim in critical spots we 

should all reenlist. But I will do my best to work with you in this 

position. 

You talked a lot to your commitment to securing the Southern 

Border. I applaud you for that and I share it. 

One of the things that concerns me, however, is no matter how 

robust the physical barrier, no matter how long this pause or how 

extreme the vetting process, we still confront the issue of domestic 

radicalization, whereby ISIS and its adherents will send out a call 

and an American citizen or a Muslim-American will answer that 

call. Can you talk a little bit about how you think about that problem and what we can do as a committee to help you confront the 

problem of domestic radicalization? 

Secretary KELLY. Huge problem. What you are trying to do is get 

into someone’s head before they make a decision. 

You know, I share this responsibility with other law enforcement, 

all law enforcement agencies as well as the FBI. But, you know, 

I think it starts and maybe—it starts and maybe the solution, such 

as it is, with parents and spouses, siblings maybe watching the 

kind of websites that their kids are on or their brothers are on. 

You know, and I think it is a—most people would agree, all parents have to watch what their kids are doing on the internet, but 

76 

I think it begins with that, people who are watching their kids and 

what they are doing. 

I believe, whether it is white supremacists in Christian churches, 

you know, people in—you know, holy men, rabbis in synagogues, 

imams in mosques, to be watchful of the—particularly the young 

people, particularly maybe the young males to see what kind of 

talk, what kind of questions, what kind of things they are doing 

and report before the person—the young person makes a decision 

to, you know, to go radical, I think. 

So in my view, you know, there is a certain level of usefulness, 

I guess, in kind of campaigns that—to try to convince young people 

or any people to not do the wrong things, but I really do believe 

it starts down in the home. I don’t think the Federal Government 

can do it; I don’t think the State government. It really, I think, begins in the home, and then into the churches and in the synagogues and the mosques, the idea being to prevent it. 

I remember meeting, I think, with someone, a young woman 

from Mississippi, who was going down that trail. Her father, I 

think, was a police officer and reported it. I think that is what we 

need because for the most part we learn about these terrible things 

when it happens, whether it is a shooting in a club in Florida or 

at a holiday party in San Bernardino. It is a tough problem. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. I take your point about the limits of the Federal 

Government in this space, but to what extent do you view engagement with the Muslim-American community as well as our Muslim 

allies abroad as part of your integrated strategy for securing the 

homeland? 

Secretary KELLY. Well, you know, from my military time, you 

know, we delivered a win in Anbar Province, which is overwhelmingly 99 percent Sunni. We delivered a win there not just simply 

by killing people—and we killed a lot of people, and they were the 

right people that needed to die—but mostly because we—and you 

know this—we engaged Sheiks, the community leaders, the elected 

leaders, and particularly the mosques. 

You know, when I left Iraq my last time I was—the title escapes 

me, but it was essentially ‘‘defender of the faith,’’ the Islamic faith. 

They gave me a beautiful Quran, gold embroidered and all that 

kind of thing, and had a big, you know, a big celebration when I 

left, and it was because how closely we worked and protected the 

imams and protected the mosques and the people within them. 

The imams overwhelmingly, the holy men, were targeted by this 

small percentage of erratic—I mean radical Muslims. Small percentage, don’t represent true Islam, and they—and we protected 

the imams from those men. 

So I know how to engage on this issue and I will continue to do 

that. But my message has got to be to the communities of Americans who happen to follow the Muslim faith. It would be the same 

message I would give to community—Christian communities of 

Americans who follow the Christian faith, relative to, say, white 

supremacy and that kind of thing, is, ‘‘Keep an eye on your kids; 

keep an eye on your sisters and your brothers and report before 

they get too close to that point where they walk into a church in 

South Carolina and shoot a bunch of innocent people, or go into a 

bar somewhere and shoot a bunch of gay people.’’ 

77 

So I really do—I mean, that is the best answer I can come up 

to right now. We don’t have to convince the vast majority of American Christians, Muslims, Jews not to do bad things. What we have 

to convince them to do, though, is to report when they see one of 

their flock or one of their family members going down the wrong 

road. 

That is my thought. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chair recognizes Ms. Barraga ́n, from California. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, one day ago the President went on another Twitter rant after the judge halted the Muslim ban. This was one of his 

tweets, and hopefully you can see it. It says, ‘‘I have instructed 

Homeland Security to check people coming over into our country 

very carefully.’’ 

‘‘Very carefully’’ is in all capital letters. 

My question is what was DHS not doing before this order that 

you are now doing? In other words, this order, which was post the 

judge’s ruling? 

Secretary KELLY. First of all, I can see it because it is big enough 

to see from this seat. 

We are doing business as normal now that the—now that we 

are—you know, right from the beginning we quickly adjusted to 

obey every one of the judge’s rulings. So we are back to normal operations, if you will, and doing nothing different today than we 

were doing before. 

That is to say when someone comes in as long as they have the 

right paperwork and all of that kind of thing, they are allowed to 

enter. If there is something that the officer at the counter, so to 

speak, doesn’t like or suspects of something they would be taken 

aside for additional screening. That is normal. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. So there is nothing new as a result of this order 

that the President tweeted out that now he has given an order that 

you are supposed to do very carefully? Because this insinuates that 

we were not doing it very carefully. 

Secretary KELLY. Right. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. So I just want to clarify. There is no new order 

here, right? 

Secretary KELLY. The men and women that work the counters always do their business very carefully. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. So this is not a new order, correct, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary KELLY. We didn’t have to see the President’s concern 

about what has taken place post-Federal ruling to continue to do 

things very carefully. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK, thank you. 

Are there any specific examples, any evidence of any recent refugees from the seven listed countries that may have slipped through 

DHS in the recent past? Do we have any evidence of that? 

Secretary KELLY. Well, if they slipped through we wouldn’t have 

any evidence because we wouldn’t know that they had slipped 

through. 

78 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Well, there is an instance where they may have 

slipped through and through intelligence you have—could have 

stopped some activity or a plot. Do you have any evidence that 

somebody maybe slipped through from one of these seven countries 

that you now know about? 

Secretary KELLY. Let me take that for the record. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Earlier, well, do you know how many countries 

there are where we do not have an embassy? 

Secretary KELLY. I don’t off-hand, but I know that in the case of 

the seven countries we are dealing with, most of them do not have 

functioning embassies. As you know, I think, when we leave, generally speaking, another embassy will take up, you know, certain 

duties to help us out in that country. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. So would you say there are more than seven 

countries where we don’t have an embassy? 

Secretary KELLY. I would guess there are, but I would have to 

take that for the record. I will get with the State Department to 

find out specifically, but I will get that answer to you. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK. Well, according to your testimony, one of the 

reasons for the seven countries is that we don’t know—you said, ‘‘I 

don’t know how we would vet people where there is no embassy.’’ 

So my question is do you think it would be safer for us to close 

down our borders to all those countries where we don’t have an embassy? That kind-of follows the rationale then—— 

Secretary KELLY. If there are countries—and I am not sure there 

are, but if there are countries—I guess there is, but if there are 

countries that we don’t have an embassy that we have not put on 

this list of seven it is because we have confidence that the structure, police, intelligence, that kind of thing is still operating to the 

degree that we can have confidence that individuals are at least 

who they say they are and we have some background information 

on them. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK. You testified earlier that there was no chaos 

at CBP, is that correct? 

Secretary KELLY. I said there was no chaos where CBP were 

working at the airports, yes. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK. Well, you know, I went down to LAX on Saturday night and there was chaos. 

Now, let me tell you there was chaos in the terminals at Bradley 

International Airport. Now, I got there and I asked to speak with 

somebody from CBP. Conveniently, the office was shut down, so I 

couldn’t ask a question of somebody in the office. I asked to be 

taken down to speak to somebody at CBP but they wouldn’t take 

us anywhere so I couldn’t see for myself. 

We heard from people coming off planes there was dozens of people being detained. When I called CBP asking for a briefing just 

to find out if any of my constituents were being held, given access 

to an attorney, I was told call a 202 Washington number. Then I 

was hung up on. 

How are we to know that there was no chaos down there? Members of Congress couldn’t even see for themselves. 

Secretary KELLY. Well, you could take my word for it. If the— 

my people in the—in CBP say there was no chaos, that they were 

doing their normal job at the counters with people coming into the 

79 

United States, most of whom were allowed to pass, those that needed additional screening were put aside, this is normal, everyday operations in any airport in the United States, there was no chaos. 

Their job normally would not be—I mean, it would be unusual 

for someone to say, ‘‘Hey, I am a Congresswoman and I want to 

talk to people in CBP.’’ My opinion, they need to do their jobs on 

the spot. 

There is a 24-hour watch at DHS headquarters. I can report to 

you that more than one of your colleagues call the right number 

and unfortunately or fortunately, I was engaged throughout the 

night with Members of Congress. Again, most of what I was getting 

was very anecdotal. I am not saying that you didn’t see what you 

saw, but there is a process to engage this DHS leadership and the 

people that are on the front lines are down there doing their job 

in the normal course of the events don’t interact with Members of 

Congress. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. I will yield back, since my time is up. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rutherford, is recognized. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Kelly, thank you very much for you service, and particularly for your service here today with this very lengthy testimony. 

I appreciate you taking the time. Thank you. A true public servant. 

I represent Florida’s—America’s first coast, northeast Florida, 

Port of Jacksonville. One of the concerns that I have is as the administration strengthens the southern land border, the security 

there, that the drug cartels will again shift their operations back 

to the maritime domain. 

Can you talk briefly about your experience at SOUTHCOM? You 

know all too well the difficulties of interdiction, and particularly 

with, now, the Navy sort-of pulling out of that role. Can you speak 

briefly about any intentions that you may have to also strengthen 

at the same time our maritime security? 

Secretary KELLY. My information is a little dated, but I think it 

is still accurate. 

While we can see the flow of drugs, particularly cocaine as it 

comes up from South America, with a very, very high degree of 

clarity, primarily because of, you know, an organization in Key 

West, the Joint Interagency Task Force, that really leverages the 

entire U.S. interagency. Like most organizations that are far from 

Washington, DC, it works better than if it was here because people 

actually talk to each other. You know, DEA and FBI and Homeland 

Security, everyone is in the same fight. So the point is we have a 

great deal of clarity. 

The vast majority of the drugs, we know, are moving up the Central American isthmus into Mexico, as we all know, and into the 

United States. There is not really, as I testified many times in— 

when I was in SOUTHCOM, not even really a speed bump. It gets 

in. The network is so well-developed; it is so efficient and it will 

move anything—drugs, people, you know, counterfeit industrial 

items, whatever. 

What we did start to see—and I am going back a year ago now— 

we did start to see more flow coming up the island chain, the old 

cocaine cowboy days, if you will, mostly flights out of Venezuela up 

80 

to—trying to get to places like Dominican Republic or even Puerto 

Rico. 

We started to react to that but, simply put, we don’t have enough 

assets. I don’t believe, with the exception of transit, there has been 

a U.S. Navy ship, certainly in the last 2 years of my time at Miami 

we didn’t have a single Navy ship. 

The good news is United States Coast Guard, our fifth military 

service, kind-of doubled the number of cutters. But that was like 

four. 

So we don’t have enough to monitor the flow. We can monitor the 

flow; we don’t have enough to interdict the flow. Remember, when 

we interdict down there in SOUTHCOM we are getting it a ton a 

time, two tons, some of the submersibles 8 or 10 tons at a time. 

As we have success on the Southwest Border—and there is no 

doubt we will—we are going to start to see it flow up toward the— 

it will go back up the old island chain. The good news is Dominican 

Republic is a great ally in this whole effort. Many of the smaller 

island nations are great allies in this effort. 

But they will adjust to it, which goes back to the demand issue. 

If we simply reduce the demand significantly, like we have on other 

items and other things in the past, we would really, really cut into 

their profits. 

Even if we don’t care about the 47,000 Americans that died last 

year from these drugs, the $250 billion dollars it costs the American taxpayer to deal with these drugs—even if we don’t care about 

that, it is the profits that come out and cause death and destruction all over the Western Hemisphere. Frankly, some of that money 

is drawn off into the radical Islam organizations. Long answer, 

sorry. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. No, that is very good. Thank you, General. 

Also, Mr. Secretary, you mentioned the Coast Guard cutters. Will 

you continue to support the recapitalization of those cutters in the 

plan going forward now? 

Secretary KELLY. If I didn’t say yes to that the Coast Guard commandant would come in here and hit me with a bat. But yes, absolutely. Their equipment is very, very, very old. They are a phenomenal group of men and women. They are in the fight every day, 

in terms of not only saving lives but crime-fighting. We have to recapitalize the organization. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you. 

The gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fitzpatrick, is recognized. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Kelly, our country is better for having you serve in this 

role, and thank you for being willing to step up. I know you could 

be enjoying your retirement right now, but you chose to serve a 

cause bigger than yourself, and thank you for doing that. 

Just to expand on Mr. Rutherford’s comments, and I believe Representative Katko, as well, asked about the drug issue, specifically 

opioids. We have an absolute epidemic in this country when it 

comes to opioids. It tends to disproportionately affect the northeastern part of the United States, my hometown of Levittown is 

being absolutely decimated. 

81 

We know that they primarily come from three countries: Mexico, 

Columbia, and Afghanistan. We also know that they are primarily 

taking the route across the Southwest Border. There is a lot of talk 

about securing the border and what is involved with that, as far 

as a physical barrier. 

We also talked about what else can be done. Is there going to be, 

sir, a comprehensive strategy by your administration to focus specifically on not just slowing it down—we always, in the FBI, refer 

to physical barriers as a speedbump for cartels, but that is all it 

is. It requires more, and I just wondered if you could expand on 

that a little bit. 

Secretary KELLY. Well, I will let the demand reduction argument—not argument, comments. I have made them enough. I believe by reinforcing the Southwest Border and getting some level 

of control over it, it will make it harder for the importation of drugs 

that way. 

But, you know, the phenomenon we are seeing now—and I will 

go back in—for a second on the opioid thing—you know, these cartels are absolutely brilliant in how they do business. They saw a 

need that the United States wanted more heroin. So, they just, you 

know, they were the ones that were providing mostly marijuana 

over the years. 

But they said, ‘‘OK, if the American consumer wants heroin, we 

will start growing heroin. We will start growing poppies here and 

turning it into heroin and we will import that, if that is what 

they’’—you know, so really, almost, I would say 99 percent of the 

heroin that is consumed here in the United States comes up 

through Mexico. These guys are, you know, really brilliant businessmen and they figure out how to deliver to the American market. 

Methamphetamine, because of Congressional action a few years 

ago, the precursors to making methamphetamines harder and 

harder to achieve inside the continental United States, so the Mexican cartel said, ‘‘OK, so we will fill the need. The Americans want 

methamphetamines.’’ 

So most of it is made down there now because the precursors 

come in from China, India, a few places. Most of it comes in legal, 

by the way, and then the cartels use it to—and then finally the cocaine is cocaine, and it has been coming up through. 

So we just have to watch the flow. When we are successful on 

the Southwest Border—and we haven’t even talked about enhancing the border crossings. I think, in my view, part of the wall is 

also to enhance the border crossings that we are—the legal ones so 

that we can move larger volumes through, you know, as quickly as 

possible. 

But just as importantly, actually, the South Americans will say, 

you know, from their view, the things that we import into their 

country that is killing thousands of their citizens and wreaking 

havoc in their societies are guns—as I understand it, mostly legally 

purchased up there and then brought down through the ports of 

entry into Mexico; and cash, bulk cash—billions and billions and 

billions of—unlimited amounts of bulk cash. 

82 

When I was in Southern Command I worked very closely with 

the FBI, CIA, and Treasury Department. Treasury Department has 

a really dedicated group of men and women who follow the money. 

Somehow, if we can bring all of that together and go after—you 

know, if you go to bed at night as a cartel guy with $10 billion in 

the bank—and I use ‘‘b’’ purposely—and wake up the next morning 

and you don’t have any money in the bank, you are not only not 

a cartel guy anymore, you are dead. 

I think that kind of thing, going after the money; working with 

cooperative countries; and making them cooperative if they don’t 

want to be—that is an aspect of it; the demand reduction; better 

ports of entry; working closer. But in my view, once it is in the 

States we are done; we lost. 

You know, there are a million law enforcement, roughly, individuals in our country. They are superheroes in every sense of the 

word. 

They cannot keep up with the amount of drugs, and, for that 

matter, people that make it into the country. They are just overwhelmed. The most selfless people on the planet. We owe them a 

debt of gratitude, and they are just overwhelmed by the numbers 

and the tonnages. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you, sir. 

One other question, with regard to the Executive Order. There 

have been some in the counterterrorism community that have expressed some hesitancy and concern about cooperating witnesses— 

cooperating human sources that are being deployed overseas in furtherance of counterterrorism investigations, possibly getting caught 

up in that. I just ask that your administration be cognizant of that, 

as far as preserving those investigations. 

Secretary KELLY. I have the authority to make National security 

decisions—exemptions. We have already done it, and we will continue that. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you, sir. 

I yield back, Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chair recognizes Mr. Higgins, from Louisiana. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Secretary, I echo the sentiments of my colleagues when I say thank you for your service, sir. 

Like to ask your opinion regarding the increased and advanced 

use of social media to track potential terrorists. In my opinion, the 

previous administration showed a glaring deficiency and hesitancy 

to use that publicly available data. So to what extent do you envision that we will increase the use of this? I mean, it is out there. 

It is for public purview. 

Even in countries where, as you have so carefully pointed out, we 

don’t have vetting procedures in those countries, those guys are on 

social media. I would hope that under your leadership your Department will increase its efforts to dig into that available data and to 

link visa applicants with their social media activity, you know, 

whereby we may determine whether or not they are talking to the 

wrong kind of people and have some bad plans for us. This would 

apply also to profile potential radicalization of domestic terrorists. 

Please give us some feedback on that. 

83 

Secretary KELLY. Certainly great points on the social media 

thing. Again, it is still a work in progress, but this pause is giving 

us an opportunity. Well, it is not quite a pause anymore since we 

are under court order to allow people to continue. 

But even if we don’t get under—get out from under the court 

order, we are looking at some enhanced or some additional screening. I think I mentioned them a little bit. 

You know, if someone comes in and wants to come into our country, you know, it might be not only do they bring a passport or 

whatever their stories are. Again, it is very hard to truly vet these 

people in these countries—the seven countries—because they just 

don’t have the internal infrastructure. They are failed States in 

many cases. 

But if they come in and say, we want to say, for instance, ‘‘What 

websites do you visit? And give us your passwords,’’ so that we can 

see what they do on the internet. This might be a week, might be 

a month. They may wait some time for us to vet. If they don’t want 

to give us that information then they don’t come. 

We may look at their—we want to get on their social media with 

passwords. What do you do? What do you say? If they don’t want 

to cooperate, then they don’t come in. 

There are other things like that. So these are the things we are 

thinking about. No one should take this as this is what we are 

going to do right now. 

But over there we can ask them for this kind of information, and 

if they truly want to come to America they will cooperate. If not, 

you know, next in line. 

But I think we honestly have to, if we are doing our jobs, enhance the way—or get more serious than we have been about how 

we look at people coming into the United States—not only individuals, but what they bring. You know, many countries look at immigration from the point of view of what do their countries need. We 

don’t necessarily always do that. 

So I think two things: One, reliable information on people so we 

can have a reasonable expectation they are not coming here to do 

the wrong thing or to be a burden on our society; and the other 

issue is, do they bring skills that we want? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Your answer is encouraging, and I would hope that 

you would move forward with that as a mandatory part of a visa 

application to provide our own people with social media accounts 

and passwords. That is a crucial window into their intent. 

Thank you, sir. I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Garrett, is 

recognized. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you immensely for your service, Mr. Secretary. I was trying to count the number of times I have taken an oath in my life 

to defend the Constitution and the Nation, and I thought you have 

probably taken a few more than me. I presume you took an oath 

when you took your current position as Secretary? 

Secretary KELLY. I did. I am right at 16 times. 

Mr. GARRETT. I am at 8, so you got me. 

Secretary KELLY. I got you. 

84 

Mr. GARRETT. Do you consider it part of your oath to support and 

defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies 

foreign and domestic—do you consider part of your oath to ensure 

that the vetting that we apply to individuals who would seek to 

come to this country be as thorough as it can legally and constitutionally be? 

Secretary KELLY. I do. 

Mr. GARRETT. Without regard to any individual in this panel or 

anywhere else, would you consider that to be sort of the minimum 

that you could do if your responsibility was to support and defend 

the Constitution—that is, to insure that the individuals who live 

under the blessings of that Constitution have the blessing also of 

the level of security that we could best guarantee? 

Secretary KELLY. I do. 

Mr. GARRETT. So what we know, then, is that no vetting can prevent all risk. Am I correct? 

Secretary KELLY. Correct. 

Mr. GARRETT. You are certainly familiar with comments by the 

director of the FBI who indicated, based on some of the same 

things that you pointed out, that we are unable to adequately vet 

certain individuals because there is just nobody to call. ‘‘Tell me 

about Kelly. What does he do? Who does he hang out with?’’ Right? 

Secretary KELLY. True. 

Mr. GARRETT. But you would concede that more thorough vetting 

is more effective than less thorough vetting, correct? 

Secretary KELLY. I would. 

Mr. GARRETT. I want to apologize on behalf of my colleagues, Mr. 

Secretary, who aren’t in the room. I don’t want to conjecture as to 

why they left, but I appreciate your time. 

I know that the media is in the hallway. I think we have more 

to learn from you than we have to tell them and that we owe you 

the full bearing of the time you are willing to spend here. 

Would it surprise you to know that, in fact, there have been multitudinous instances of individuals from the seven nations named 

where individuals were arrested and subsequently prosecuted for 

either engaging in or plotting to engage in acts of terror on U.S. 

soil? Would that surprise you? 

Secretary KELLY. It would not surprise me. 

Mr. GARRETT. In fact, one of my colleagues indicated that you 

might not be able to point out any instances where this had happened. I would say you are unable to point out any instances where 

this has happened on your watch so far, correct? 

Secretary KELLY. Right. 

Mr. GARRETT. But you would agree with the sentiments expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld that essentially the terrorists only 

have to be right once; we have to be right all the time. 

Secretary KELLY. Exactly right. 

Mr. GARRETT. So inevitably, regardless of how good you are, how 

faithfully you discharge those duties, sometimes you lose soldiers, 

sailors, airmen, Marines, sometimes things go wrong. 

Secretary KELLY. Sometimes they go wrong. 

Mr. GARRETT. Yes, sir. 

Are you familiar with—and I just wish my colleagues were in 

here because they said they had never heard of these—Dafar 

85 

Adnan or Abdul Razakal Arton, any of these names? If you are not, 

it is OK. 

Secretary KELLY. No, but I am tough on—I am not good on 

names. 

Mr. GARRETT. Well, sir, I am not very good on these names either. But I could continue to read off names. 

Ultimately what we have is six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, four Iraqis, one Yemeni, all off this seven-nation list, who either executed attacks in this Nation—the mall attack in St. Cloud, 

Minnesota; the car and knife attack at Ohio State University, both 

refugees; a bomb plot at a mall in Texas that was foiled, by an 

Iraqi. None of these instances—you have heard of these, you just 

couldn’t—— 

Secretary KELLY. Right. 

Mr. GARRETT. Yes, sir. 

So let me ask you this. We know that there is rhetoric about a 

Muslim ban. Do you believe that the rhetoric globally of a Muslim 

ban would, in fact, serve to enrage our enemies and be used by our 

enemies as a recruiting tool? Do you believe that that is the case? 

Secretary KELLY. If I could just elaborate a little bit, the kind of 

people that are trying to get here and kill us don’t need any more 

reason to come here and try to kill us than the ones they already 

have. The ones they already have, of course, is it is about us and 

how we live our lives, our religions, or no religion, how we treat 

women, how we treat each other. That is why they hate us—a very 

small percentage—— 

Mr. GARRETT. Yes, sir. 

Secretary KELLY [continuing]. But that is why they hate us. 

So, you know, if we do something like this and it is advertised 

as a Muslim ban, I mean, they can only be so mad at us. I think 

their mad red light is on. They can’t get any madder at us. 

Mr. GARRETT. As they seek, though, to justify the—and recruitment and cite, ‘‘Hey, see look what the Americans do, and this 

proves my point that they are bad’’—— 

Secretary KELLY. What I found about—when I ran Guantanamo 

Bay—and, you know, Guantanamo Bay is a super well-run—you 

would be proud of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines down 

there. It is all misinformation. 

So the point is when the previous President—I don’t—I am not 

criticizing here. Mr. Obama was our President and I respect him. 

But when he would say that because we had Guantanamo Bay 

open it added more people to the jihad, the jihad information warriors said, ‘‘Ah, if he is saying that, that is a good thing to use and 

we will say it.’’ 

They hate us. They don’t need any more reasons to hate us. 

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Secretary, I suppose my question is ultimately—and I am inartful sometimes with words—if it does aid our 

enemies and there is no Muslim ban, is it not those who are perpetuating this myth who are aiding our enemies? 

Secretary KELLY. I wouldn’t disagree with that. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the negative 33 seconds. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I thank the gentleman. 

86 

1Del Quentin Wilber and Brian Bennett, ‘‘Federal agents are reinvestigating Syrian refugees 

in U.S. who may have slipped through vetting lapse,’’ The Los Angeles Times, January 25, 2017, 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-syria-refugees-vetting-gap-20170125-story.html. 2 Alex Leary, ‘‘John Kerry defends ‘thorough’ Syrian refugee screening in letter to Rick Scott,’’ 

The Miami Herald, November 22, 2015, http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2015/ 

11/john-kerry-defends-thorough-syrian-refugee-screening-in-letter-to-rick-scott.html. 

Let me just close. I want to enter into the record a, Mr. Secretary, a letter I sent to the DNI about a reported re-investigation 

of dozens of Syrian refugees already admitted into the United 

States. Because of a lapse in vetting through technology defects 

that Syrian refugees with potentially derogatory information in 

their files came into the country for resettlement. 

That obviously concerns us. This has been our great concern all 

along with the refugee program, and I look forward to the response 

to that letter. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

LETTER FROM CHAIRMAN MICHAEL T. MCCAUL TO MICHAEL DEMPSEY

January 26, 2017. 

MICHAEL DEMPSEY, 

Director of National Intelligence (Acting), Washington, DC 20511. 

Dear Director Dempsey: I write to express my alarm regarding the reported reinvestigation of dozens of Syrian refugees already admitted into the United States. 

A January 25, 2017 article in the Los Angeles Times1 indicated that a ‘‘lapse in vetting’’ stemming from a technological issue had allowed Syrian refugees with potentially derogatory information in their files into the country for resettlement. Needless to say, this alleged gap in the security vetting of Syrian refugees raises serious 

national security concerns, especially considering more than 15,000 Syrians were 

admitted in 2016 alone under the direction of former President Obama and former 

Secretary of State Kerry. 

For two years, my Committee has highlighted frustration with serious security 

weaknesses related to the Syrian refugee program. Indeed, leaders from the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and 

the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) have testified before the House 

Homeland Security Committee that intelligence gaps prevented them from fully vetting such individuals—and that extremists could potentially slip through the cracks. 

Despite these public concerns, the Obama Administration vowed that Syrians would 

be screened ‘‘without cutting any corners when it comes to security’’ through what 

was described as an ‘‘extraordinarily thorough and comprehensive’’2 process. But it 

now it appears that the process may not have been as secure as the White House 

promised. 

Already we know that hundreds of individuals with ties to terrorismu have tried 

to enter the United States through the Syrian refugee program, and apparently 

some have succeeded. In a letter sent to me by the FBI, DHS, and NCTC the day 

before the Presidential Inauguration, I was informed for the first time that DHS has 

denied more than 500 refugee applications since Fiscal Year 2011 from Syrians trying to enter the United States who were known or suspected of having terror ties— 

a total of almost seven percent of those who have applied. Some of these individuals 

had ties to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Moreover, those agencies informed me that there were several hundred additional Syrian cases are on hold 

pending final review for denial on national security grounds. I find it very disturbing that so many terror-connected individuals have already tried to reach our 

shores through the Syrian refugee program. But what is worse, this new report suggests that potentially dozens of them have managed to make it into our country because of a ‘‘glitch.’’ 

We cannot be blind to the threat. ISIS has already used the global migrant crisis 

as Trojan Horse to send operatives to the West and conduct attacks. For instance, 

some of the suspects behind the heinous attacks in Paris and Brussels posed as refugees to sneak into Europe, and dozens of other suspected jihadists reportedly have 

entered the continent the same way. In just the past year, a number of European 

terror plots have been uncovered in which operatives had arrived under the guise 

of refugees fleeing the Syrian civil war. We must do everything possible to keep this 

from happening in the United States. 

87 

I request answers from the Intelligence Community (IC) about the extent of this 

reported ‘‘glitch,’’ its impact on screening refugees and any other individuals trying 

to enter the United States, and efforts to mitigate the vulnerability. I therefore respectfully request classified and unclassified responses to the following questions by 

February 3, 2017. If questions require an answer from another department or agency, please coordinate with them to provide as part of a consolidated response: 

1. Please detail any and all lapses in vetting that have occurred with regard 

to Syrian refugees, including the ‘‘glitch’’ in the aforementioned report. How was 

this security gap discovered? 

2. Please explain how any such lapses have affected the screening of other individuals entering the United States. How many foreign nationals, including refugees, were not fully screened against our intelligence holdings because of the 

alleged ‘‘glitch’’? 

3. What specific steps is the IC taking to mitigate any such lapses? 

4. Is the IC aware of any Syrian refugee(s) with ties to a designated foreign terrorist organization that have been admitted and resettled in the United States 

since 2011? If so, how many? How were they located? Have they been removed 

from the country? 

5. Is the IC aware of any Syrian refugee(s) with ties to a known or suspected 

terrorist that have been admitted and resettled in the United States since 2011? 

If so, how many? How were they located? Have they been removed from the 

country? 

6. How many, and what percent of, admitted Syrian refugee applicant cases 

have been referred to the USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate? 

7. How many, and what percent of, Syrian refugees have been rejected for resettlement due to national security concerns? 

We face a determined enemy, and we must ensure we are aggressively closing all 

security gaps which they might exploit. I thank you in advance for your responses. 

Sincerely, 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, 

Chairman. 

CC: The Honorable John F. Kelly, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security 

The Honorable Rex Tillerson, Secretary, Department of State 

Chairman MCCAUL. With that, let me congratulate you on getting through your first Congressional hearing. 

Secretary KELLY. This has been great. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I think you are going to like this committee 

better than some of the other ones you may have to report to, if 

I can say. We just really appreciate your service, and I sincerely 

mean this when we look forward to working with you. 

I think the terrorists don’t check our political stripes. We are all 

Americans, and I know all of us on this committee want to help 

you in your effort to protect America. 

So thank you, sir. 

With that, votes have been called on the House floor. We have 

a second panel, and once we return from votes we will hear from 

the second panel after conclusion of the vote series. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman MCCAUL. Committee will come to order. We will now 

hear from the second panel of witnesses. 

Our second panel includes Steve McCraw, director, Texas Department of Homeland Security. Steve McCraw became the director 

of the Texas Department of Public Safety in 2009. Also serves as 

the Governor’s homeland security advisor. 

So I know him well from my prosecutor days. 

It is good to have you here, sir. 

Mr. Joe Frank Martinez, sheriff of Val Verde County, Texas. 

Sheriff Joe Martinez served as a Texas police officer for 35 years. 

In 1999 Sheriff Martinez was promoted to the rank of sergeant of 

88 

Narcotics Service in Eagle, Texas. Served in this capacity until his 

retirement, 2007; 2009 elected sheriff of Val Verde County. 

Mr. Leon Wilmot is the sheriff of Yuma County, Arizona. Worked 

in law enforcement for the county of Yuma for over 30 years since 

completing his service in the United States Marine Corps, and was 

elected to sheriff of Yuma County in 2012. Continues to serve in 

this capacity. 

Final witness is the Honorable Eddie Trevino, who is judge for 

Cameron County, Texas. He has served in Cameron County for 15 

years. He is a partner and founder of Trevino and Bodden Law 

Firm; was then elected as Brownsville’s mayor from 2003 to 2007. 

In November 2016 elected to Cameron County bench, where he currently serves. 

I want to thank all of you for being here today. Full statements 

will appear in the record. 

I know many of you have flights to catch, so with that the Chair 

recognizes Mr. McCraw for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN C. MC CRAW, DIRECTOR, TEXAS 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. MCCRAW. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Thompson. 

Texas has, as you know—and we have heard testimony already 

about how big Texas is, and, Congressman Hurd, thank you for 

pointing that out. I think it is obligatory to note that 1,200 to 1,900 

miles belongs to Texas, and that is very important and it does impact—what happens on the border doesn’t just stay at the border; 

there are consequences throughout Texas and the Nation. 

We talked a little bit. The Secretary, who I think did a great job 

of testifying, noted that there is—some of those consequences is 

that heroin epidemic that is happening in the Northeast that I 

think Congressman Fitzpatrick was worried about. Other things 

have happened. 

Of course, in 2014 when Border Patrol was overwhelmed by the 

surge and influx of Central Americans, they were—it was a threat, 

from a Texas standpoint. The Governor and the State legislature 

has always been proactive about doing something when it comes to 

protecting people, and they were concerned about the influx of 

gangs—transnational gangs, cartel operatives, cartel members, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana, and this other 

thing that hasn’t been talked about today: sex trafficking—international sex trafficking, this impact throughout the State and Nation. 

So we are sent down there, OK, to do something, work with our 

Federal partners, but importantly, coordinate with our local and 

State partners—our State partners, National Guard, also Texas 

game wardens—conduct surge operations in direct support of the 

U.S. Border Patrol to deter, detect, and interdict smuggling between the ports of entry. As we have seen in doing so over a period 

of time that you can influence the amount of drugs coming in and 

the amount of illegal aliens coming in. There is no question about 

it. It is border control physics. 

You can go back to 1991, when the Sandia Laboratory physicists 

were tasked by ONDCP to look at this issue, and they came back 

89 

and said yes, it can be done, but what they recommended is what 

Secretary Kelly talked about, and that is what was so encouraging 

today. That is rather than wait for it to come in, prevent it from 

coming in in the first place. There are many positive aspects of 

doing that. 

That is the Texas way that we have been obligated to work. Put 

the Border Patrol at the river and not inward. Any defense-indepth we have looked at is defense-in-height, being able to stack 

it, whether it starts on the water, goes from sensors, to cameras, 

to RAID towers, to the aerostat balloons, to the helicopters. Of 

course, we have got 14 aircraft dedicated specifically to support 

Border Patrol agents on the ground. 

We have got a tactical Marine unit, which I wouldn’t have believed that we would ever have an opportunity to have a Navy in 

the Department of Public Safety. We do now, and there is a reason 

for it, because that is what Border Patrol needed at the time. 

We don’t need yesterday’s technology for tomorrow. I mean, those 

sensors are archaic, OK? The private sector are the experts in developing, you know, technology and making it work. 

That is what we did in terms of support. We got 4,000 cameras 

deployed that are detection—motion-detection cameras that are infrared to support Border Patrol that they install, not us. We turn 

it over to them. Border Patrol agents install those. We support 

them with State Guard to be able to help their capacity, but because they don’t have that technology and they need it. 

I have got no question whatsoever, and we understand, and the 

Governor has clear—been clear about this and so has the legislature, that we know that the Border Patrol can secure the U.S. border. Ron Vitiello, the new chief that was named, was an outstanding Border Patrol sector chief, worked with us in Rio Grande 

Valley. I have got no question that he can do it if given the resources to do so. 

We look forward to working with the brave men and women of 

the Border Patrol. Until that time, I can tell you this: On behalf 

of the State legislature—I get to speak for them a little bit—and 

the Governor, because I talked to his chief of staff last night, is 

that there is a concern that the amount of money that we continue 

to spend at the State level in—to a Federal mission, it is—right 

now we—there is a—the price tag is over $1.4 billion. 

But our leaders and legislators have said, you know, that Texans 

are so important that we are going to spend this money if it can 

provide direct support for the Border Patrol. The last thing we 

want to do is diminish or degrade what already is out there right 

now, and I am concerned about when I report tomorrow before the 

Senate Finance hearing is that—what I am going to say. You know, 

how am I going to explain? 

We are hoping strategically to get out of the business. We had 

3,742 deaths on Texas highways last year; not to mention 

transnational gangs; not to mention we rescued 36 children who 

were victims of predators on our highways by our troopers, another 

26 by some of our special agents on the highway. We have much 

to do inwards inside the State of Texas, including transnational 

gangs. 

90 

Now, Texas is a hub city for Mexican—or for the MS–13, simply 

because of an unsecure border. So we must deal with those things. 

Right now our directive is to continue to support Border Patrol 

as we are, and we will do everything we can, as the Secretary Kelly 

said, which is one of the concerns with how fast can they do it? 

How long is it going to take them to take—get those resources in 

place? 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my testimony. Questions? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCraw follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN C. MCCRAW

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

Good morning, Chairman McCaul, and distinguished Members of the House Committee on Homeland Security. My name is Steven McCraw and I am the director 

of the Texas Department of Public Safety. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee on this vitally important public safety and 

homeland security issue to Texas and the Nation. For more than 17 years, I have 

had the honor to testify before the United States Congress as a deputy assistant 

director and assistant director for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Texas 

homeland security director, and the colonel and director of the Texas Department 

of Public Safety. 

On December 13, 2000, I told the House Judiciary Committee, ‘‘Organized crime, 

drug trafficking, and terrorist acts are no longer insular, distinct activities that can 

be contained and eradicated through traditional enforcement. Instead, they are integrated activities, which through their very commission have a reverberating impact 

on our National interests.’’ The testimony went on to describe the threat posed by 

Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations citing the Carrillo Fuentes Drug Trafficking Organization based in Juarez, Mexico and its propensity for violence and use 

of corruption to support their drug trafficking operations, which at the time was 

predominantly cocaine and marijuana. I also used an example personal to me, the 

June 3, 1998, murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Alexander Kirpnick who was shot 

and killed after he confronted three Mexican Drug Smugglers in the Sonoran desert 

of Arizona. At the time, I was the FBI assistant special agent in charge of the Tucson Resident Agency in the Phoenix Division of the FBI and oversaw the investigation of this tragic murder. The three subjects escaped to Mexico, but were later identified, captured, and returned to the United States to serve life sentences. 

At this point in my testimony, I must digress to raise a serious concern of Governor Greg Abbott. For reasons inexplicable to us, the Federal Government has declined to prosecute subjects who assault U.S. Border Patrol Agents in the performance of their duties. Mr. Chairman, as you know, Texas is a law-and-order State 

and its citizens cherish the rule of law, its men and women who enforce it, and 

those who serve or have served in the United States Military. In the absence of Federal prosecution, we have assigned the Texas Rangers to investigate assaults on 

U.S. Border Patrol agents, and the Texas Border Prosecutor’s Unit, funded by the 

State Legislature, are prosecuting these cases until the Federal Government policy 

changes. On February 1, 2017, Governor Abbott brought this concern to the attention of Secretary Kelly when they met and he agreed to address this issue with the 

United States Attorney General. We are hopeful that this policy will change with 

a new Attorney General. 

The Congressional testimony provided in December 2000 was not prescient because it was abundantly clear to local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies 

and the U.S. intelligence community what was happening at the time and that it 

would most likely get worse. Unfortunately, it has, as Texas law enforcement leaders have testified to for many years. 

The Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations diversified their drug trafficking activities and now dominate the U.S. heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and methamphetamine smuggling and trafficking market, leveraging transnational and U.S.-based 

gangs to support their operations on both sides of the border. They also diversified 

their criminal activities, which now includes human smuggling and trafficking, extortion, kidnapping, and theft of oil and other commodities. Most disturbing is their 

embracement and use of the most vile and depraved terrorist tactics to intimidate 

and coerce their rival cartels, journalists, elected officials, police, and military to 

support their criminal operations. An essential element in their evolution to our Nation’s most significant organized crime threat is an unsecured border with Mexico, 

91 

which they exploit profiting in billions of dollars made on the unending demand for 

drugs and commercial sex with young women and children. In addition, as long as 

the border remains unsecured, there is a significant National security threat of global terrorists and their supporters entering the United States undetected. There are 

many other negative consequences in having an unsecured border with Mexico that 

this committee is aware of from previous testimony over the years. 

Securing our Nation’s border is the sovereign responsibility of the Federal Government, and I never envisioned that someday it would be necessary for the State of 

Texas to dedicate substantial resources to increasing the level of security at the border. However, Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the Texas Legislature have been 

clear that there is no more important function of Government than the protection 

of its citizens and that they will do everything they can despite the enormous diversion of State funds to a Federal responsibility. 

The Governor and Legislature have insisted that State funds expended on border 

security support an evidence-based approach that integrates resources and capabilities and complements existing U.S. Border Patrol efforts. As I have testified on several occasions, the U.S. Border Patrol can secure the U.S./Mexico border if provided 

the necessary personnel and capabilities as a proven doctrine already exists. In fact, 

Congressman Silvestre Reyes demonstrated this in 1993 when he was the U.S. Border Patrol chief for the El Paso sector. The then-sector chief, Silvestre Reyes noted 

that there were approximately 8,000 to 10,000 illegal border crossings daily and 

that only 1 out of every 8 was being apprehended. At the time, the El Paso Police 

Department estimated that illegal aliens committed as much as 75 to 80 percent of 

all motor vehicle thefts and burglaries in El Paso. Operation Hold the Line began 

in September 1993, which changed the strategy from arresting illegal aliens after 

they entered the United States to preventing their illegal entry. A subsequent GAO 

report titled ‘‘BORDER CONTROL: Revised Strategy Showing Some Positive Results’’ noted that ‘‘Although El Paso Sector did not have the resources to install 

physical barriers, they were able to accomplish the same goals with a human barrier 

comprised of U.S. Border Patrol Agents.’’ 

By saturating a border area with agents, the El Paso Sector was able to significantly decrease the number of people being smuggled into Texas as evidenced in the 

rapid decrease of illegal alien apprehensions even though there was a much larger 

amount of resources available to make apprehensions. Within 1 year, the apprehensions reduced from 285,781 to a low of 79,688 or a 72.1% decrease. The El Paso Police Department reported a decrease in crime for the same time and credited Operation Hold the Line as the reason for the dramatic decrease. The Sandia National 

Laboratories recommended this approach after being tasked in 1991 to conduct a 

systematic analysis of the security along the U.S.-Mexico border. The Sandia scientists recommended that Border Patrol change its tactics from apprehending illegal 

aliens after they enter the United States to preventing their illegal entry. This approach has worked whenever used to address hot spots along the border and is the 

approach the Texas Department of Public Safety took when first integrating State 

resources into Border Patrol operations with the then-Border Patrol Sector Chief for 

the Rio Grande Valley and newly-named U.S. Border Patrol Chief, Ron Vitiello. 

There has long been a renascence in technology since 1993 that could substantially augment the U.S. Border Patrol’s ability to secure the border and yet they are 

seriously lacking in technology despite the billions of Federal dollars spent on the 

‘‘Secure Borders Initiative’’ and the ‘‘Me ́rida Initiative.’’ The State of Texas has provided Border Patrol agents more than 4,000 low-cost, high-capability cameras to detect smuggling activity along the border. The Department of Public Safety has diverted much of its fleet of high-technology aviation assets that are capable of communicating directly with Border Patrol agents on the ground to the border security 

mission. This includes 8 helicopters and 4 fixed-wing aircraft with night vision and 

FLIR capability to support detection and interdiction operations around-the-clock. 

The Governor has also directed that Texas Military aviation assets funded through 

the Governor’s Counter Drug Program provide direct support to U.S. Border Patrol. 

The combined aviation assets ensures aircraft availability around-the-clock within 

the Rio Grande Valley Sector, which is the most active smuggling area in the Nation 

and those State assets serve as an important force multiplier and essential Officer/ 

Agent safety capability. 

The following implementing principles guided the deployment of State resources: 

• A sense of urgency is imperative as an unsecure border with Mexico threatens 

border communities and communities throughout the State and the Nation. 

• The border is best secured at the border and forfeiting territory to the cartels 

is not acceptable. Moreover, when drugs and people reach public roads and 

stash houses, they become far more difficult to detect and interdict. 

92 

• Integration of effort among local, State, and Federal agencies is essential to success. 

• The timely collection, integration, production, and dissemination of multi-agency information and intelligence is required to support operations. 

• Integrated air, marine, and ground operations must be sustained around the 

clock. 

• Integrated cost-effective technologies and capabilities are needed to increase detection coverage and interdiction capacity. 

• Operations must achieve meaningful and measurable results that can document 

increased levels of border security zone-by-zone and county-by-county and sector-by-sector. 

• Operations should begin where the highest concentration of smuggling exists to 

maximize the impact on smuggling. 

Important to the State of Texas and the U.S. Border Patrol was the integration 

of detection capabilities and interdiction assets to maximize their effectiveness. The 

best approach that we have observed is multi-layered, redundant, and verticallystacked resources. When the cartels are able to move people and drugs onto the improved roadways or into stash houses, it is far more difficult to detect and interdict. 

The integration and overlapping of detection technologies and capabilities is a highly efficient means of increasing the level of security within an area. For the Rio 

Grande Valley Sector, it begins on the Rio Grande River and the around-the-clock 

deployment of DPS, Border Patrol, and Texas Game Warden tactical marine boats 

with ground-tracking and water-rescue capabilities. The Border Patrol ground sensors serve as the first ground layer, which is integrated with the Drawbridge motion-detection cameras by the Border Patrol Sensor Teams recently augmented with 

a Texas State Guard Team to assist Border Patrol. The Texas Military Forces have 

deployed Observation Post/Listening Posts (LP/OP) in direct support of detection operations along the Rio Grande River. Law enforcement tactical units serve as an 

added ground layer in hot spots and include the Border Patrol BORTAC, DPS Ranger Recon and SWAT Teams, and Texas Game Warden tactical personnel. Texas 

Military Forces provide UH–60 Black Hawks in support of the tactical teams. 

Border Patrol observation towers provide the next layer followed by the Border 

Patrol Aerostats with long-range video detection capability. The aerostats are important in providing sustained long-range detection coverage and Governor Abbott has 

repeatedly requested that the Federal Government increase the number of operational aerostats in the Rio Grande Valley Sector and places located in the Border 

Patrol Laredo Sector. Rotary aircraft serve as the next level and then the mid-altitude and high-altitude fixed-wing aircraft with long-range observation, FLIR and 

night vision capability. The last in the vertical stack are Federal drones when they 

are available for use. As additional technologies and capabilities are developed and/ 

or acquired, they can easily integrate into the stack. The coordinates for the Border 

Patrol sensors and the State’s detection cameras are placed into DPS aircraft optical 

systems, which enables the timely verification and tracking of smuggling events and 

serves as a good example of cross-agency technology integration to better support 

the Border Patrol agents and DPS officers on the ground. 

In addition to the fixed and rotary aircraft and substantial DPS and Texas Game 

Warden marine assets provided, the Governor and Legislature directed the DPS to 

deploy additional resources from around the State until more than 250 newly-funded officer positions were recruited, hired, trained, and deployed to the border region. 

Since June 23, 2014, DPS State troopers, special agents, and Texas Rangers from 

around the State have continuously deployed to the border to work 12- to 14-hour 

shifts for 7 days until relieved by the next wave. These selfless and dedicated men 

and women continue to work side-by-side with their Border Patrol and local and 

State partners until the last of the permanently assigned Troopers complete their 

Field Training Program and can begin conducting patrol operations on their own. 

The Texas Rangers have been instrumental in conducting and overseeing integrated 

tactical operations along the Rio Grande River; the oversight of the Drawbridge 

camera detection and monitoring program; and the conduct of major violent crime 

and public corruption investigations. DPS special agents conduct enterprise investigations working with their local and Federal partners and the State-funded Border 

Prosecution Unit to dismantle those gangs working directly with the Mexican cartels along the Texas/Mexico border such as the Texas Chicano Brotherhood operating predominantly in Starr County. 

A diagram of what the vertical stack currently looks like is on Page 1 of the attachment. 

93 

I am often asked if building a wall along the Texas/Mexico border will secure it. 

Certainly, a wall and/or strategic fencing will make it more difficult for the cartels 

and easier for law enforcement. However, it is important to note that the cartels 

are highly adaptable and creative. A wall without sufficient overlapping detection 

technology coverage on the ground and in the air, and a sufficient number of Border 

Patrol agents to respond quickly, becomes a very expensive obstacle but not a barrier. Moreover, in some locations along the border there are in effect natural walls 

that serve as obstacles to smugglers, which with sufficient detection technology and 

agents, could serve as a barrier. 

Dramatic increases in detection and interdiction capability at any location along 

the border increases the percentage of the drugs and people interdicted and the risk 

to the cartels. If sustained for a long period, the following consistently happens: 

• Decrease in the amount of drug smuggling between the Ports of Entry 

• Decrease in the amount of drugs being seized at the interior checkpoints 

• Decrease in overall amount of drugs smuggled into Texas 

• Increase in the amount of drug smuggling on the international bridges 

• Increase in drug seizures in adjoining locations outside the area of operation 

• Decrease in bailouts 

• Decrease in the overall amount of people being smuggled into Texas who are 

not detected 

• Decrease in smuggling deaths 

• Decrease in crime rate 

• Decrease in home invasions 

For example, the Border Patrol Leadership at the station and sector level in the 

Rio Grande Valley identified the busiest zone, within the busiest station, within the 

busiest county (Starr) in the busiest sector in the State and Nation. In direct support of the Border Patrol, local and State law enforcement agencies and Texas Military Forces worked together to dramatically increase the detection coverage and 

interdiction capacity on the water, in the air and on the ground zone-by-zone. The 

amount of drugs seized in Starr County between 2014 and 2016 decreased by 83.7 

percent; Hidalgo County by 65 percent; Jim Hogg County by 64 percent; Brooks 

County 63 percent; Kenedy County by 88 percent; and Zapata County 66 percent. 

The average amount of drugs seized at the Border Patrol Falfurrias Checkpoint 

from October 2012 to May 2014, was 11,474 pounds per month which decreased by 

85 percent to 1,715 pounds per month for the period of June 2014 to December 

2016. Similarly, at the Border Patrol Sarita Checkpoint for the same time period, 

2,503 pounds of drugs per month were seized, which decreased to 605 pounds per 

month or a 75.8 percent decrease. Bailouts decreased by 64 percent between 2014 

and 2016, and home invasions decreased by 58 percent for the same time. 


h:\seals\115224.eps
94 

According the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC)—which is operated by the Drug 

Enforcement Administration—local, State, and Federal drug seizures within 150 

miles of the Texas/Mexico Border decreased by 43.17 percent between 2014 and 

2016, illustrating the advantages of focusing limited resources in the busiest smuggling areas along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

Although the Index Crimes in the annual Uniform Crime Reporting system currently do not capture organized crime-related offenses (such as drug and human 

smuggling, kidnapping, and public corruption) the crimes that are reported decreased overall in the area of operation. For example, Index Crimes decreased by 

17.5 percent in Starr County between 2014 and 2015; 12.3 percent in Hidalgo County for the same time; 54 percent in Jim Hogg County; and 50 percent in Kenedy 

County. State-wide there was a 4.7 percent decrease of the Index Crime rate for the 

same time. Importantly, there was a 2.35 percent decrease in violent crimes in Starr 

County between 2014 and 2015; a 9.54 percent decrease in Hidalgo County; a 66.7 

percent decrease in Jim Hogg County; a 31.58 percent decrease in Brooks County; 

and a 50 percent decrease in Kenedy County. State-wide there was 3.6 percent increase in the Violent Crime Rate for the same period. As the U.S. Border Patrol 

has long known, when additional detection and interdiction resources are deployed 

to unsecured areas along the border, the level of security increases and the amount 

of organized criminal activity decreases—as evidenced above. (Border Control Physics, 101) Finally, I would like to conclude by publicly thanking Secretary Kelly for 

taking the time to observe first-hand on-going border security operations in the Rio 

Grande Valley with Governor Abbott. 


h:\seals\115225.eps
95 


h:\seals\115226.eps h:\seals\115227.eps

motion and 

captures Image. 

2. lmttse is stOf ed to 

c.amera in high 

resolution and low 

tesolutiM. 

3. t ow res Image Is 

uansmitted via cell 

phone. 

.. SeNe-r receives 

im"Ee· 

s. Software presents 

imageM 

10/PanvtOrd 

protected web pac.e. 

G. Web pttgei.s 

accessible on PCs, 

smart phone-s, 

tablets, etc. 
96 


h:\seals\115228.eps h:\seals\115229.eps

Illegal Allen Apprehensions (RGV Sector) Home Invasions (RGV Sector) 

"" ". '"" 

.,.. "" 

"" .:: 'J: 

.. 

-

--

--

. --- --- ~ 

. --.----------------- -

1: 

------- i: 

-· 

. 

. I Apps insid~ the OST NJ -

AP1>S OUtSide 'he 0$1 AO - . 

. -

!-

-

.. - Bailouts (RGV and CB Sectors) 

Operation Secure Texas 

Drug Seizures 

Webb County 

2014' 65.994.761b$ 201&:61,«1.231b!J 

" OIFF: -$.1% 

2014 vs 2016 

201 

--- •. t3.b/IU91t. 201e • .-,e-.. 

" DtFF: .... "" 

&took• County 2014: 52,36&-'0 IIMI 

201e; ·9.345 ro lb$ 

" DIFF: -e3. 1% 

Operation Secure Texas 

Mission Area 

- -
97 


h:\seals\115230.eps h:\seals\115231.eps

U.S. Border Patrol RGV Sector Checkpoints- Falfunias & Sarita 

October 2012- ~cember 2016 Drug Sei~ures 

........ 

........ I 

: ass Be{jino 

........ 

14 ...... 

....... 

Operation Secure Texas 

Rcrportfnc wu t~«tlvctd from tiM following co~des.: 

Atense~A &stOJ&,8M*'•· ke, 8t-)13(, 61'tW$ttr, 

8roob, Oamcron, C..11ne, Crodlctt.,.O...!brrson, Olrnm t, 

OwJ~I, Ectos, El P.aso, frio, Gillesp~. HidF-eo, H.-ds!X'Ib,. 

lriO.'I, Je-ff ~...-s. 11m Hote. Jim Well$, ~nd~!l. ket~ed'f. 

(err, kA!t':lle, kinr.ey,l<lrbers,.l:t S..tlt!, live Oak, 

M~verlc:(, MCM.JI!t"'l, Mt>d"'l.l, MM~ d. Mldl.t'ld., NJe<es. 

f'eco,, Pr~lcf.o, Ree\'es,. Rtbslo. S11n P41trlo:o, Sun-, 

Te~l~ TotnG"'tefl, UI)IO!\,IM'dt, ValVerde-, Wa•d, 

Webb. W!l!llc;v, ln)6er, ~~t;~,. 41nd bon• 

A percent change of -43.17% equates to a difference of $1,427,741,035.57 between 

2014 and 2016 

Year of Date 

2()1. 

2()16 

Soutee: Nqr.'o.no15eizute Systtnt Obro Provided by El Po so tnuiNgtl'ltt Ct!tltet 

Value of Drugs Seized 

National Seizure System 

Drug Values 

$3,306_884,933.88 

$1,879,143,898.31 

9li. Oiffet'ence 
98 


h:\seals\115232.eps h:\seals\115233.eps

Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR): 

Murder, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated 

Assault, Burglary, Larceny, Motor Vehicle 

Theft, Arson, and Sexual Assault 

2015 vs. 2014 

Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) 

Violent Crime Reporting: 

Murder, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault 

2015 vs. 2014 
99 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you, Steve. 

Chair recognizes Sheriff Martinez. 

STATEMENT OF JOE FRANK MARTINEZ, SHERIFF, VAL VERDE 

COUNTY, TEXAS 

Sheriff MARTINEZ. Distinguished Member of the House Homeland 

Security Committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you 

all today on issues that affect every citizen in my border county of 

Val Verde, the State of Texas, and the United States of America. 

I have spent 39 years as a career law enforcement professional. 

As immediate past chairman of the Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition 

and current chairman of the Southwest Border Sheriff’s Coalition, 

I have dedicated my law enforcement career to serving the citizens 

of the State of Texas right on the Texas-Mexico border, both at the 

State level and as a member of the Texas Department of Public 

Safety, the local police department of the city of Del Rio, and now 

as the current sheriff of Val Verde County. 

The Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition is comprised of 20 border 

sheriffs, all who are within 20 miles—25 miles of the Mexico border. They share approximately 1,254 miles of border with the Republic of Mexico. 

Val Verde County consists of 3,200 square miles and share approximately 110 miles of border with the Mexican State of 

Coahuila. 

The Southwestern Border Sheriff’s Coalition, which includes the 

State of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, combine for 

a total of 1,989 miles of border between the United States and the 

Republic of Mexico. Within the 1,900 miles of border from San 

Diego, California to Brownsville, Texas lie 31 counties. 


h:\seals\115234.eps
100 

The terrain throughout much of these areas varies from rural 

ranchlands, high desert, to desert-like valleys, and mountain 

ranges. Most of these lands are titled to private landowners. Some 

areas are National or State parks. So the need for each of these 

individual counties is unique in its own way. 

The Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition, founded in 2005—was 

founded in 2005 to provide a cooperative effort to effect a regional 

solution to a National problem. We all share common issues, but 

there is one issue—but there is no one issue more important than 

making sure that we secure our communities in which the people 

feel safe in their homes and surroundings. 

Sheriffs have a vested interested in the law enforcement, economic, social impact, health, and the overall quality of life of those 

that we serve. Sheriffs are unique in the understanding of the 

pulse of their communities and public that evaluates them during 

election time that determines whether they stay employed every 4 

years. 

The Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition was organized and represented by the chief law enforcement officer of each respective 

county. Texas sheriffs, empowered by the State constitution, are 

committed, from a National security perspective, to protect the 

lives and property and the rights of the people by maintaining 

order and security of the United States along the Republic of Mexico border and enforcing the laws impartially while providing police 

service in partnership with other law enforcement agencies and 

community partners. 

The consequences of an unsecure border are felt throughout the 

United States. Each border county sits at the gateway into our 

country and is a first line of defense in dealing with law enforcement, social, and economic issues for both legitimate and illegitimate trade and travel. 

The issue here is public safety. Immigration, though an important factor, is a separate but related issue whose responsibilities 

lies within the Federal Government agencies. These Federal agencies that we work with every day have had a difficult job in carrying out their duties due to administrative policy issues and 

changes and not laws that are on our books. 

Sheriffs only encounter immigration issues as a by-product of 

other criminal acts which are referred to the Federal Government 

further actions. Some of the problems we encounter most are drug 

smuggling; human smuggling; stolen vehicles; crimes against persons; crimes against property; the violent crimes such as murder, 

rape, sexual assault, dealing with transnational organizations; and 

the list goes on. 

As many of you know, the lower populations and property values 

most counties lack a sufficient tax base to support the multifaceted 

needs at the sheriff’s office. Each and every one of us our affected 

directly in one way or another by what happens on the border, and 

as such, border States and the Federal Government are a natural 

resource to support the needs of the border as it impacts public 

safety. 

A problem for most sheriffs is a shortfall of resources to address 

the problems identified here, which are not all-inclusive but are 

101 

prioritized as: Manpower, travel and training, equipment, direct operating expenses, and contract services. 

The sheriffs of the Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition offer a positive, effective, and less expensive approach to border security based 

on a partnership of action. The solution offered by the Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition is one of cooperation. Being at the table to 

discuss these issues that affect all of our communities on a daily 

basis, all Federal, State, and local law enforcement needs to work 

together as we move forward in finding the solution and securing 

our borders and our future. No one single form of government can 

go it alone. 

The plan for security in our—in the communities along the border with Mexico, as presented by the members of the Texas Border 

Sheriff’s Coalition, is to provide a regional solution to a National 

problem. The plan is based on partnership of action and not rhetoric. It is based on existing cooperative working agreements and 

the willingness to share lessons learned and put into place best 

practices. 

The plan is formulated by sheriffs who have ownership in the respective communities they serve and understand how local needs 

interrelate from a law enforcement, economic, social, health, and 

environmental perspective. The initiative, created by sheriffs, with 

respect to all Federal and State agencies and in support of the men 

and women who are working on the front lines each and every day. 

The difference is in the solutions that are based on the local community impact and not on policies enacted by people a thousand 

miles away. 

I want, once again, to thank Chairman McCaul, the entire committee, for this opportunity to address the needs of our border sheriffs. May God bless the United States of America and every law enforcement officer protecting the front lines. 

[The prepared statement of Sheriff Martinez follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOE FRANK MARTINEZ

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

INTRODUCTION

Chairman McCaul and distinguished Members of House Homeland Security Committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you today on issues that affect 

every citizen in my border county of Val Verde, the State of Texas, and the United 

States of America. 

I have spent 39 years as a career law enforcement professional. As immediate 

past chairman of Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition and current chairman of the 

Southwestern Border Sheriff’s Coalition, I have dedicated my law enforcement career to the serving the citizens of the State of Texas right on the Texas/Mexico border, both at the State level, as a member of the Texas Department of Public Safety 

and as a local police officer for the city of Del Rio and now as sheriff of Val Verde 

County. 

The Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition is comprised of 20 border sheriffs, all of 

whom are within 25 miles of the Mexican border. Texas shares approximately 1,254 

miles of border with the Republic of Mexico. Val Verde County Texas consists of 

3,200 square miles and shares approximately 110 miles of border with the State of 

Coahuila Mexico. 

The Southwestern Border Sheriff’s Coalition which includes the States of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas combine for a total of 1,989 miles of border 

between the United States and the Republic of Mexico. Within that 1,986 mile of 

border from San Diego California to Brownsville, Texas lie 31 counties. The terrain 

throughout much of these areas varies from rural ranch and farmlands, high desert 

102 

to desert-like valleys and mountain ranges. Most of these lands are titled to private 

landowners; some areas are National or State parks, so the needs of each of these 

counties are unique in their own way. 

The Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition was founded (2005) to provide a cooperative 

effort to affect a regional solution to a National problem. We all share common 

issues, but there is no one issue more important than making sure that we have 

secure communities in which the people feel safe in their homes and surroundings. 

Sheriffs have a vested interest in the law enforcement, economic, social impact, 

health, and the overall quality of life of those that they serve. Sheriffs are unique 

in understanding the pulse of their communities and a public that evaluates us during election time that determines whether we stay employed every 4 years. 

MISSION STATEMENT

Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition was organized on May 4, 2005, and is represented 

by the chief law enforcement officer of each respective county. Texas sheriffs, empowered by the State constitution, are committed, from a National security perspective, to protect lives, property, and the rights of the people by maintaining order 

and security in the United States along the Republic of Mexico border and enforcing 

the law impartially, while providing police service in partnership with other law enforcement agencies and community partners. 

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The consequences of an unsecure border are felt throughout the United States. 

Each border county sits at the gateway into our country and is the first line of defense in dealing with law enforcement, social, and economic issues for both legitimate and illegitimate trade and travel. 

The issue here is public safety. Immigration, though an important factor, is a separate but related issue whose responsibility lies within Federal Government agencies. These Federal agencies that we work with every day have had a difficult job 

in carrying out their duties due to administrative policy issues and changes and not 

laws that are on our books. Sheriffs only encounter immigration issues as a by-product of other criminal acts which are referred to the Federal Government for their 

action. 

Some of the problems we encounter most are drug smuggling, human smuggling, 

stolen vehicles, crimes against persons, crimes against property... and violent 

crimes such as murder, rape, sexual assault, dealing with transnational criminal organizations and the list goes on...

As many of you know, because of lower populations and property values, most border counties lack a sufficient tax base to support the multi-faceted needs of the sheriff’s office. Each and every one of us are affected directly, in one way or another, 

by what happens on the border, and as such border States and the Federal Government are a natural source to support the needs of the border as it impacts public 

safety. 

There is talk about a border wall or fence; in some areas this is a viable solution, 

but it is not the solution in and of itself. Manpower and technology play a major 

key role in securing our borders. 

The problem for most sheriffs is a shortfall of resources to address the problems 

identified here, which are not all-inclusive, but are prioritized as manpower, travel 

and training, equipment, direct operating expenses, and contract services. The sheriffs of the Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition offer a positive, efficient, and less expensive approach to border security based on a partnership of action. 

SOLUTION

The solution offered by the Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition’s is one of cooperation, 

being at the table to discuss these issue that affect our communities on a daily 

basis. ALL Federal, State, and Local law enforcement need to work together as we 

move forward in finding the solution in securing our borders and our future. No one 

single form of government can do it alone. 

SUMMARY

The plan for security in the communities along the border with Mexico as presented by the members of the Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition is to provide a regional solution for a National problem. 

The plan is based on a partnership of action and not rhetoric. It is based on existing cooperating working agreements and the willingness to share lessons learned 

and put into place best practices. 

103 

The plan is formulated by sheriffs who have ownership in their respective communities they serve and understand how local needs interrelate from a law enforcement, economic, social, health, and environmental perspective. 

The initiative is created by sheriffs with respect for all Federal and State agencies, and in support of their men and women who are working on the front lines 

each and every day. The difference is in a solution that is based on local community 

impact and not by policies enacted by people thousands of miles away. 

I want to once again thank Chairman McCaul and the entire committee for this 

opportunity to address the needs of our Border Sheriffs. May GOD Bless the United 

States of America and every law enforcement officer protecting our front lines. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you, Sheriff. We appreciate your work 

along the border with all the sheriffs. 

So, Sheriff Wilmot. 

STATEMENT OF LEON N. WILMOT, SHERIFF, YUMA COUNTY, 

ARIZONA 

Sheriff WILMOT. Good afternoon, Chairman McCaul, Ranking 

Member Thompson, and Members of the committee. Thank you for 

the invitation to speak to you today on this very important subject. 

For a geographical perspective, Yuma County is at the southwest 

border of the States of Arizona and California, and we cover the 

border of Mexico. We have roughly 110.5 miles of international 

boundary that we share with the State of Mexico. 

For historical perspective, back in 2005 the Yuma Sector Border 

Patrol tallied 272,300-plus illegal entries. The adverse effects of the 

drug and humans trafficking organizations operating in Yuma 

County not only significantly diminished the quality of life of country residents but also placed unbearable strain upon the budgets 

and resources of private and government agencies in Yuma County. 

The community, unfortunately, experienced a significant spike in 

ancillary crime, such as rapes, robberies, homicides, thefts of property, burglaries, home invasions, tractor and vehicle thefts, highspeed pursuits, assaults on law enforcement officers, military incursions by the Mexican army, as well as ransom groups holding 

those that they smuggled across the border for additional moneys. 

Mexican drug-trafficking organizations operating along our U.S. 

international boundary were explained eloquently by Sheriff Mark 

Dannels of Cochise County when he testified in his own words: 

They are highly sophisticated and innovative in their transportation methods. Aside from our normal use of human backpackers, 

which we refer to as mules, clandestine tunnels and vehicles, the 

trafficking organizations have resorted to the use of ultralight aircraft and GPS-controlled drones, which cannot be detected with 

normal radar. They are even utilizing cloned vehicles of our law enforcement and other legitimate companies. Most recently they are 

still utilizing catapults, T-shirt launchers, as well as—to get their 

bundles of marijuana into the United States awaiting their co-conspirators. 

I have witnessed the escalation of violence by these careless assailants on our citizens, but I have also seen the successes that can 

be accomplished through coordinated law enforcement response 

with local, State, and Federal partners working in concert and cooperation with the prosecutorial agencies, as witnessed first-hand 

in Yuma County. By fiscal year 2008 the number of illegal entries 

totaled just 15,900, in comparison to the 270-some odd thousands 

in 2005, 2006. That is a decline of 91-plus percent. 

104 

This turnaround can be attributed to four critical developments: 

Significant upgrades in tactical infrastructure—anything from your 

fencing, to the vehicle barriers, to camera systems and surveillance 

equipment and upgrades; border security increased manpower for 

the United States Border Patrol; the implementation of Operation 

Streamline, which was a program designed for 100-percent prosecution of illegal entrants caught involved in criminal activity; and Operation Stonegarden, which to us, as sheriffs and local law enforcement, has been one of the most major successes of any Federal 

grant program that we have ever witnessed before. 

With this we were able to have a force-multiplier along the border area that otherwise could not be done within agency budgets. 

Operation Stonegarden assists agencies with overtime and equipment that we need. 

I will tell you that the following comprehensive recommendations 

are directly linked to our Federal leaders: A need to redefine the 

plan of the 1990’s and build upon those successes. Have to have the 

political will to make border security a mandated program. Border 

security first, immigration reform second. 

Support and embrace the first-line agents that work the border 

regions and our Federal partners. They have a dangerous job and 

it is no secret that their frustration is high based on the unknown 

complexities referenced their assignments every day. They have 

great ideas to share, and it was refreshing to see the general 

speaking about the fact that he would go to each geographic location and sit down with those areas, talk with State, local, and Federal law enforcement officers, see what was best for that geographic area. 

Continued funding and support for Operation Stonegarden program; that is vital to our success. But we need to remove that funding from FEMA. Just by their very name they are cumbersome to 

law enforcement and being able to do our reporting and requesting 

those grants. Move that funding back into the Department of 

Homeland Security, where they know what is best for our mission 

as we partner and work alongside our Federal partners. 

Restore full reimbursement of SCAAP, State Criminal Alien Apprehension Program. It has been devastating to our budgets every 

year. I will tell you, last year $30 million is what the sheriffs of 

Arizona had to swallow because we only got reimbursed 5 cents on 

the dollar for housing illegal, criminal aliens that had committed 

crimes in our counties. 

In summary, our efforts and teamwork philosophy with our local, 

State, and Federal law enforcement partners has proven to be beneficial in bringing overdue solutions to our unsecure border. Unfortunately, border security has become a discretionary program for 

those Federally-elected leaders and policymakers that have been 

entrusted to protect our freedom and liberties. 

One would hope that the priority of securing our border doesn’t 

become just about a price tag, but rather the legal and moral requirement to safeguard all of America. Today’s opportunity to address this committee instills fresh hope that the—our voice does 

matter. 

[The prepared statement of Sheriff Wilmot follows:] 

105 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEON N. WILMOT

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

INTRODUCTION

Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of this committee, 

thank you for the invitation to speak to you today on this very important subject. 

HISTORY OF YUMA COUNTY

Yuma County is located in southwest Arizona. It is bordered on the west by California, on the south by Mexico, on the east by both Maricopa and Pima Counties, 

and on the north and northwest by La Paz County. The lowest point in the State 

of Arizona is located on the Colorado River in San Luis in Yuma County, where it 

flows out of Arizona and into Sonora, Mexico. Yuma County has a year-round population of approximately 200,000 residents. During the winter, the population increases by about 90,000 due to an influx of winter visitors and seasonal agricultural 

workers. Agriculture, tourism, and two military bases—the U.S. Marine Corp Air 

Station (MCAS) and the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground (YPG)—are Yuma County’s principal industries. Yuma County also contains portions of two Tribal Reservations, the Cocopah and Quechan Nations. 

Agriculture in Yuma is one of the Primary industries: 

• $1.5 billion (aggregate) • 90 percent of North American winter vegetables • 200,000 acres under cultivation • $134,000,000 livestock industry • Roughly 50,000 farm workers employed per year • 7 irrigation districts 

For geographical perspective, Yuma County shares 110.5 miles of international 

boundary with Mexico. 

In fiscal year 2005, Yuma Sector Border Patrol tallied 272,319 illegal entries. The 

adverse affects of the drug and human trafficking organizations operating in Yuma 

County not only significantly diminished the quality of life of county residents, but 

also placed unbearable strain upon the budgets and resources of private and Government agencies in the county. 

Yuma County became the worst in the Nation for illegal entries and with that, 

the community unfortunately experienced a significant spike in ancillary crimes 

such as rapes, robberies, homicides, thefts of property, burglaries, home invasions, 

tractor and vehicle thefts, high-speed pursuits, assaults on law enforcement officers, 

military incursions by the Mexican Army, as well as ransom groups holding those 

they smuggled across the border for additional monies. 

In the southeastern portion of our county, the out-of-control border has also affected our own military with frequent interruptions of military training on the 

Barry M. Goldwater range. Scheduled training in those areas, such as the Weapons 

and Tactics Instructor (WTI) Course, has frequently had to shut down due to smugglers using the remote areas of the bombing range to smuggle both human and narcotic cargo. 

The Mexican drug trafficking organizations operating along our U.S. International 

Boundary were explained eloquently by Sheriff Mark Dannels of Cochise County 

when he testified in his own words: ‘‘they are highly sophisticated and innovative 

in their transportation methods. Aside from the normal use of human backpackers 

(mules), clandestine tunnels, and vehicles, the trafficking organizations have resorted to the use of ultra light aircraft and GPS controlled drones which cannot be 

detected by normal radar, cloned vehicles appearing to be law enforcement or other 

legitimate companies, and most recently the use of catapults which hurl bundles of 

marijuana into the United States to awaiting co-conspirators. The organizations utilize sophisticated and technical communications and counter surveillance equipment 

to counter law enforcements interdiction tactics and strategies. Scouts or observers 

are strategically placed along smuggling routes to perform counter surveillance on 

law enforcement and report their observations to those controlling the drug/human 

smuggling operation so they may avoid and elude law enforcement. The use of cell 

phones and sophisticated two-way radio encryptions for communications are standard equipment, as are night vision and forward looking infra-red devices.’’ 

ACTION-BASED SOLUTIONS LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Local solutions and programs are no longer a thought, but a reality for bringing 

relief to our citizens who consciously choose to live near our International Boundaries. 

106 

Local law enforcement is best suited to understand their geographic 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 Yuma County, and as all Arizona sheriffs clearly feel, it is our 

statutory duty (oath of office to support the United States Constitution and the Constitution and Laws of the State of Arizona) to protect and secure the freedoms and 

liberties of our citizens, with or without the help of our Federal law enforcement 

partners/policy makers. 

No longer are the border problems and issues we face restricted to the international border communities, but in fact, these problems and issues have now 

spread all across the United States and impacted agencies and budgets in every 

state of our Nation. 

Having the true-life experience of living and working as a deputy sheriff, and now 

sheriff, in Yuma County since 1985, border security has been a continuous educational lesson. Not only have I witnessed the escalation of violence by these careless assailants on our citizens, but I have also seen the successes that can be accomplished through a coordinated law enforcement response with local, State, and Federal partners working in concert and cooperation with the prosecutorial agencies. As 

witnessed first-hand in Yuma County by fiscal year 2008, the number of illegal entries totaled just 15,979—a decline of 91.9% from fiscal year 2005. 

This turnaround can be attributed to four critical developments: 

• Significant upgrades in tactical infrastructure. Fencing, Normandy (vehicle) 

barriers, cameras, and surveillance equipment and upgrades. 

• Increased manpower for United States Border Patrol. 

• The implementation of Operation Streamline, a program designed for 100% 

prosecution of illegal entrants caught involved in criminal activity. 

• Operation Stonegarden helped with creating partnerships with local law enforcement and as a force multiplier along the border area that otherwise could 

not be done within agency budgets. Operation Stonegarden assists agencies 

with overtime and equipment purchases. 

Our successes were based upon: 

• Frequent communication with all local, State, and Federal agencies. 

• Face-to-face contact with local, State, and Federal officials. 

• Common goals that address real issues. 

• Working on these issues at the local level. 

• Consequence delivery and prosecution. 

PROBLEMATIC ISSUES—WHAT CHANGED?

Yuma County had the worst record in the United States for illegal entries by undocumented immigrants and as a result, our community suffered numerous ancillary crimes. Several Federal programs, such as the Secure Communities Program 

and Operation Streamline, were put into place and had a significant positive impact 

on curtailing the criminal activity in our county. The concept of these programs was 

that if they were successful (which they were), they would be expanded all along 

the international boundary. However, changes and restrictions to these programs 

made by our prior Federal administration placed a significant burden on local governments not only to bear the costs associated with the apprehension, prosecution, 

and incarceration of criminal illegal aliens, but to also ensure that this criminal element was not released back into society to continue to prey on our citizens. Furthermore, State and local resources which have become necessary to address the criminal activity by illegal aliens and its effects on our communities, have also been burdened to the point of exhaustion and aggravation. How does all this translate in actual dollars? 

SCAAP

The intent of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) was to fully 

reimburse States for the cost of housing criminal aliens in State, county, and city 

prisons, and jails. 

Funding has never fully covered State costs. Arizona, California, New Mexico, 

Texas, and Florida incarcerate nearly 60 percent of the criminal alien population 

Nation-wide but are reimbursed for less than 15% of the cost to house these inmates. 

SCAAP was funded 

For fiscal year 2016, Yuma County received $72,570 in SCAAP funds while inmate costs exceeded $1,076,078; a reimbursement of only 6.7% of the costs. Arizona 

sheriffs as a whole had to absorb $29 million in unanticipated costs due to lack of 

107 

reimbursement, which also does not cover any medical costs for those inmates with 

significant medical issues, i.e., dialysis, surgeries, etc. (See attachment). 

OPERATION STREAMLINE/‘‘SMART ON CRIME’’ INITIATIVE

Federal law mandates border security. However, an order issued by the previous 

Attorney General reduced Federal prosecutions under Operation Streamline and 

called it the ‘‘Smart on Crime’’ Initiative, which in essence reduced the Federal Government’s enforcement of our Nation’s laws regarding border security and the prosecution of undocumented aliens committing crimes against our citizens, our States 

and our Nation. The USAG’s lack of prosecuting this criminal element has left a 

significant burden on local governments not only to bear the costs associated with 

the apprehension, prosecution, and incarceration of this criminal element, but to 

also ensure that this criminal element was not released back into society to continue 

to prey on our citizens. 

Working with limited budgets and staffing, border sheriffs struggle to find ways 

to maintain the quality of life and safety for those they serve and to deter those 

who cross our borders to promote their criminal activities. Unfortunately, without 

aggressive prosecution by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of all those committing criminal 

acts as a result of breaching our border, the American people will continue to see 

a border that is an open opportunity for this criminal element to exploit. 

As a result of this change of policy and due to the failure of the USAG’s Office 

to prosecute undocumented aliens who committed crimes in Yuma County as of October 2014, I submitted a bill to AG Loretta Lynch for services provided by my agency (see attached) which as of this date is over $1.8 million. As of today’s date, I am 

still waiting for reimbursement or even a response. 

BACKPACKERS COST TO YUMA COUNTY

From October 2014 through December 2016, the Yuma County Detention Center 

housed a total of 241 inmates (illegal aliens) on drug transport and identity theft 

charges after they were detained by Federal agents and the USAG’s office deferred 

prosecution, and they in turn were transferred to a local agency. The total jail bed 

days for these inmates were 23,684 jail days with an average length of stay of 98 

jail days. The cost to house these prisoners for Yuma County was approximately 

$1,855,000.00. This does not cover the court costs, cost of prosecution, major medical 

expenses, or the public defender’s cost. 

PEP—PRIORITY ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM/SECURE COMMUNITIES

In 2015, the Federal administration announced their ‘‘Priority Enforcement Program’’ as a replacement for the ‘‘ineffective’’ Secure Communities Program. According to Director Jeh Johnson, the goal of this new program was ‘‘ . . . to better focus 

our immigration enforcement resources on convicted criminals over undocumented 

immigrants who have been here for years, have committed no serious crimes, and, 

have, in effect, become peaceful and integrated members of the community.’’ 

The Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) that the previous Federal administration touted as ‘‘a new way to protect our citizens from the worst of the worst’’ seems 

more like a complete failure when you look at the numbers. 

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released 36,007 convicted 

criminal aliens in 2015 who were awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings, 

according to a report issued by the Center for Immigration Studies. The group of 

released criminals includes those convicted of homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping 

and aggravated assault, according to the report, which cites a document prepared 

by the ICE. 

A majority of the releases were not required by law and were discretionary, the 

organization says. According to the report, the 36,007 individuals released represented nearly 88,000 convictions, including: 

(1) 193 Homicide convictions 

(2) 1,160 Stolen Vehicle convictions 

(3) 426 Sexual Assault convictions 

(4) 9,187 Dangerous Drug convictions 

(5) 303 Kidnapping convictions 

(6) 16,070 Alcohol/Drugged Driving convictions 

(7) 1,075 Aggravated Assault convictions 

(8) 303 Flight Escape convictions 

(9) Resettled nearly 13,000 Syrian refugees in the United States this past fiscal 

year. 

(10) 38,901 Muslim refugees entered the United States in fiscal year 2016, making up almost half (46%) of the nearly 85,000 refugees who entered the country 

108 

in that period, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the 

State Department’s Refugee Processing Center. 

(11) Syria (12,486) and Somalia (9,012) were the source of more than half of fiscal 2016’s Muslim refugees. The rest are from Iraq 7,853), Burma (Myanmar) 

(3,145), Afghanistan (2,664), and other countries (3,741). 

PRIME EXAMPLE OF RELEASING THE WORST OF THE WORST INTO ARIZONA SOCIETY

Musa Salah Abdelaziz Abdalla 

• Abdalla had multiple arrests for assault in Randall County, Texas. 

• Abdalla was arrested for aggravated assault in Maricopa County in September 

2007. He accepted a plea agreement which stipulated 5 years probation and 

dropped a second aggravated assault in the City of Phoenix (Phoenix Police Department Report Number 200771553320). 

• Abdalla violated probation three times and was finally sentenced to the Arizona 

Department of Corrections (DOC) for 13 months starting June 2014. Abdalla 

had an ICE detainer on him. 

• Abdalla was released from DOC on July 21, 2015—the same day that ICE releases any holds. 

Dennis Valerievitch Tsoukanov—Russia 

• On December 15, 2001, Tsoukanov was involved in a scheme to rip off a delivery of Human Growth Hormones worth $1,000,000.00. Tsoukanov and two Russian accomplices kidnapped a police informant and took him to the Fossil Creek 

area near Camp Verde where they beat, stabbed, and then poured gasoline on 

him and set him on fire while he was still alive. The three Russian suspects 

were arrested; however, Tsoukanov’s two accomplices made bail and fled. Both 

suspects were caught later on. One was caught in Canada after America’s Most 

Wanted profiled him (news articles enclosed). 

• Tsoukanov turned State’s evidence against the two co-defendants and was 

spared a life sentence. He was sentenced to 13 years in DOC for kidnapping 

and second-degree murder; his co-defendants both received life sentences without parole. 

• Tsoukanov was released from DOC on December 21, 2014. There was an ICE 

Detainer on him at the time of his release. 

• Tsoukanov was released from ICE on July 16, 2015. 

• Tsoukanov is a Russian citizen born in Estonia. Whose country refused to take 

him back. 

Nasser Hanna Hermez—Iraq 

• Hermez was arrested in April 2009 and charged with second-degree murder of 

his 7-week-old daughter (victim report enclosed). After a lengthy court process, 

he finally took a plea agreement on April 4, 2011 for negligent homicide per domestic violence and endangerment per domestic violence. He received 6 months 

in jail and 3 years of probation (Court case activity information enclosed). 

• Hermez was arrested and indicted in April 2015 for third-degree burglary—a 

class 4 felony. He accepted a plea and on July 30, 2015, he was sentenced to 

2 years probation (Court case activity information enclosed). 

• Hermez was released from ICE on July 31, 2015. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The Federal Government (elected and policy makers) has been slow to react to the 

voices and concerns of those living on the Southwest Border. Counties along the border have become VIP attractions, venues for those seeking to make a difference or 

promising change only to become another faded high-hope. The following comprehensive recommendations are directly linked to our Federal leaders: 

• Re-define the plan of the ’90s and build upon successes. 

• Political will to make Border Security a mandated program. 

• Border security first; immigration reform second. 

• Maximize allocated resources such as staffing on the actual border. 

• Support and embrace first-line agents that work the border regions. They have 

a dangerous job and it’s no secret that their frustration is high based on the 

unknown complexities reference their assignments. They have great ideas to 

share. 

• Quality of life/citizens living on border supported by sheriffs need to be involved 

from the very beginning regarding implementing improved security/safety. 

• Funding supplement for local law enforcement, prosecution, detention, and 

criminal justice in support of border crimes. 

109 

• Continued funding and support for Operation StoneGarden program. Remove 

funding from FEMA; move this funding to DHS. 

• Enhanced funding for Regional Communication and Interoperability with local 

law enforcement. 

• Restore full reimbursement of SCAAP funding to non-sanctuary cities and counties. 

• estore Operation Streamline. 

• Restore Safe Communities. 

• Restore/lift restrictions on 1033 Program for law enforcement agencies to screen 

military surplus property for law enforcement purposes. 

• Assign a district judge to the new Federal court house in Yuma County. Right 

now there is only a Federal magistrate to conduct initial appearance duties. Officers and attorneys continue to have to travel to Phoenix on every case they 

have, tying up resources and manpower by having to travel to court 3 hours 

away. 

• Enhance U.S. Customs ‘‘ICE’’ by providing adequate holding facilities and manpower so that USBP agents are not tied up performing this function in their 

holding facilities that are not equipped to handle that function. 

SUMMARY

Our efforts and team work philosophy with our local, State, and Federal law enforcement partners has proven to be beneficial in bringing overdue solutions to an 

unsecure border. 

Unfortunately, border security has become a discretionary program for those Federally-elected leaders and policy makers that have been entrusted to protect our 

freedoms and liberties. As a sheriff elected by the good people of my county, my biggest fear—which is shared with all sheriffs—is the loss of life to one of our citizens 

and/or law enforcement officers/agents that would be attributed to a border that is 

NOT secure. We have seen it happen on more than one occasion. 

One would hope the priority of securing our border doesn’t become just about a 

price tag and/or political posturing, but rather the legal and moral requirement to 

safeguard all of America, which so many heroic Americans have already paid the 

ultimate price for. 

Today’s opportunity to address this committee instills fresh hope that our voice 

does matter and on behalf of the citizens of Yuma County, Arizona and beyond, we 

hope that you will carry out your Constitutional mandate to bring positive change 

to an overdue vulnerable situation. 

As always, you have an open invitation to visit Yuma County, along with a personal guided tour, and visit with our citizens to see/hear first-hand America’s true 

rural border; even when its 115 degrees outside. 

Again, thank you very much for the opportunity to share this information with 

you. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

ATTACHMENT 1 

SCAAP 

2009 

Requested Received Deficit 

Apache County .................... $59,394.00 $8,875.00 $50,519.00 

Cochise County ................... 480,173.96 664,261.00 184,087.04 

Coconino County ................. 314,100.00 64,977.00 249,123.00 

Gila County ......................... 108,058.14 19,403.00 88,655.14 

Graham County .................. 41,415.00 5,737.00 35,678.00 

Greenlee County ................. 4,650.00 1,402.00 3,248.00 

La Paz County ..................... ............................ ............................ ............................

Maricopa County ................. 49,607,648.00 4,006,872.00 45,600,776.00 

Mohave County ................... 312,808.16 24,135.00 288,673.16 

Navajo County ..................... 894,187.11 50,457.00 843,730.11 

Pima County ........................ 8,014,395.00 832,379.00 7,182,016.00 

Pinal County ....................... 1,176,279.72 215,025.00 961,254.72 

Santa Cruz County ............. 507,130.00 49,657.00 457,473.00 

Yavapai County ................... 1,671,956.00 239,719.00 1,432,237.00 

Yuma County ...................... 1,724,811.78 162,766.00 1,562,045.78 

110 

SCAAP—Continued 

2009 

Requested Received Deficit 

TOTALS .................... $64,917,006.87 $6,345,665.00 $58,571,341.87 

SCAAP 

2010 

Requested Received Deficit 

Apache County .................... $191,805.00 $15,594.00 $176,211.00 

Cochise County ................... 791,271.71 468,199.00 323,072.71 

Coconino County ................. 230,100.00 27,671.00 202,429.00 

Gila County ......................... 220,705.20 37,408.00 183,297.20 

Graham County .................. 157,850.00 16,721.00 141,129.00 

Greenlee County ................. 1,050.00 314.00 736.00 

La Paz County ..................... ............................ ............................ ............................

Maricopa County ................. 47,016,440.70 2,819,911.00 44,196,529.70 

Mohave County ................... 402,372.32 29,769.00 372,603.32 

Navajo County ..................... 825,161.42 47,844.00 777,317.42 

Pima County ........................ 7,786,850.00 709,628.00 7,077,222.00 

Pinal County ....................... 831,441.24 107,290.00 724,151.24 

Santa Cruz County ............. 559,780.00 103,383.00 456,397.00 

Yavapai County ................... 1,261,393.00 178,483.00 1,082,910.00 

Yuma County ...................... 1,356,300.42 133,551.00 1,222,749.42 

TOTALS .................... $61,632,521.01 $4,695,766.00 $56,936,755.01 

SCAAP 

2011 

Requested Received Deficit 

Apache County .................... $154,185.00 $11,619.00 $142,566.00 

Cochise County ................... 878,255.26 70,214.00 808,041.26 

Coconino County ................. 191,250.00 17,185.00 174,065.00 

Gila County ......................... 60,475.41 10,012.00 50,463.41 

Graham County .................. 132,495.00 9,909.00 122,586.00 

Greenlee County ................. 6,650.00 1,759.00 4,891.00 

La Paz County ..................... ............................ ............................ ............................

Maricopa County ................. 39,744,804.85 2,241,068.00 37,503,736.85 

Mohave County ................... 296,947.84 20,515.00 276,432.84 

Navajo County ..................... 676,438.08 38,299.00 638,139.08 

Pima County ........................ 5,417,730.00 429,695.00 4,988,035.00 

Pinal County ....................... 898,178.40 115,075.00 783,103.40 

Santa Cruz County ............. 397,475.00 61,261.00 336,214.00 

Yavapai County ................... 1,116,270.00 118,583.00 997,687.00 

Yuma County ...................... 1,183,717.40 93,406.00 1,090,311.40 

TOTALS .................... $51,154,872.24 $3,238,600.00 $47,916,272.24 

SCAAP 

2012 

Requested Received Deficit 

Apache County .................... $59,565.00 $4,883.00 $54,682.00 

Cochise County ................... ............................ ............................ ............................

Coconino County ................. 99,825.00 6,936.00 92,889.00 

Gila County ......................... 69,598.62 9,700.00 59,898.62 

111 

SCAAP—Continued 

2012 

Requested Received Deficit 

Graham County .................. 62,755.00 3,458.00 59,297.00 

Greenlee County ................. ............................ ............................ ............................

La Paz County ..................... ............................ ............................ ............................

Maricopa County ................. 26,997,649.55 1,281,403.00 25,716,246.55 

Mohave County ................... 163,268.00 10,077.00 153,191.00 

Navajo County ..................... 410,254.77 16,230.00 394,024.77 

Pima County ........................ 3,830,950.00 247,571.00 3,583,379.00 

Pinal County ....................... 905,514.12 104,266.00 801,248.12 

Santa Cruz County ............. 271,895.00 40,000.00 231,895.00 

Yavapai County ................... 537,279.00 41,853.00 495,426.00 

Yuma County ...................... 1,314,780.22 84,202.00 1,230,578.22 

TOTALS .................... $34,723,334.28 $1,850,579.00 $32,872,755.28 

SCAAP 

2013 

Requested Received Deficit 

Apache County .................... $84,873.00 $6,820.00 $78,053.00 

Cochise County ................... 443,832.79 31,423.00 412,409.79 

Coconino County ................. 132,300.00 9,008.00 123,292.00 

Gila County ......................... 78,284.79 9,649.00 68,635.79 

Graham County .................. 58,630.00 3,800.00 54,830.00 

Greenlee County ................. ............................ ............................ ............................

La Paz County ..................... ............................ ............................ ............................

Maricopa County ................. 24,116,693.25 1,127,899.00 22,988,794.25 

Mohave County ................... 175,729.68 11,226.00 164,503.68 

Navajo County ..................... 395,957.08 17,375.00 378,582.08 

Pima County ........................ 5,210,330.00 310,851.00 4,899,479.00 

Pinal County ....................... 779,196.60 99,032.00 680,164.60 

Santa Cruz County ............. 278,525.00 16,426.00 262,099.00 

Yavapai County ................... 679,558.00 51,113.00 628,445.00 

Yuma County ...................... 991,706.06 73,752.00 917,954.06 

TOTALS .................... $33,425,616.25 $1,768,374.00 $31,657,242.25 

SCAAP 

2014 

Requested Received Deficit 

Apache County .................... $94,278.00 $4,959.00 $89,319.00 

Cochise County ................... 282,990.61 18,759.00 264,231.61 

Coconino County ................. 252,450.00 14,321.00 238,129.00 

Gila County ......................... 26,222.40 2,661.00 23,561.40 

Graham County .................. 51,480.00 3,586.00 47,894.00 

Greenlee County ................. 11,350.00 2,336.00 9,014.00 

La Paz County ..................... ............................ ............................ ............................

Maricopa County ................. 25,435,133.05 832,073.00 24,603,060.05 

Mohave County ................... 161,335.44 7,306.00 154,029.44 

Navajo County ..................... 269,193.35 12,248.00 256,945.35 

Pima County ........................ 4,752,265.00 227,337.00 4,524,928.00 

Pinal County ....................... 534,374.40 50,354.00 484,020.40 

Santa Cruz County ............. 427,505.00 27,690.00 399,815.00 

Yavapai County ................... 524,086.00 28,901.00 495,185.00 

Yuma County ...................... 965,618.84 57,747.00 907,871.84 

TOTALS .................... $33,788,282.09 $1,290,278.00 $32,498,004.09 

112 

SCAAP 

2015 

Requested Received Deficit 

Apache County .................... $53,979.00 $4,861.00 $49,118.00 

Cochise County ................... 801,734.50 48,445.00 753,289.50 

Coconino County ................. 155,025.00 9,675.00 145,350.00 

Gila County ......................... 72,767.16 6,093.00 66,674.16 

Graham County .................. 9,460.00 613.00 8,847.00 

Greenlee County ................. 29,950.00 6,800.00 23,150.00 

La Paz County ..................... ............................ ............................ ............................

Maricopa County ................. 21,772,509.25 792,124.00 20,980,385.25 

Mohave County ................... ............................ ............................ ............................

Navajo County ..................... 156,180.03 7,143.00 149,037.03 

Pima County ........................ 4,394,585.00 203,949.00 4,190,636.00 

Pinal County ....................... 707,211.12 64,543.00 642,668.12 

Santa Cruz County ............. 358,930.00 33,204.00 325,726.00 

Yavapai County ................... 601,111.00 37,707.00 563,404.00 

Yuma County ...................... 1,071,221.16 65,516.00 1,005,705.16 

TOTALS .................... $30,184,663.22 $1,280,673.00 $28,903,990.22 

SCAAP 

2016 

Requested Received Deficit 

Apache County .................... $78,432.00 $10,057.00 $68,375.00 

Cochise County ................... 722,737.34 52,083.00 670,654.34 

Coconino County ................. 62,625.00 4,578.00 58,047.00 

Gila County ......................... 84,785.76 9,308.00 75,477.76 

Graham County .................. 25,300.00 1,687.00 23,613.00 

Greenlee County ................. 25,250.00 6,128.00 19,122.00 

La Paz County ..................... ............................ ............................ ............................

Maricopa County ................. 17,734,766.90 737,649.00 16,997,117.90 

Mohave County ................... 48,580.56 2,783.00 45,797.56 

Navajo County ..................... 160,010.99 6,870.00 153,140.99 

Pima County ........................ 3,676,250.00 213,593.00 3,462,657.00 

Pinal County ....................... 344,361.36 45,188.00 299,173.36 

Santa Cruz County ............. 418,080.00 38,003.00 380,077.00 

Yavapai County ................... 702,073.00 49,576.00 652,497.00 

Yuma County ...................... 1,076,078.24 72,570.00 1,003,508.24 

TOTALS .................... $25,159,331.15 $1,250,073.00 $23,909,258.15 

ATTACHMENT 2 

May 18, 2015. 

The Honorable LORETTA E. LYNCH, 

Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530. 

RE: Operation Streamline and Smart on Crime Initiative 

Dear Attorney General Lynch: I would like to take this opportunity to introduce 

myself. My name is Leon Wilmot and I am the Sheriff of Yuma County in Arizona. 

As Sheriff of Yuma County, my primary duties are to serve and protect the citizens 

of my community, and to enforce the Constitution and the laws of the state of Arizona and our nation, As Sheriff, I follow the ‘‘Rule of Law’’ in my service to my community and my country, and expect the same from our federal administration, I 

firmly believe that the existing laws of our great nation should be fully enforced and 

that there should be no efforts to circumvent these laws. I also believe that it is 

the duty and responsibility of our federal government to ensure the safety and security of our nation. As such, the southern, northern and maritime borders should be 

effectively and efficiently secured. 

113 

With that being said, it’s no secret that the sheriffs serving in counties along the 

U.S./Mexico border are in the epicenter of the border crisis. As a member of the 

Southwestern Border Sheriffs’ Coalition, I can assure you that every border sheriff 

is dealing with the negative impacts resulting from the smuggling of contraband 

and illegal d rugs; the exploitation of human beings; and the infiltration of criminals 

and subversives determined to cause harm to our counties, states and country. The 

quality of life normally enjoyed by our citizens is being jeopardized by an unsecure 

border that enables transnational criminals and their accomplices to prey on our 

citizens. 

Federal law mandates border security. However, due to an order issued by your 

predecessor reducing prosecutions under Operation Streamline and his ‘‘Smart on 

Crime’’ initiative, he in essence reduced the federal governments enforcement of our 

nation’s laws regarding border security and the prosecution of undocumented aliens 

(UDAs) committing crimes against our citizens, our states and our nation. The 

USAG’s lack of prosecuting this criminal element has left a significant burden on 

local governments not only to bear the costs associated with the apprehension, prosecution, and incarceration of this criminal element, but to also insure that this 

criminal element is not released back into society to continue to prey on our citizens. 

Working with limited budgets and staffing, border sheriffs struggle to find ways to 

enhance the quality of life and safety for those they serve and to deter those who 

cross our borders to promote their criminal activities. Unfortunately, without aggressive prosecution by your office of all those committing criminal acts as a result 

of breaching our border, the American people will continue to sec a border that is 

an open opportunity for this criminal element to exploit. 

Your predecessor’s orders to U.S. Attorneys concerning Operation Streamline 

Prosecution Guidance, along with his Smart on Crime Initiative, only confirmed his 

lack of willingness to do his job. As a result of his policies, during fiscal year 2014, 

Arizona Sheriffs incurred over 30 million dollars in costs to house UDAs in our 

state. Of this total, the federal government only reimbursed Arizona Sheriffs approximately 1.5 million dollars. Yuma County alone requested reimbursement for 

over $965,000.00; however, we only received approximately $57,000.00. 

Due to the failure of the USAG’s Office to prosecute UDAs who committed crimes 

in Yuma County as of October 2014, I have enclosed a bill and am requesting reimbursement of the costs incurred by Yuma County for housing these criminals who 

otherwise would have been released into society with no repercussions for the 

crimes they committed. This amount does not include the costs for medical expenses 

or the costs to the courts for their time or the costs to the Office of the Public Defender. Please remit payment at your earliest convenience. 

In closing, I would ask that you reconsider the directives from your office in regards to Operation Streamline and the Smart on Crime Initiative. I would like to 

thank you for your time and consideration of my request. If you have any questions 

or need further information, please feel free to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

LEON N, WILMOT, 

Sheriff, Yuma County. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you, Sheriff. I agree on all accounts. 

Judge Trevino. 

STATEMENT OF EDDIE TREVINO, JR., COUNTY JUDGE, 

CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS 

Judge TREVINO. Good afternoon, Chairman McCaul, Ranking 

Member Thompson, Congressman Vela, and distinguished Members of the committee. 

I want to thank Secretary Kelly for his distinguished service to 

our country and for his recent visit to South Texas and the border 

last week. I hope it was productive and the first of many more to 

come. 

My name is Eddie Trevino, Jr. and I am honored to serve as the 

county judge of Cameron County, Texas. 

Cameron County borders the Gulf of Mexico on the U.S.-Mexico 

border and is part of the Rio Grande Valley, with approximately 

1.5 million people living on the U.S. side and an additional 2.5 million on the Mexican side. We are also home to South Padre Island, 

114 

the premier tourist destination for many throughout the United 

States and Mexico. 

Given all the attention over the past several weeks and months, 

this committee hearing could not have been timelier. Border security, immigration, and the facilitation of legitimate trade and travel 

on the U.S.-Mexico border is a reality that we live with every day. 

As a locally-elected official, I have an obligation to try and inform 

this panel and others involved to make cost-effective decisions 

based upon common-sense solutions that will work long-term and 

be effective for all of us. On the border, we have had to endure 

many policies and programs put in place by the Federal and State 

governments over the years—many of them unfunded mandates. 

You just heard several of them by the sheriffs. 

After 9/11 we fully understood the reasoning for the sudden 

changes to life on the border. We are a community that believes in 

the rule of law and want our country to be safe and secure. Many 

of our residents answered the call to defend our country, and unfortunately, many of our local veterans were either wounded or killed 

in serving our country. 

Despite all the post-9/11 changes, businesses have thrived, our 

communities are safe, and the Rio Grande Valley continues to grow 

and prosper. The claims of lawlessness and rampant violence in our 

border communities is just wrong and nothing more than an attempt to paint it as something that it is not in order to support the 

misguided rhetoric against border communities, Mexico and its people, and the immigrant—both legal and undocumented. 

I come before you today to request that you seek other alternatives and opportunities other than the border wall proposal put 

forth by President Trump. Contrary to what has been proposed, the 

border wall concept is ineffective and creates a false sense of security that will do nothing to alleviate the problem with the criminal 

element, drug cartels, gangs, and other organizations looking to 

harm our country. 

Our Federal agents on the front lines do an unbelievable job with 

the resources that they have. We must do all that we can to continue to help them in their mission, but not at the expense of our 

relationship with our country’s second-largest trading partner, and 

Texas’ largest trading partner, Mexico. 

This will not work by developing a one-size-fits-all approach such 

as a border wall. Utilizing a 14th-Century solution to address a 

21st-Century problem makes no sense, especially as it is the most 

expensive of all possible alternatives or solutions. 

If we provide a virtual wall of cameras, sensors, and other Stateof-the-art technology, including UAVs, we arm our Federal agents 

with the resources that they need to perform their jobs. Improving 

road conditions along the border, removing barriers like the carrizo 

cane and salt cedar and other invasive non-native plants that provide cover to smugglers and allow for more lateral mobility and use 

on Federal lands along the border will also give agents a better 

chance at controlling and surveilling the border. 

I recently learned that the technology investments in border security made 20 years go in the Brownsville sector have yet to be 

improved. Imagine investing the $15 billion to $20 billion estiVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:32 Sep 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17FL0207\FINAL\26396.TXT HEATH
115 

mated to build a wall on equipment, training, technology, road infrastructure, and more boots on the ground. 

The natural barrier of the Rio Grande River can also work as an 

advantage for our National security. There have been extensive 

studies on the Weir Dam project by our local utility, BPUB, which 

would broaden the reach, width, and surface area of the river, making it that much more difficult to cross. 

Once illegal immigrants are detained, there needs to be a commitment of additional financial resources to the judiciary to address their processing. The judicial system is undermanned, underfunded, as there are just not enough immigration judges to handle 

the backlog of approximately half a million cases, which should be 

unacceptable to all of us. 

I must also touch on America’s need for workers. Despite what 

many say or want to believe, low-skilled workers are desperately 

needed in our country. Estimates state that the United States will 

need between 600,000 to 650,000 workers annually to keep our 

economy growing. The lack of human capital for so-called basic jobs 

in this country is something we should all be concerned about if we 

want our country to continue to prosper and grow. 

On the issue of trade and a so-called border tax, I do hope that 

this issue is studied in a more objective and rational manner. Do 

we want to harm businesses in Texas and the rest of the Southwest 

just because of the negative impact that these policies will cause? 

An eye-for-an-eye policy will just leave all of us blind. 

Governor Abbott said last week while on the South Texas border 

tour with General Kelly, ‘‘We want to achieve safety and security, 

but we also want to promote economic development.’’ We have 

made great strides as a result of NAFTA, and the Trump administration wants to make changes to such agreements then there are 

diplomatic channels in which to get the job done. 

Any negotiations to improve NAFTA don’t have to be difficult or 

adversarial, but they must and should be respectful and mutually 

beneficial. At a recent border summit of elected and business officials from all sides of the political spectrum the message was the 

same: How can we improve the ideas and suggestions coming from 

Washington for our border? How can we tell our story of the farmers, the restaurant owners, the construction companies, the hospitals, the waitresses, and countless others that will be affected by 

such harmful and consequential proposals? 

My Republican and Democratic friends back home are worried. 

This proposal to build a wall, to renegotiate NAFTA, to create a 

border tax, and not address immigration reform will have lasting 

effects across our country if we continue to kick this problem down 

the road without addressing it. 

History will judge us on our actions. We must build on our successes by continuing to build bridges and not tear down or divide 

what we have achieved together with expensive, unbudgeted, and 

outdated proposals such as a border wall. 

Thank you for having me this afternoon. I am happy to answer 

any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Trevino follows:] 

116 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDDIE TREVINO, JR. 

Good morning Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, Congressman 

Vela, and distinguished Members of the committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to come before each of you today. 

General Kelly, thank you for your distinguished service to our great country and 

thank you for your recent visit to South Texas and the border last week. 

I hope your visit was informative and productive and the first of many more to 

come, to better understand the issues facing our border communities and the rest 

of the country. 

My name is Eddie Trevino, Jr. and I am honored to serve as the county judge 

in Cameron County, Texas. 

Cameron County borders the Gulf of Mexico and the U.S.-Mexico border and is 

a part of what is referred to as the Rio Grande Valley, a growing part of the State 

with approximately 1.5 million people on the U.S. side and an additional 2.5 million 

across the border in Mexico. 

Our county owns and operates three international bridges. Trade and economic 

activity and commerce are critical to our area. 

Life on the border is unique. People, along with goods and services move back and 

forth on a daily basis. 

We are dependent on one another as families go back and forth via our bridges 

for dining and shopping, for medical visits, to work, to go to school, and to do many 

other social and economic activities. 

We are also home to South Padre Island, the premiere tourist destination for 

many throughout the United States and Northern Mexico. 

I am honored and humbled to be before you today. I know you have my full testimony, so today I wanted to try and cover as much as possible with the allotted time 

given. 

Given all the attention over the past several weeks and months on border security, trade, and immigration this committee hearing could not have been timelier. 

Border security, immigration, and the facilitation of legitimate trade and travel 

on the U.S.-Mexico border is a reality we live with every day. 

The decisions made at the Executive and Legislative branches of our Federal and 

State governments in the coming weeks, months, and years will have long-lasting 

and profound impacts on our communities on both sides of the border. 

I hope I can provide some information and context to this committee and this administration to first understand and realize how this region impacts the entire State 

of Texas and our country before making any rash and costly decisions. 

As a locally-elected official, I have an obligation to try and inform this panel and 

others involved in the decision-making process to make decisions based upon common-sense solutions that will work long-term and be effective for all of us. 

From 2003 to 2007, almost 10 years before I became the county judge last year, 

I was the mayor of Brownsville, Texas and the largest city in the Rio Grande Valley. 

I was fortunate to become involved during that time frame on various issues including advocating for immigration reform and border security. 

I was first elected as a city commissioner in Brownsville 2 months after 9/11 and 

saw first-hand the impacts 9/11 had on border security and trade. 

On the border, we have had to endure many policies and programs put in place 

by the Federal and State government. 

And all of us fully understood the reasoning for the sudden changes to life on the 

border. 

We are a community that believes in the rule of law. 

We are a community that cherishes our flag and country. 

And we are a community that wants for our Nation and world to be safe and secure. 

Many of our residents have been on the front lines to answer the call to defend 

our country in times of war and peace. Unfortunately, we are well represented when 

it comes to Veterans killed or wounded in action. 

And their faith and determination to make this the greatest country on this God 

given earth cannot be questioned. 

But in recent years there has been an evolution and transformation of the border. 

During this time, the economies of our nations, the United States and Mexico, 

have gotten stronger and even more intertwined. 

And the coordination and communication dealing with intelligence issues has been 

beneficial and critical for local law enforcement on both sides of the border. 

Despite all the post-9/11 changes, Businesses have thrived, our communities are 

safe, and the Rio Grande Valley continues to grow and prosper. 

117 

The claims of lawlessness and rampant violence in our border communities is just 

wrong and nothing more than an attempt to paint our community and region as 

something that it is not in order to support the misguided rhetoric against border 

communities, the country of Mexico and the immigrant, both legal and undocumented, Hispanics, and in particular, Mexicans. 

Data we have from our local police chiefs and county sheriff show that crime has 

gone down and our communities are safer than ever. 

Inner cities have more serious criminal activity than border cities. In Chicago, last 

year there were 762 murders. In Brownsville, Texas the murder rate was 4 last year 

and in Harlingen, Texas it was the same. 

In spite of the negative attacks, rhetoric, and commentary, there is a strong sense 

of optimism for our region. 

It is because of our people—our most valuable resource and trusted asset—that 

we continue to thrive and prosper. 

People in the business sector, our educational system, and our men and women 

in law enforcement have made the Rio Grande Valley a great and safe place to live, 

work, and play. 

Because of this and because of what we know we can accomplish, I come before 

you today to implore you to seek other alternatives and opportunities other than the 

Border Wall proposal put forth by President Trump. 

Contrary to what has been proposed, the border wall concept is ineffective and 

creates a false sense of security that will do nothing to alleviate the problem with 

the criminal element, drug cartels, gangs and other organizations looking to harm 

the country and our people. 

In fact, as a result of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, there is already border fencing 

in place in the Rio Grande Valley covering 54 miles in Cameron and Hidalgo Counties. 

If you have lived and worked on the border, you have seen first-hand the decline 

in crime, the increase in opportunity, and the understanding and commitment of 

both governments to work together. 

I for one can tell you that it is better. Our Federal partners have the tools necessary to do their jobs effectively and efficiently and because there are more boots 

on the ground, the detection and response time has improved. 

As a local elected official, our county sheriff and local law enforcement have a 

great working relationship with Customs and Border Protection and Border Patrol. 

The men and women on the front lines do an unbelievable job with the resources 

they have. We must do all that we can to continue to help them in their mission 

but not at the expense of our relationship with our country’s second-largest trading 

partner and Texas’s largest trading partner, Mexico. 

Because of what they do, our communities along the border have become safer. 

With this in mind, no one disputes the fact that we need to uphold the rules and 

laws of our Nation to continue keeping us safe. 

But understandably, we also have to continue growing our economy, ensuring this 

country’s long-term sustainability with an ample and dedicated labor pool, and 

doing it in a way that embraces the ideals and principles of this great Nation. 

Collectively, there are still many things that can be done to improve border security and give our people the tools they need to be ahead of the game. 

This will not work by developing a one-size-fits-all approach such as a Border 

Wall. We need to be innovative and have a strategy to fix our problem. 

Utilizing a 14th-Century solution to address a 21st-Century problem makes no 

sense, especially as it is the most expensive of all possible alternatives or solutions. 

If we provide a wall of technology utilizing cameras, sensors, and other state-ofthe-art technology, we arm our Federal law enforcement personnel with the necessary and proven resources they need to perform their jobs and duties. 

Operational control is paramount. 

Improving road conditions along the border, removing barriers like the Carrizo 

Cane and Salt Cedar and other invasive non-native plants that provide smugglers 

havens and cover, and allowing for more lateral mobility on Federal lands along the 

border, will give agents a better chance at controlling and surveilling the border. 

Just recently, I learned that the technology investments in border security made 

20 years ago in the Brownsville Sector have not been improved or upgraded. The 

cameras and equipment bought and implemented in 1997, while still operational 

and beneficial, have not been replaced or updated. 

Why would we want to saddle our taxpayers with billions of dollars to build a 

wall? 

Doesn’t it make more sense to use that money to deploy our most formidable technology and to upgrade our existing technology infrastructure? 

118 

Not only would we save money, spending millions instead of billions, but we could 

utilize methods and technology that have already proven successful. 

We must invest in the latest and the greatest technology such as deploying Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to have eyes in the sky. 

We must take an approach that utilizes our most valuable resource, which is our 

people to operate and man the intelligence centers that can watch and detect illegal 

activity and then direct personnel to the trouble spots before, rather than after, an 

event or incident has occurred. 

Just imagine being able to invest the $15–40 billion estimated that it will take 

to build the Wall on equipment, training, technology, road infrastructure, and more 

boots on the ground. 

If you ask the experts in the field, they will tell you that this is where the money 

should go. 

The natural barrier of the Rio Grande River can also work as an advantage for 

our National security. 

In Brownsville, there have been extensive studies undertaken on a Weir Dam 

project by the Brownsville Public Utilities Board. The opportunity to construct a 

weir dam using Border Wall dollars or infrastructure fund dollars is a win-win. 

This project would broaden the reach, width, and surface area of the river making 

it much more difficult to cross. 

In addition, a weir dam could be coupled with sensors, cameras, and the eradication of non-native plant species along the river banks to add security layers to 

enhance the efforts of the border patrol. 

And once illegal immigrants are detained, there needs to be a commitment of additional financial resources to the judiciary to address their processing. 

The current backlog of half a million cases is unacceptable. 

The judicial system is undermanned and underfunded. There are not enough Immigration Judges to handle these cases. 

People should not be left in limbo in our judicial system for hundreds of days until 

there is some sort of resolution. 

That is not fair to them and it is not fair to our communities. 

I want to take a moment to also touch on the need for a policy that addresses 

America’s need for workers. 

All nations are built on a foundation of growth. If a nation does not grow, our 

destiny and way of life will be beyond our control. 

Despite what many say or want to believe, low-skilled workers are desperately 

needed in our country. 

Some estimates I’ve seen, state that the United States will need between 600– 

650,000 workers annually to keep our economy growing. 

The U.S. birth rate has fallen to 1.9 births per female and it is established that 

a country, just to sustain itself must have a birth rate of 2.1 births per female. 

Today, the largest part of our workforce comes from the millennial generation and 

there are not many millennials interested or committed to low-skilled-type labor. 

The jobs that are needed are not the ones that middle- or upper-middle-class 

workers will want anyway. 

The lack of human capital for so-called basic jobs in this country is something we 

should all be concerned about if we want our country to prosper and continue to 

grow. 

On the issue of trade and a so-called border tax, I do hope that this issue is studied in a more objective and rational manner. 

Do we want the price of foods and services to skyrocket? 

Do we want to put small businesses in Texas and the rest of the Southwest out 

of business because of the undue competitive disadvantages these policies will 

cause? 

An eye-for-an-eye policy will leave all of us blind! 

Bilateral discussions regarding the long-term economic viability of the border region are extremely important to our future, not only in Texas but throughout the 

entire country. 

As a local elected official, I know the importance of economic development and job 

opportunities for our citizens. 

And as Governor Abbott said last week while on a South Texas border tour with 

General Kelly, ‘‘we want to achieve safety and security, but we also want to promote 

economic development.’’ 

He also noted that Mexico is Texas’ largest trading partner adding that, ‘‘we must 

ensure we are able to continue that very effective trade.’’ 

We know there are certain parts of the Nation that do need help and do need assistance to spur economic growth. 

119 

But we cannot put forward ideas that strain our communities and push us back 

even further educationally and economically. 

Any proposal that is debated and approved by this Congress should improve our 

economic conditions throughout the entire Nation and not do anything to impact its 

success. 

Doing it on the backs of South Texas and U.S.-Mexico border communities is not 

a viable option. 

Historically, the Rio Grande Valley has been one of, if not the poorest areas in 

our country. 

We’ve made great strides as a result of NAFTA and the investments in our local 

school districts and institutions of higher learning such as the University of Texas 

Rio Grande Valley, Texas Southmost College, Texas State Technical College, and 

South Texas Community College. 

Conversely, along the border there have been sizeable investments made by local 

communities in partnership with the Federal and State government to modernize 

our Ports of Entry. 

Millions of dollars are being invested to build bridges, modernize technology, and 

man our ports. The goods and services moving through these ports make their way 

to all parts of the entire country. 

Again, investing in upgrading and updating our Ports of Entry infrastructure 

would better serve to enhance our Border Security. 

I believe that the President’s Infrastructure plan can help play a role with many 

of our local projects along the border. 

Finally, we have come so far in the last 20 years since the passage of NAFTA. 

There have been many achievements and cooperative agreements to improve bilateral relations. 

Destroying the groundwork of so many who had the vision for Free and Secure 

Trade and taking us back in time and reversing these economic accomplishments 

is a recipe for disaster. 

If the Trump administration wants to make changes to trade agreements, border 

security, and immigration policy, there are diplomatic channels to get the job done. 

Any negotiations to improve NAFTA don’t have to be difficult or adversarial; but 

they must and should be respectful and mutually beneficial. 

It appears that President Trump is unlike other past Presidents and tends to 

draw upon unconventional wisdom and his hard-charging manner. Sometimes that 

works and sometimes it doesn’t. 

Recently, I was at a border summit of elected and business officials from all sides 

of the political spectrum and the theme and message was the same. 

What can we do to better the border? How can we improve the ideas and suggestions coming from Washington? How can we tell our story of the farmer, the restaurant owner, the construction company, the professor, the hospital, and countless 

others that will be affected with such stringent and consequential proposals? 

I can tell you that many of my Republican friends are worried. This proposal to 

build the wall, to renegotiate NAFTA and not address immigration reform will have 

lasting effects across our country and it will take every bit of effort to fix it. 

I ask that you stay apprised of the bilateral negotiations and do all that you can 

to keep our neighbor and ally on our side, working with us to improve conditions 

both for the United States and Mexico. 

History will judge us on our actions. We must build on our successes by continuing to build bridges and not tear down or divide what we have achieved together 

with expensive and outdated proposals. 

Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you, Judge. 

I recognize myself for questioning. 

I got elected—it is hard to believe—over 12 years ago as a Federal prosecutor stating I was going to get the border secure. Here 

I am going into my seventh term in Congress. It is still not done. 

I think for the first time—and I know there are differing issues 

as to how to accomplish this—but we have the political will in 

Washington to finally possibly get this done. 

It is a Federal responsibility, Steve, not a State. 

I believe the State of Texas, and my home State, has stepped up 

to the plate and taken on this responsibility instead of the Federal 

Government. 

120 

My first question is to Director McCraw. As you prepare for your 

testimony before senate finance in Austin, knowing that we will 

have a defense border supplemental bill coming down the pike in 

the springtime, what do you—what would be the ask, if you will, 

from the State of Texas? 

Mr. MCCRAW. Certainly. We have had Representative Chairman 

Boddom speaker pro tem an ask of $2.3 billion, based on what the 

State has already spent. But obviously going forward, and then we 

would have to coordinate with the Governor what he wants, but 

bottom line is how do you leverage existing capabilities at the State 

level, at the local level, so that Border Patrol can get—can gain 

control and continue to augment level of border security every day. 

Our concern just sitting here after listening to Secretary Kelly, 

who is very realistic that it takes time to build that infrastructure 

up, it takes time to put those roads, it takes time to build any 

types of obstacles as opposed to barriers or technology. Particularly, 

hiring 5,000 to 10,000 Border Patrol agents takes time. 

So what does the State need to do to be able to stave off any kind 

of incursions or influx or any problems that we have already gained 

to this point in time? That is the challenge that we have. 

I can tell you that, you know, going forward ideally it would be 

in a—we would be in a far better position if we can look and say, 

‘‘Hey, Border Patrol needs three sheriff’s deputies; it needs two 

game wardens; it needs four troopers; needs two DPS aircraft; 

needs three tactical boats; needs a SWAT team,’’ and be able to leverage that like we do under the Stafford Act. That would allow 

us to be able to capture not just the cost but also some of the operating cost that goes into it because it is clear that the—the Secretary made it clear, they are serious about border security and 

doing it. 

Our concern is how fast can we do it, because every day matters. 

If you get involved in these sex trafficking investigations, you get 

involved in some of the sexual assault and some of the things that 

we have seen the Mexican cartels be engaged in, you know, every 

day matters and—but every level of security that increases, the 

better off we are. 

I guess one thing I would like to add, Chairman, while I have 

got the microphone here is that the great thing about technology, 

it gets smaller, it gets cheaper. Also it provides us a new way of 

metrics that we didn’t have before, as Congressman McSally was 

concerned about, that how do you measure success. We don’t have 

to use formulas; we can actually prove what our collection posture 

is, what our detection posture is, and what our interdiction posture 

is. 

Every troop or every Texas ranger, every special agent in their 

vehicle and on their phone has a GPS-locating device, and we are 

doing operations. I can prove any time any day of the week what 

is our coverage posture right then and there. 

One of the challenges I know that Secretary Kelly is going to address is that Border Patrol needs that same capability, blue force 

tracking. You would expect that they would know if not just for a 

security standpoint and being able to defend in terms of exactly 

what their security posture is; it is officer safety issue. Because as 

121 

you know, every day Border Patrol agents are threatened along 

that Rio Grande River. 

To that end, I would like to include the fact that it is absolutely 

disgraceful that the Federal Government has not prosecuted those 

that have assaulted Federal agents in the performance of their duties. I am confident that will change, but until that time the Texas 

border prosecutors have stepped up to the plate, as well as we have 

had our Texas rangers will investigate every one of those and will 

prosecute them at the State level until the Federal Government 

prosecutes those cases. 

Chairman MCCAUL. So we are trying to build a record here on 

the committee as to how to move forward with all this. Texas has 

a very unique challenge with the Rio Grande. You can’t build a 

wall in the river. You can build levies, but a—I don’t see—I think 

it is actually symbolic, saying ‘‘the wall,’’ symbolic for a physical 

barrier, but a multi-layered defense using all available assets, including technology and aviation and fencing. 

So I throw this out to all four of you: How would you best—and 

I asked this of the Secretary and we heard his response—how 

would you best describe ‘‘the wall’’ to finally achieve operational 

control? 

Mr. MCCRAW. You have got a chart that Texas did because our 

legislators demanded that we do have a way to measure success beyond numbers. So you have seen what we have come up with: Unsecured, minimal control, operational control, and substantial control. There are different things that have to be in place before you 

can go up to the next level. So those things are measurable, and 

if you can measure it—if you can discern it then you can measure 

it. 

From a Texas standpoint, a wall, a strategic defense, all those 

things are obstacles and they work for us and against the cartels. 

But as I have said before, absent, you know, the personnel, the 

technology, the things that the judge talked about—maybe the removal of salt cedar and carrizo cane—it is simply, you know, an obstacle to the cartels, not a barrier, because the cartels will, you 

know, clearly go under, through, and around it, and then certainly 

over it to be able to meet the unending demand for drugs and commercial sex in the United States. That is clear and compelling. 

Chairman MCCAUL. So an obstacle, not a barrier. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Yes, sir. But it can be—it becomes a barrier when 

you have enough border patrol agents and detection technology. 

When they step over that fence or they step on that fence you can 

immediately see it and you can work. 

Today you get to see a picture of it. You don’t have to guess that 

it is a sensor, that it is a four-legged, you know, creature or if it 

is two—it has two legs and carrying a bundle of marijuana. You 

know that by looking at it, so there is no reason not to leverage 

this technology that is out there and available. 

I totally agree. 

Sheriff Martinez. 

Sheriff MARTINEZ. I agree with Colonel McCraw. A fence is just 

a barrier, but I think more importantly is the manpower initially, 

to get the manpower. 

122 

Let me give you an example. In my county there is 84 miles from 

Lake Amistad to the county line. I have one deputy for that—to 

cover that country. 

On a good day we will have anywhere from 12 to 15 Border Patrol agents to cover that same area, which will consist of 8,000 

square miles, which will go all the way into Crockett and Sutton 

Counties. So that is like a needle in a haystack trying to find a 

needle in a haystack—manpower in that rugged area, geographical 

area of the State of Texas. 

So manpower in combination with, you know, a physical barrier 

in some strategic locations, along with technology, will go a long 

way. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Sheriff Wilmot. 

Sheriff WILMOT. Yes, sir. I would tell you that in Yuma County 

we had to do a conglomeration of all of that. 

You have to look at your geographic location and what are your 

natural and man-made boundaries that you already have. I have 

the Colorado River that is flowing through Yuma that goes right 

into Mexico. I have two Tribal reservations, which is sovereign 

land. I have the Barry M. Goldwater Range, which is our military 

WTI premier training center for our military forces that are being 

shipped overseas. I also have a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge, 

Cabeza Prieta. 

So I think in each and every location, much like the general 

talked about today, the Secretary, is he needs to go down, ascertain 

from those different geographic locations what is needed best. It 

could be a fence; it could be vehicle barriers; it could be just electronic infrastructure such as radar-operated camera systems or detection radars or lasers. 

But I think they need to approach that from the perspective on 

the boots-on-the-ground level, like I mentioned earlier, in order to 

address that. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Would access to Federal lands help? That 

would be a law that we would have to change. 

Sheriff WILMOT. Absolutely, sir. We encountered that same situation down there in Yuma County back in 2005, 2006 when they 

were actually install—putting in the fence utilizing our National 

Guard. 

We worked with our Tribal partners and were able to do the 

brush-clearing, much like was asked about before, because it was 

along the Colorado River corridor. It opened up recreational areas 

for the Yuma citizens to be able to enjoy again, versus the criminal 

element that was so often exploiting that for getting their illegal 

contraband across the river. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Judge Trevino. 

Judge TREVINO. Mr. Chairman, just like everybody else on this 

committee, I am more in the listening phase because of the fact 

that I rely on what law enforcement has to tell us. I have had the 

opportunity to meet with, obviously, our local sheriff’s department 

and also our Border Patrol sector chiefs. The thing that was surprising to me was when I learned that they were not able to utilize 

and be on Federal park land—National park lands in order to do 

their surveillance and investigation. 

123 

The other part of the equation was the fact that much of the 

technology is already several decades old, and while it is still operational it is nowhere near as effective as the advance of the technology as provided to law enforcement. So we need to upgrade. 

The other part of this that they wanted to utilize in conjunction 

with the technology upgrade is that allows the boots on the ground 

a much more direct and a quicker response because the people operating the technology or the UAVs, whatever it may be that is entailed, will be in a better position to direct our boots on the ground 

to wherever the incident or impact is going to be. 

So I think we are all in agreement that the resources to upgrade 

the technology and provide the resources to the boots on the 

ground is something that is absolutely needed. 

If I may quickly say, you mentioned that 10 years ago when you 

first started and you were a former prosecutor you thought you 

would have the border secure. I think part of the problem, Mr. 

Chairman, is that if we really, really utilize a clear definition for 

a secure border I don’t know if we can ever achieve that. The reality is as long as there is a criminal element, as long as there is 

human activity they are going to do everything they can to either 

provide the product, whether it is drugs or human trafficking or 

whatever the case might be. 

But I think it is safe to say that the border is definitely much 

more secure today than it was a decade ago or 20 years ago, and 

I think that is important for the rest of the country to understand 

that because we are able to live our lives, have a good quality of 

life on the border, as a result of these gentlemen to my right and 

all the law enforcement officials that are still operating back home 

on the border. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Well, thank you. You have given us an excellent record, testimonial as we move forward with our border supplemental bill as to what is effective, what is not, what needs to 

be appropriated, and what shouldn’t be. 

So, with that I now recognize the Ranking Member. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the witnesses for their testimony. It has been a long time 

since we have had a panel of people who live it every day, in terms 

of this issue before us, and I think it has been quite enlightening. 

The question that a lot of us have is why not come up with a 

sound policy that addresses border security rather than coming up 

with a product, in terms of a fence? I think, as just about everyone 

has said, there are ways that fencing might be good; there are 

other ways that technology; there are other ways of using other 

things might be good. 

But when you come with a one-size-fit-all model, that creates 

some real challenges: The Rio Grande River, the lakes and some 

other areas, Tribal lands. So I guess the question is what I am 

hearing from the witnesses—and I heard it from the Secretary in 

his testimony—that you will be involved in the process so that 

rather than Washington coming to your communities and say, 

‘‘Well, Big Brother is here; we have the solution,’’ we would say, 

‘‘What do you think? You do this every day. You live it. What suggestions or recommendations that you might have?’’ 

124 

I think that is a very good model for us to adopt, because in 

Washington we can just see one part. 

So for the record, we are 1,500 persons short in the approved 

CBP allotment for boots on the ground. I think we have been 2 

years, 3 years—about 2 years trying to complete that. So if we get 

5,000 more that means we have 6,500 vacancies that we can’t fill. 

So part of what we are going to have to do is try to work with 

State and locals to figure out, since we can’t put all these boots on 

the ground, are having trouble filling it, how do we backfill it? 

Technology. 

You know, if we can see somebody 5, 10, 20 miles away approaching an area then if we had ability to communicate with local 

law enforcement or whomever, we can perhaps move assets to that 

area from an interdiction standpoint. I would—for the sheriffs, especially. 

Are you allowed to train with CBP and other Federal officials in 

a manner that gives you comfort, or are there some things that you 

would like to see being done that is not being done? 

Sheriff Martinez. 

Sheriff MARTINEZ. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. 

We work very well with our Federal partners. We don’t train 

with them. Basically, if we come across a crime that has an OTM 

or a Mexican national we refer those individuals to Border Patrol 

and we are—we work through Stonegarden. In the last week we 

had eight referrals in our sector, so I take it that that is from the 

locals referring someone over to our Federal partners and they take 

over from there. 

But going on to some of your question, I would like, you know— 

you say you are miles away, but I would like to invite each and 

every one of you to our communities where we live every day. No 

to—don’t show up when they have all the manpower and resources. 

Visit us in our natural State, and you can see all the deficiencies 

that we have. That will be a big impact on what happens up here, 

on your votes up here. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Sheriff. 

Sheriff WILMOT. Thank you, sir. 

I will tell you that there are—our agency trains quite a bit with 

the U.S. Border Patrol Yuma Sector under Chief Provaznik. We 

have awesome lines of communication. Most of our training has to 

do with search-and-rescue type or narcotics interdiction, working 

side-by-side with their personnel. Most of that occurs under Operation Stonegarden, which I mentioned before. 

The other hamper that we are running into with the sheriffs all 

across the United States right now is actually getting some sort of 

legal opinion in regards to 287 JM, the honoring of detainers in our 

jails, because some sheriffs in some places along the United States 

are being sued for violation of 4th Amendment rights. We are being 

told on one side that we have to honor them by Federal law, but 

we are also being told by State that you cannot honor that because 

you are violating this law or that law, whether it is Arizona, Texas, 

New York, Illinois, Idaho. 

So the sheriffs as a whole, the one thing that we need is some 

sort of legal opinion in regards to honoring detainers for the jails. 

125 

That is one of the things that has a significant impact for us when 

an individual is in our jails. 

Typically for us they are booked into the jail, they go through the 

State process, they get sentenced to prison, and then they are 

turned over to the State for DOC. That is something that all the 

sheriffs across the United States—and we articulated that to the 

Secretary yesterday. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So thank you. 

Judge, in your everyday duties what security issues would you 

be concerned about, and do you see the wall as an answer to those 

security issues, from your standpoint? 

Judge TREVINO. Thanks for the question, Congressman. Let me 

point out that with regard to Cameron and Hidalgo County, our 

neighboring county, which is approximately 70 miles, we already 

have 54 miles of fencing already in place. 

You alluded to it right now when you said we have got 1,500 vacancies and we are looking at another 5,000, and looking at 6,500. 

Let me tell you how that impacts us locally. These gentlemen to 

my right, their responsibility is to provide local law enforcement to 

the community that they serve. Because of the change in dynamics 

in our country, they have also had to become quasi-Federal agents 

because of the demands that have been placed on them with regards to border security. 

The concern that I have—and just for the record, the county 

judge in Texas is not a judicial position; it is an administrative position. I don’t want anybody to think that I am holding court back 

home. It is basically the mayor of the county, so I work with all 

of the agencies in that endeavor. 

The concern that I would have, and I would venture to guess 

that they have also, is I can tell you that in the valley many of our 

local law enforcement agencies, whether it is local police departments or the sheriff’s department, the jailers, we have lost a lot of 

those individuals to the Federal Government because of the demand for Federal agents, whether it be Border Patrol, Customs, or 

what have you, because they pay, obviously, better than our local 

law enforcement entities. 

We rely on, unfortunately, usually very low property tax bases to 

fund our budgets. As a result of that, in addition to the jail costs 

associated that the sheriff alluded to, we also have the medical 

costs associated to take care of them in the—while they are in our 

custody. 

So all of these what I referred to earlier as ‘‘unfunded mandates’’ 

are concerns because we don’t have an immense backload or a 

rainy day fund that can help us get through these days, but we are 

doing the best that we can. I think that is something, as the—as 

Congress takes this into account they have to understand that the 

demands placed upon our local entities and jurisdiction on the 

Texas-Mexico border are so different than the demands placed elsewhere in the country. 

So when we are asking for those funds and resources we are not 

doing it because we want them; we are asking because we need 

them because we are already performing the job. And obviously if 

there is a big increase in—on boots on the ground, which I think 

we all agree is necessary, the concern we are going to have is we 

126 

are going to need those additional funds ourselves to make sure 

that our local law enforcement positions are also well met. 

I don’t like hearing the fact—and I know about situations like 

that, where you got one officer patrolling a square—84 square 

miles. You know what that means. He can’t be everywhere all the 

time. 

So thank you. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Let me just say, Sheriff Martinez, I agree 

with your point, go down to see it, because you can’t understand 

it unless you go down and see it. I always, you know, advocate for 

Members to do that. There is no real simplistic answer to this, and 

it is multifaceted. 

Scott Perry, Pennsylvania. 

Mr. PERRY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen. 

Is it Mr. McCraw? 

Very briefly, you know, some people don’t like the terminology 

‘‘the wall,’’ so whether it is a wall, whether it is a fence, whether 

it is unmanned vehicles or sensors or cameras or whatever, some 

protection, security belt along the border that keeps incursions 

from happening, I think we need that, but I think it begins with 

an attitude that you want to uphold the law and defend the border 

of your country and the sovereign Nation. 

So with that, you mentioned that one of the things that you saw 

a problem with is the Federal Government is not prosecuting people here illegally that assault Border Patrol agents. Can you talk 

about that a—very quickly, but with a little more depth to it? 

Mr. MCCRAW. Well, I am going to actually give you the examples, 

the cases. I will get back to you on what they are, but there have 

been instances where Border Patrol agents have been assaulted 

when they are trying to make an arrest. 

The normal process when I was in the FBI we used to work Federal—assault on Federal officers in those cases. When I was in Tucson that is what we did. Alexander Kirpnick was killed by two drug 

traffickers from Mexico. That is what we did. We worked assault 

on a Federal officer, and the prosecutor, the United States attorney, would prosecute those things. 

Over the last several months that hasn’t been the case. There 

has been no prosecution. They have been turned down. 

All we have done is basically we got the advantage because the 

State legislature has funded these border prosecutor units. We just 

go into the district attorney’s offices, ‘‘Hey, look Border Patrol 

agents are being assaulted, not prosecuted. In Texas we are a lawand-order State. You assault a police officer there has gotta be consequences.’’ They get it. They immediately take the cases, and what 

we are doing is using State resources to investigate those cases, 

turn it over to the border prosecutors to prosecute. 

Mr. PERRY. So you said over the last couple months. Is it—— 

Mr. MCCRAW. Several months. It could be 6 months; it could be 

8 months. I will give you the exact time and I will give you the 

exact cases that we have worked for them, as well. 

127 

Mr. PERRY. So what do you think the impetus for failure to follow 

through from the Federal Government standpoint is? Why would 

they not do that? 

Mr. MCCRAW. I don’t know. It is inexplicable. 

Mr. PERRY. OK. We will have to look into that. I appreciate that 

information, if you can get it to me. 

Also, Federal park—— 

Mr. MCCRAW. I do need to mention, though, that was brought— 

Governor brought that to Secretary Kelly’s point. When he took the 

time—he is the first Secretary out of all the secretaries I have 

met—and I have met some great ones in Secretary Johnson, Secretary Napolitano, Secretary Chertoff, Secretary Ridge. You know, 

he has taken the time to went down there. He has already been 

down there, asked questions, very specific, listened to briefs. So we 

are very encouraged that he did that. 

The Governor brought that to his attention, so I have got no 

doubt—and he took it back with him—that he is going to talk to 

the attorney general about that, that that will be fixed. I am very 

confident that will be addressed. 

Mr. PERRY. I would think that has to be a minimum standard 

so that the Border Patrol agents know that when they are putting 

their lives on the line that there is going to be a penalty for assaulting, and as there should be for any law enforcement officers 

anywhere in the United States. 

Turning quickly to Federal park lands, can you give us an indication of—you know, the—I don’t think a lot of people realize that 

there is a restriction for Border Patrol agents in those circumstances. Can you give us some information from your viewpoint 

on how that affects the ability of the Federal Government to safeguard the border? 

Mr. MCCRAW. Yes. There are several pockets of refuges along the 

Rio Grande River that—to protect wildlife, and what they end up 

doing is often protect the cartels or smugglers because they are havens for hiding. Plus, because Border Patrol, they are allowed access; they are just not allowed to build infrastructure or use some 

of their tools to use to be able to pursue smugglers and traffickers 

within those areas. 

Hence, they may take an hour to get to a location that could take 

10 minutes. So they are not allowed to build the type of infrastructure you would expect other parts of the border. So we are hopeful 

that that will be addressed at some point. 

Mr. PERRY. So it sounds like if we are serious about securing the 

border something has gotta change there, right? 

Mr. MCCRAW. Change, and Judge had a very good point. Salt 

cedar and carrizo cane, it is a drought weed and it sucks the water 

out but it also is a security risk to Border Patrol agents and those 

trying to defend that, and also it works for the cartels. 

Mr. PERRY. Right. 

OK, Sheriff Wilmot, very quickly, the Operation Stonegarden 

program and your trouble getting money through FEMA is something I would like to—you to elaborate on, and also the reimbursement of your SCAAP funding, and as you put—to non-sanctuary 

cities, which I think it is important to note, at least I get from this, 

is that sanctuary cities are receiving SCAAP money, so they are inVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:32 Sep 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17FL0207\FINAL\26396.TXT HEATH
128 

viting, essentially, people to be in their city illegally, but also getting Federal funds in that regard. Is that correct, or—if you can 

elaborate? 

Sheriff WILMOT. What we wanted to get across is if you do have 

an entity that runs a jail, that supports that, then that funding 

should be given to those other entities that run the jail that are 

actually doing the job for SCAAP. 

I will tell you that we still need to get 100 percent reimbursement on that, as well as the medical costs associated with it, because I can’t put in for an individual who I have to take to dialysis 

three times a week. That is impacting my budget at over $100,000 

just for one person. I have got 117 backpackers that went through 

my jail, of which I still have 19. 

I sent a bill to the attorney general of the United States last year 

because of the policies that went into effect on not prosecuting 

these individuals. I cross-deputized Border Patrol agents in DEA so 

they would be able to get these cases taken where normally anybody would get charged. 

So I am eating the housing, I am eating the cost of that. To this point attorney general owes me $1.8 million just for housing those. 

Mr. PERRY. Sheriff, does the government south of you, the national government south of you, do they spend as—anywhere near 

the resources or have the same diligence that you have in patrolling the border from their people going northward? 

Sheriff WILMOT. To answer your question in regards to Yuma 

County, I will tell you that we have great cross-border communication with our law enforcement counterparts. We work together a lot 

in regards to promoting the quality of life and safety of our communities on both sides of the border, and that is why we were able 

to do what we did to curb that criminal enterprise from doing what 

they were doing in 2005, 2006, so—— 

Mr. PERRY. I mean, I get the perception that the Mexican government doesn’t feel as strongly about Border Patrol, at least, or controlling the border north of the border, that—as we do. I don’t 

know if that is accurate or not, but I get that perception. 

My concern is all the American taxpayers are paying for this, 

and you are out the money because you are providing the service 

and the American taxpayers really can’t afford to pay for it. But 

what is the government to the south doing to help, from a financial 

standpoint or from a tactical standpoint? 

Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. 

But that is something if you could elaborate throughout your conversation I would love to hear it. Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Would you like to respond to that, sir? 

Would you like to respond, or no? 

Sheriff WILMOT. Whatever you are comfortable with, sir. 

Chairman MCCAUL. If you would like to respond I would give you 

that time. 

Sheriff WILMOT. I will tell you that we in Arizona have a great 

cross-border communication with our law enforcement counterparts 

to—even through the PISA program, Policia Internacional Sonora 

and America law enforcement, where those entities come across the 

border, we do training together, we cover the problems that we are 

encountering in our geographic locations. 

129 

To a certain extent they are doing what they can with what they 

have. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chair recognizes Mr. Vela. 

Mr. VELA. To follow up on that, Sheriff Wilmot, that kind of cooperative arrangement that you have with your counterparts on the 

Mexican side of the border, that is why it is important to have a 

positive and productive relationship with our neighbors to the 

south, right? 

Sheriff WILMOT. I would agree with you 100 percent. You have 

to have that open line of communication. 

Mr. VELA. Thank you. 

Colonel McCraw, you made some reference to the expenditure of 

State funds along the border and how it might have impacted, for 

example, traffic deaths in other parts of the State and maybe—and 

perhaps affected other areas of responsibility that the Department 

of Public Safety would have had. Can you elaborate or tell us specifically how you think the diversion of funds to the border has affected those other responsibilities? 

Mr. MCCRAW. Well, to begin with, we weren’t over-staffing. We 

are understaffed for the number of troopers that we need, based 

upon the State’s growth. Over the last 10 years we have nearly 28 

million people and we have over 313,000 miles of roadway. For us 

to be able to do proactive, high-visibility patrols we need a certain 

amount of troopers in each sergeant area. 

What we had to do, because of the influx and because of the mission we have been given, is to surge troopers from around the 

State—doesn’t matter whether it is from Perryton—and that is, by 

the way, that is 14 hours away from the border, OK—Texas, or 

from Dallas, move them down there on a day, work 7 days straight, 

12- to 14-hour days, go back home, and continue that cycle month 

after month and wave after wave. We have been doing that for 2.5 

years. 

So any time you move a trooper or a Texas ranger, as we have, 

or a special agent who was engaged in these enterprise investigations targeting gangs, to the border to be able to support Border 

Patrol there are consequences to it. 

Now, the advantages are—because at the end of the day most of 

the trafficking is coming right at the border, so there is some positive impact in terms of the rest of the State. But it still makes it 

less safe in other parts where we take those resources from. 

Mr. VELA. So have you seen a direct correlation to this diversion 

of State funds to the border with respect to traffic deaths, or—— 

Mr. MCCRAW. I can’t say it is causal right now. I can see correlations, but I just can’t say that it is enough right now we could 

make that causal determination. 

I know just from the—talking to sheriffs in other parts of the 

State, when there are less troopers in that area, you know, they 

believe that it is less safe in that area. I don’t disagree. 

Mr. VELA. So I am just curious. Have we seen an increase or a 

decrease in highway traffic deaths? 

Mr. MCCRAW. Increase in highway deaths across Texas. It is not 

just in terms of the rural area, but urban areas, as well, we have 

had increased fatalities. 

Mr. VELA. Thank you, Colonel. 

130 

Judge Trevino, I have got two questions and about 3 minutes. 

The first question: With respect to the Weir Dam, how would that 

environmentally impact, from either a flood control standpoint, you 

know, the area that we live in, and what would be the impact from 

a security standpoint? 

Judge TREVINO. Well, my understanding, Congressman, is that 

after decades of studying, the environmental impact would be minimal at best. As you know, Brownsville is the last stop on the Rio 

Grande before it empties out into the Gulf of Mexico, and because 

of the rapid growth that we have had on both sides of the border 

from El Paso south, everybody on the border utilizes the Rio 

Grande as their source for water. 

Since we are the last stop it was a concern years ago that if the 

river was to ever run dry—and in certain areas of the State there 

are trickles—we would be in a bad, bad situation. Brownsville was 

very progressive in developing a reverse osmosis by the utilization 

of brackish groundwater so that the Brownsville community is no 

longer completely reliant on the river. 

The Weir proposal would obviously raise the water level. It 

would not impact the water table, which was a—which was initially a concern, and it would allow the flood control situation to 

be utilized in the event of we ever had a shortage. 

Lake Amistad and Lake Falcon, which is where we basically— 

that is our reserve system, it was developed back, I believe, in the 

1950’s, and the long-term goal was it would get replenished by 

Mother Nature any time we ever had a natural disaster. As for 

growth, no one foresaw the growth on both sides of the border and 

its impact, so we have had to be more progressive as far as that 

goes. 

Mr. VELA. One last question: So what is life like for the 96,000 

winter Texans mostly from the Midwest that are living in the Rio 

Grande Valley right now? 

Judge TREVINO. It is safe to say that those winter visitors are 

our lifeblood during the winter months. They bring, first of all, a 

lot of resources. They spend their money in the valley. 

But more than anything, they are a complete asset to our area. 

Many of them are from the Midwest—Minnesota, Iowa, all those 

States—and they have been a huge, huge asset. They spend their 

money, they go to Mexico on a daily basis to shop and to receive 

medical care and eat. They spend their money buying refrigerators 

and cars and the consumable goods that we all rely on. 

Their impact, on an economic basis, is huge, and not just on the 

United States side but obviously on the Mexican side. If it was— 

if there was any chaos or danger down there they wouldn’t keep 

coming in those numbers that continue to grow every—each and 

every year. 

Mr. VELA. Well, thank all four of you for being with us today. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chair recognizes Mr. Hurd, from Texas. 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, appreciate you all being here today. 

You know, Director McCraw, Sheriff Martinez, and Judge 

Trevino, you have helped educate me on this issue. 

Sheriff Wilmot, your testimony today has given me three or four 

things that I didn’t know about before, so thank all of y’all. 

131 

My first question is to the two sheriffs. 

Maybe, Sheriff Martinez, you first. We talked about Stonegarden, 

and Sheriff Wilmot, in his remarks, talked about moving those 

funds back to DHS from FEMA. Is there other uses of— 

Stonegarden is restrictive in how you can use those funds. Are 

there other areas where you—where currently right now you can’t 

use Stonegarden funds that you wish you could? 

Sheriff Martinez, let’s start with you, and then Wilmot. 

Director, I am sure you have some opinions, too. 

Sheriff MARTINEZ. I think on the Stonegarden funds there has to 

be a little bit of flexibility. Border Patrol, DPS, every sheriff is 

short on manpower. We are talking about hiring all kinds of people, so I would like to see that same opportunity extended to the 

sheriffs to be able to hire manpower to support securing our border. 

Mr. HURD. Sheriff, that is because right now you can only use 

Stonegarden funds to pay overtime, is that correct? You would like 

to be able to use those initial funds for the first-year salary or 

something like that? 

Sheriff MARTINEZ. Yes, sir. Correct. 

Mr. HURD. Excellent. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Congressman, I have been listening to the sheriffs 

talk about this for a good 7 years. I mean, what is frustrating, they 

can only eat so much overtime. We can give them all the overtime 

in the world; they have got only so many deputies. 

For them to be—to use that money, if you would allow them to 

use it, OK, as an agreement up front that this is only as long as 

the money is there, a deputy—now they—now all of a sudden they 

have got an increase of resources in the area, and that is better for 

Border Patrol, that is certainly better for the State, as well. There 

is value in that investment. 

So there are other funding streams that are far more flexible 

that Stonegarden funds, although we like what DHS did with that, 

you know, being allowed to at least let them use. Of course, the 

State doesn’t benefit at all. We don’t get any use of it. The 

Stonegarden funds aren’t allocated for State police agencies. 

Mr. HURD. Sheriff Wilmot, you have some opinions? 

Sheriff WILMOT. Yes, sir, I do, and I will be more than happy to 

throw those in there. 

In regards to Operation Stonegarden, obviously it is labor-intensive just doing the reporting requirements as well as the purchasing of the equipment that we need. It also restricts the type 

of equipment that you need going through FEMA. 

Another thing is in regards to Stonegarden is that you can only 

use so much for overtime and then you have to use so much for 

equipment and then so much for mileage on your vehicles. So it is 

broken down then you can’t change the percentage at all. So it is 

something that—and this is the one true grant that actually comes 

to the sheriffs to actually allocate out to local law enforcement as— 

at least in Arizona—as well as share with other counties along our 

borders, and the State as well, if they can help complement our operations. 

So that is where we need to keep it. DHS is more qualified to 

say, ‘‘Yes, this type of equipment is what we need for this location,’’ 

132 

because again, we can’t paint that broad brush across the whole 

border, so—— 

Mr. HURD. Good. Thank you. 

Director McCraw, my next question is for you. When I got elected 

and came in last Congress we had a lengthy debate about what 

operational control of the border actually means. You know, in your 

materials you provided the Texas border security levels, and I have 

always fought to use DPS’ perspective on what operational control 

means because of all the arguments and conversation I have had 

on this it seems to be the most thoughtful. 

So first question is, you know, have you seen reticence in some 

of our—your Federal partners in adopting a similar framework? Do 

your partner States have a similar—do your peer organizations 

have a similar perspective on what operational control of the border means? 

Mr. MCCRAW. I don’t believe that is the case right now, but we 

have been working with our legislature and the Governor’s office 

to be able to do this, to be able to have some standards, so—and 

I have, you know, frankly, have not looked at some of our peers. 

We have looked at our Federal partners. You go back with a 

GAO study back to the 1990’s and it is the same thing all over 

again. You can’t use the number of illegal aliens to predict success 

and failure. You have to come up with something more substantive. 

Technology has allowed us to do that. Now we can actually identify and track out and map the level of security. So the focus that 

we have come up with is just simply figure out what those levels 

of security are, agree upon what those variables are, county those 

variables, crack them. 

The point with evidence is that unless you can prove it then 

there is no way to be able to justify that—saying that we are at 

this point or that point. So you have got to be able to prove it, too. 

You can’t just say—declare, ‘‘I am operationally in control.’’ 

The only way to do—an advantage we have right now is, like I 

said before, GPS will allow you to do that—both the infrastructure, 

both in terms of technology, the coverage level, and your interdiction capacity. 

Mr. HURD. Excellent. Well, thank you for your leadership on this 

topic, and we need you to keep talking about this because, again, 

as we get into those debates again up here we need to have a common—we need to be speaking the same language. 

I have run out of time, but one thing that I will be following up 

with all of y’all about is intelligence sharing and how do we improve that, how do we make sure that we are able to extend our 

defenses? Because let’s stop the problem before they get to our borders, or if we know something is imminent and, you know, y’all are 

going to be the ones that get called first, not Border Patrol, whenever there is a problem. So making sure y’all have access to information and how we can improve that is something I would look forward to talking with y’all about in the future. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chair recognizes Mrs. Watson Coleman. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Judge Trevino. 

Judge TREVINO. Yes, ma’am? 

133 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Did I say that properly? 

Judge TREVINO. You sure did. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Good. Thank you. I have a couple of 

questions for you first. 

You have been pointed out that—you have pointed out that Cameron County owns three international bridges and you have described how critical cross-border trade is to your economy and how 

important that cross-border travel is to your constituents as they 

go about their daily lives. 

How have CBP staffing shortages at ports of entry affected 

bridges in your county? Have they—these shortages resulted in increased wait times at the bridges? What more should the Federal 

Government do to support cross-border commerce and trade? 

Judge TREVINO. I would love to be able to tell you, Congresswoman, that there has been no impact, but that wouldn’t be accurate. The reality that is you just hit the nail on the head. 

Because of the shortages of CBP personnel the lines can be much 

longer. It is not unusual for many people to live in Brownsville and 

work in Matamoros or live in Matamoros and work in Brownsville. 

There are numerous cross-border businesses and industries that 

rely on each other, so the fact that if somebody is going over there 

for work, well, they are probably—they are—they kind-of have to 

do it. But for those that are looking to either more of a recreational, whether it is to eat, shop, dine, or receive health care on 

either side, the reality is we will have less and less of those cross— 

we have had that in the impact. 

I am not going to sit here and tell you that the cartel violence 

in Mexico didn’t have an impact, but the reality is things have 

calmed down, and I think that is exactly why the cooperation between our two countries at the National level is critical because at 

the local level that is what needs to be done, and that is what the 

local law enforcement—they rely on their counterparts on the 

Mexican side and vice versa, whether it is locating an individual 

who wants to be—or is under indictment or charged with a particular serious crime, whatever it may be. 

But obviously staffing levels need to be at a—at the rate where 

the wait times are as minimal as possible without sacrificing security and surveillance. But it would also allow more opportunity to 

catch those individuals that are crossing at our ports of entry that 

are either crossing illicit drugs or merchandise or whatever the 

case may be. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. So what is that you would tell the Federal Government that you think that it should support or do in 

order to support and sustain and ensure that there is this sort of 

cross-border trade and travel that is both sufficient for the economy 

and safe for the communities? 

Judge TREVINO. In addition to increasing the staffing—— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Yes. 

Judge TREVINO [continuing]. As we alluded to earlier, we would 

also heavily request a reinvestment in our infrastructure. While 

the county owns the bridge, all the facilities on there are owned by 

the Federal Government. The Gateway Bridge, for in particular, 

was opened in 1960. There has been literally no reinvestment or 

upgrade since that time frame to the present. 

134 

We moved all the truck traffic from the Gateway Bridge over to 

another bridge, Veterans Bridge, and because of that some of the 

facilities at the Gateway are basically just sitting there. If we were 

to open up additional lanes of travel—I did a—we did a recent trip 

to El Paso. We have one pedestrian lane at Gateway for the entire—for all three bridges. Last year we had over 2 million people 

crossing with that one particular lane. 

In El Paso, which at one bridge has 14 lanes—it looked like an 

airport to me—they have 5 million. They have got 14 lanes just at 

one bridge, and I believe they have seven ports of—seven bridges. 

So I know that it would generate a lot more revenue at the local 

basis, and also allow us to enhance the relationship between our 

border communities. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. 

A very quick question, if you might answer, to the three gentlemen, Mr. McCraw, Mr.—Sheriff Martinez, and Mr. Wilmot. My 

question has to do with the proposed wall. Do you believe that the 

proposed wall is the best utilization of resources to keep our borders protected in the areas that you represent and are concerned 

with? 

I will start with you, Mr. McCraw. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Yes, ma’am. As I indicated before, a wall—— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I apologize for not being here. 

Mr. MCCRAW. No, not at all. But a wall in itself is an obstacle, 

not a barrier. It takes a combination of things. 

I will go along with—I think Secretary Kelly did a very good job 

today explaining that, you know, in some places he noted—and you 

get out to Big Bend Country, you have, in effect, a barrier out there 

already, a natural barrier. How do you exploit technology, how do 

you exploit resources on top of that? 

So it is not one thing for one area. It changes. As the Judge 

Trevino notes very well, in Cameron County, you get out to Boca 

Chica, you build a wall, doesn’t make sense. There is Lake 

Amistad—very good point today by one of the Congressman— 

doesn’t make sense. 

Every place is different. But one thing is in mind: You need a 

barrier between the ports of entry. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. 

I have exceeded my time, if I could simply get my questions answered from Mr. Martinez and—— 

Mr. DUNCAN [presiding]. Gentlelady’s time is expired. 

We will now go to Mr. Rutherford, from Florida. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. So you are not extending that very short 

request and indulgence? I just want to make sure I understand 

that. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I will allow them to answer your question. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. Thank you. 

Sheriff MARTINEZ. A fence in and of itself is not the only answer. 

Del Rio and Ciudad Acun ̃ a are separated by a fence, a 2-mile fence, 

that has made our side of the border a little bit safer when it 

comes to property crimes. It has rerouted everything to the outside 

of that fence. But in and of itself it is not the answer. 

Thank you. 

135 

Sheriff WILMOT. Ms. Congresswoman, in regards to that question 

Yuma County has 110.5 miles of border with Mexico. Most of it is 

fenced. Other areas that cannot be fenced already have vehicle barriers. 

I will tell you that once that was put into place the humanitarian 

side of that, preventing the deaths in the desert, has stopped. We 

are very minimal on that. 

I have had to go out there and process 14 victims that were left 

for dead on one occasion when it was 115 degrees out. I don’t think 

anybody wants to experience what we have had to see as law enforcement when we have to go out there and process those victims 

that have been abandoned and died. But 14 all at once, just a travesty. To see them and what they went through, and to see a fence 

go up and prevent that, to me what is the cost of a life? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank the gentlelady. 

Chair will now recognize Mr. Rutherford, from Florida. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony today. I want to ask 

something a little more away from the border and back into, I 

think, the interior of the country. 

The 287(g) program, can you give me your experience and position on how effective 287(g) has been at the border and then further away from the border? Is it well utilized within law enforcement? Is that your experience? 

Mr. MCCRAW. Congressman, it depends on the agency. It depends on the locale. It certainly works very well in jails—in large 

jails where there is a criminal alien population and they train individuals to look and identify and be able to curry some of the Federal databases to identify that, and that is always helpful when 

they get the hit on the secure committees or a priority hit through 

fingerprints. 

Certainly from an investigative standpoint when we used to work 

terrorists it was an advantage—or drug traffickers—it was an advantage having a legacy INS expert, you know, on the team that 

would help you in many ways or shape or form. But it is each individual jurisdiction needs to make that decision. 

Sheriff MARTINEZ. I know that in Val Verde County we have a 

jail population 1,200-plus, ICE is in our jails every day, so detainers are honored in our facility. 

Sheriff WILMOT. In regards to your question, Congressman, the— 

in regards to the 287(g), we participated in it at one time, but I 

can’t use taxpayer funding to do the Federal job. So it was only on 

a overtime basis if they had the moneys to be able to pay our officer on overtime to perform that function. 

What we have done in Yuma, because they are right there working with us, is they have access to our facility and they can screen 

through all those documents, and they placed a hold on—the question for the sheriffs throughout the United States that do not have 

that ability to have a 2-hour response or a hour response for someone to come pick them up is by what legal ability are they able to 

honor the detainers. That is our biggest concern, as far as sheriffs 

across the whole United States who are impacted with—they don’t 

have that privilege of ICE ERO being in our counties. 

136 

1 See American Immigration Council, Giving the Facts a Fighting Chance: Addressing Common Questions on Immigration (Washington, DC: December 2015), 16, https:// 

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/addressing-common-questions-immigration; U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security, Budget-in-Brief, FY 2017, 17, https://www.dhs.gov/ 

publication/fy-2017-budget-brief. 2 See American Immigration Council, Giving the Facts a Fighting Chance: Addressing Common Questions on Immigration (Washington, DC: December 2015), 18, https:// 

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/addressing-common-questions-immigration. 3 U.S. Government Accountability Office, ‘‘U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Review of the 

Staffing Analysis Report under the Border Patrol Agent Reform Act of 2014,’’ May 2016, http:// 

www.gao.gov/assets/680/677475.pdf. 4 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ‘‘Congressional Budget Justification’’, Fiscal Year 

2016, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY%202017%20Congressional%20Budget%20Justification%20-%20Volume%202l1.pdf. 

So we release them into them, but it is very seldom because most 

of them leave our jails and go to prison. 

Judge TREVINO. Congressman, I wish I had a better answer for 

you but I don’t believe our local sheriff’s department is still involved in that. But I would have to get a better answer for you. 

I wish I could tell you that right now. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Thank you, gentleman. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognize I 

think the last Member, the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Barraga ́n, 5 minutes. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask 

for unanimous consent that a statement prepared by the American 

Immigration Council be submitted for the record. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

The American Immigration Council (Immigration Council) is a non-profit organization which for over 25 years has been dedicated to increasing public understanding of immigration law and policy and the role of immigration in American society. We write to share our analysis and research regarding an unnecessary border 

wall and the already massive investment that has already been made along the 

Southwest Border. 

WHAT HAVE WE SPENT

Since the last major overhaul of the U.S. immigration system in 1986, the Federal 

Government has spent an estimated $263 billion on immigration enforcement.1 As 

discussions with a new President and Congress start to focus on what immigration 

enforcement and border security should look like it is important to review how much 

money has already been spent on these initiatives and what outcomes have been 

produced. 

Immigration enforcement spending (further detailed in Attachment A) largely 

falls into two issue areas: Border security and interior enforcement. Border spending 

includes staffing and resources needed for U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP), an agency of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) working at and 

between United States ports of entry. Interior enforcement is primarily focused on 

staffing and resources for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), also 

part of DHS, to apprehend noncitizens in the interior of the country, detention for 

those undergoing removal proceedings, and the deportation of those ordered removed. 

Currently, the number of border and interior enforcement personnel stands at 

more than 49,000.2 The number of U.S. Border Patrol agents nearly doubled from 

fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2016.3 Additionally, the number of ICE agents devoted 

to its office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) nearly tripled from fiscal 

year 2003 to fiscal year 2016.4

137 

5 Julia Preston, ‘‘Homeland Security Cancels ‘Virtual Fence’ After $1 Billion is Spent,’’ New 

York Times, January 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/us/politics/15fence.html. 6 Bipartisan Policy Center, ‘‘Measuring the Metrics: Grading the Government on Immigration 

Enforcement,’’ February 2015, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/measuring-the-metrics-grading-the-government-on-immigration-enforcement/. 7 Ibid. 

8 Ibid. 

9 Government Accountability Office, ‘‘Secure Border Initiative Fence Construction Costs,’’ January 2009, available at, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09244r.pdf. 10 Kate Drew, ‘‘This is What Trump’s Border Wall Could Cost,’’ CNBC, available at, http:// 

www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html. 11 Id. 12 Department of Homeland Security, ‘‘Fiscal Year 2017 Congressional Budget Justification, 

Volume 1,’’ February 2016, available at, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ 

FY%202017%20Congressional%20Budget%20Justification%20%20Volume%201l1.pdf. 13 Carla Argueta, ‘‘Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry,’’ Congressional Research Service, April 2016, available at, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/ 

R42138.pdf. 14 Id. 15 Brian Ross, Brian Epstein, and Paul Blake, ‘‘Retiring Border Chief Calls Trump’s Wall a 

Waste of Time, Money,’’ ABC News, January 2017, available at, http://abcnews.go.com/ 

Politics/trumps-border-wall-waste-time-money-retiring-border/story?id=44978156. 

What has this spending bought? The United States currently has over 650 miles 

of fencing along the Southern Border, record levels of staff for ICE and CBP, as well 

as a fleet of drones—among other resources. Some of these resources have been 

spent on ill-conceived projects, such as the $1 billion attempt to construct a ‘‘virtual 

fence’’ along the Southwest Border, a project initiated in 2005 that was later 

scrapped for being ineffective and too costly.5

All of these efforts that have accumulated in the name of security, however, do 

not necessarily measure border security.6 It is past time for the United States to 

focus on metrics that actually assess achievements and progress on security.7 DHS 

lacks transparent, consistent, and stable metrics for evaluating border enforcement. 

Before deciding how to address border security, Congress should require clear reporting on metrics from DHS.8 Such metrics would better allow Congress and the 

public to hold the immigration agencies accountable and assess whether and what 

additional resources are needed (or not needed) to secure our border. 

WHAT HAVE WE BUILT AND WHAT DO WE NEED

For generations, politicians have talked about constructing a border wall. The fact 

is that (as further detailed in Attachment B) building a fortified and impenetrable 

wall between the United States and Mexico might make for pithy sound bites, but 

in reality it is unnecessary, complicated, ineffective, expensive, and would create a 

host of additional problems. 

The Government Accountability Office found that single-layer pedestrian fencing 

could cost approximately $6.5 million per mile. In addition, millions would have to 

be spent on roads and maintenance.9 The easiest parts of the border fence have 

been built, according to Marc Rosenblum, formerly of the Migration Policy Institute 

and the current DHS Deputy Secretary of the Office of Immigration Statistics.10 The 

estimated cost of the remaining border wall segments are between $15 and $25 billion, with each mile of fencing costing $16 million.11

According to the fiscal year 2017 DHS budget, $274 million was spent on border 

fence maintenance.12 Based on that expense, one can extrapolate that if fencing is 

built on the final two-thirds of the Southern Border, the maintenance costs will triple to more than $750 million annually. In fiscal year 2006, appropriations for building and maintaining border infrastructure was $298 million, and then jumped to 

$1.5 billion in fiscal year 2007 to pay for the fencing mandated in the Secure Fence 

Act.13 Fiscal year 2016 appropriations were $447 million.14

Outgoing Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Gil 

Kerlikowske said in January 2017, ‘‘I think that anyone who’s been familiar with 

the southwest border and the terrain... kind of recognizes that building a wall 

along the entire southwest border is probably not going to work,’’ adding that he 

does not ‘‘think it is feasible’’ or the ‘‘smartest way to use taxpayer money on infrastructure.’’15

The head of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing 16,000 Border Patrol agents which endorsed President Trump during his campaign, said, ‘‘We 

138 

16 Morning Edition, Border Patrol Agents’ Union Confers with Trump on Securing the Border, 

National Public Radio, November 2016, available at, http://www.npr.org/2016/11/17/ 

502402360/border-patrol-agents-union-confers-with-trump-on-securing-the-border. 17 Id. 18 Julia Harte, ‘‘No Wall, But More High-Tech Gear, Fencing Sought by U.S. Border Agents, 

Reuters, January 2017, available at, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-fenceexclusive-idUSKCN0XP28J. 19 ‘‘A Guide to Children Arriving At the Border: Laws, Policies and Responses,’’ American Immigration Council, June 2015, available at, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/ 

research/guide-children-arriving-border-laws-policies-and-responses. 20 Jonathan T. Hiskey, Ph.D., Abby Co ́rdova, Ph.D., Diana Orce ́s, Ph.D. and Mary Fran Malone, Ph.D., ‘‘Understanding the Central American Refugee Crisis: Why They are Fleeing and 

How U.S. Policies are Failing to Deter Them, American Immigration Council, February 2016, 

available at, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/understanding-centralamerican-refugee-crisis. 21 Elizabeth Kennedy, ‘‘No Childhood Here: Why Central American Children are Fleeing Their 

Homes,’’ American Immigration Council, July 2014, available at, https:// 

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/no-childhood-here-why-central-american-children-are-fleeing-their-homes. 22 Deplorable Medical Treatment at Family Detention Centers, American Immigration Council, 

July 20, 2016, available at, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/deplorablemedical-treatment-family-detention-centers. 23 Guillermo Cantor, Ph.D. and Tory Johnson, ‘‘Detained Deceived, and Deported: Experiences 

of Recently Deported Central American Families, American Immigration Council, May 2016, 

available at, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/special-reports/deported-centralamerican-families. 24 Walter Ewing, Ph.D. and Guillermo Cantor, Ph.D., ‘‘Deported with No Possessions: The 

Mishandling of Migrants Personal Belongings by CBP and ICE,’’ American Immigration Council, 

December 2016, available at, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/deportedno-possessions. 

do not need a wall along the entire 2,000 miles of border.’’16 He went on to say, 

‘‘If I were to quantify an actual number, I would say that we need about 30 percent. 

Thirty percent of our border has to have an actual fence [or] wall.’’17 The existing 

650 miles make up more than 30 percent of the 2,000-mile border. 

According to an internal U.S. Government study obtained by Reuters in April 

2016, CBP believes that more technology is needed along the border to create a ‘‘virtual wall.’’ The agency requested better radios and more aerial drones, but only 23 

more miles of fences.18

BORDER SECURITY IS ABOUT MORE THAN ENFORCEMENT

While today’s hearing is focused on enforcement along our Southern Border, the 

Immigration Council concerns about the border go far beyond concerns related to 

further militarization of our Nation’s borders. The Immigration Council promotes 

the development of immigration policies that reflect our proud history as a nation 

of immigrants that respects fundamental principles of fairness and due process. To 

that end, our report, A Guide to Children Arriving at the Border: Laws, Policies and 

Responses, provides information about the tens of thousands of children—some traveling with their parents and others alone—who have fled their homes in Central 

America and arrived at our Southern Border and why the current enforcement only 

response to their arrival is the wrong approach.19 As described in the Guide, unaccompanied children and families are still fleeing Central American violence in large 

numbers. Organized crime, gangs, and violence are driving children, families, 

women, and men out of their home towns and countries, a situation detailed in the 

report, Understanding the Central American Refugee Crisis: Why They are Fleeing,20

and the paper, No Childhood Here: Why Central American Children Are Fleeing 

Their Homes.21 These arriving children, families, and others from the region have 

been apprehended, detained in poor conditions, and rushed through removal proceedings with little due process.22 As noted in our report, Detained Deceived and Deported: Experiences of Recently Deported Central American Families many have been 

deported back to the dangerous circumstances from which they originally fled.23

Further, CBP and ICE have a serious and long-standing problem with handling 

the personal belongings of detained migrants in their custody. Too often, some or 

all of a detainee’s belongings are lost, destroyed, or stolen by the immigration-enforcement agents entrusted with their care. DHS has attempted to correct this problem through two policy changes, however, these policy shifts have yet to bear fruit. 

As our report, Deported with No Possessions: The Mishandling of Migrants’ Personal 

Belongings by CBP and ICE, shows detainees from Mexico are still just as likely 

to have their property retained and not returned as they were before DHS implemented the new policies.24 CBP has also been in the spotlight for its questionable 

practices regarding the treatment of migrants in its holding facilities near the U.S.’ 

139 

25 Guillermo Cantor, Ph.D., ‘‘Detained Beyond the Limit: Prolonged Confinement by U.S. Customs and Border Protection along the Southwest Border,’’ August 2016, available at, https:// 

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/prolonged-detention-us-customs-border-protection. 26 See American Immigration Council, Giving the Facts a Fighting Chance: Addressing Common Questions on Immigration (Washington, DC: December 2015), 16, https:// 

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/addressing-common-questions-immigration; U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security, Budget-in-Brief, Fiscal Year 2017, 17, https://www.dhs.gov/ 

publication/fy-2017-budget-brief. 27 See American Immigration Council, Giving the Facts a Fighting Chance: Addressing Common Questions on Immigration (Washington, DC: December 2015), 18, https:// 

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/addressing-common-questions-immigration. 28 U.S. Government Accountability Office, ‘‘U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Review of the 

Staffing Analysis Report under the Border Patrol Agent Reform Act of 2014,’’ May 2016, http:// 

www.gao.gov/assets/680/677475.pdf. 29 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ‘‘Congressional Budget Justification’’, Fiscal Year 

2016, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY%202017%20Congressional%20- 

Budget%20Justification%20%20Volume%202l1.pdf. 30 Julia Preston, ‘‘Homeland Security Cancels ‘Virtual Fence’ After $1 Billion is Spent,’’ New 

York Times, January 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/us/politics/15fence.html. 31 Doris Meissner, Donald M. Kerwin, Muzaffar Chishti, and Claire Bergeron, Immigration 

Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of Formiddable Machinery, Migration Policy InstiContinued 

Southern Border. Each year, hundreds of thousands of individuals are held in these 

facilities, which are meant to hold individuals for a short time and are not designed 

for overnight custody, and yet they are routinely used in this way. Government 

records analyzed in the report, Detained Beyond the Limit: Prolonged Confinement 

by U.S. Customs and Border Protection Along the Southwest Border, contain information on length of detention for all Border Patrol sectors along the U.S.’ Southwest 

Border, reveal that individuals are frequently held for days and sometimes even 

months in such facilities.25 The American Immigration Council hopes that the committee will not just look at enforcement along our Southern Border but look to address these issues as well. 

Border security depends on the smart and efficient use of available resources. At 

the same time, border enforcement cannot and should not be done in isolation. Instead, it must be examined in the larger context of reforms needed for the entire 

immigration system. 

ATTACHMENT A 

THE COST OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND BORDER SECURITY

Since the last major overhaul of the U.S. immigration system in 1986, the Federal 

Government has spent an estimated $263 billion on immigration enforcement.26 As 

discussions with a new President and Congress start to focus on what immigration 

enforcement and border security should look like it is important to review how much 

money has already been spent on these initiatives and what outcomes have been 

produced. 

Immigration enforcement spending largely falls into two issue areas: Border security and interior enforcement. Border spending includes staffing and resources needed for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), an agency of the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) working at and between United States ports of entry. Interior enforcement is primarily focused on staffing and resources for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), also part of DHS, to apprehend noncitizens 

in the interior of the country, detention for those undergoing removal proceedings, 

and the deportation of those ordered removed. 

Currently, the number of border and interior enforcement personnel stands at 

more than 49,000.27 The number of U.S. Border Patrol agents nearly doubled from 

fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2016.28 Additionally, the number of ICE agents devoted to its office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) nearly tripled from 

fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2016.29

What has this spending bought? The United States currently has over 650 miles 

of fencing along the Southern Border, record levels of staff for ICE and CBP, as well 

as a fleet of drones—among other resources. Some of these resources have been 

spent on ill-conceived projects, such as the $1 billion attempt to construct a ‘‘virtual 

fence’’ along the Southwest Border, a project initiated in 2005 that was later 

scrapped for being ineffective and too costly.30 Even with record level spending on 

enforcement, enforcement alone is not sufficient to address the challenges of undocumented migration.31 It also has significant unintended consequences, according to 

140 

tute, January 2013, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigration-enforcement-unitedstates-rise-formidable-machinery. 32 United States Border Patrol, Southwest Border Sectors, https://www.cbp.gov/sites/ 

default/files/assets/documents/2016-Oct/BP%20Southwest%20Border%20Sector%20Deaths%- 

20FY1998%20%20FY2016.pdf. 33 Bipartisan Policy Center, ‘‘Measuring the Metrics: Grading the Government on Immigration 

Enforcement,’’ February 2015, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/measuring-the-metrics-grading-the-government-on-immigration-enforcement/. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ‘‘Department Management and Operations, Analysis and Operations, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,’’ Congressional Budget Justification Fiscal Year 2017–Volume I, 880, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/ 

default/files/publications/FY2017CongressionalBudgetJustification-Volumel1.pdf. 37 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Budget-in-Brief, Fiscal Year 2005–2017, https:// 

www.dhs.gov/dhs-budget. 38 Ibid. 

United States.32 All of these efforts that have accumulated in the name of security, 

however, do not necessarily measure border security.33 It is past time for the United 

States to focus on metrics that actually assess achievements and progress on security.34 DHS lacks transparent, consistent, and stable metrics for evaluating border 

enforcement. Before deciding how to address border security, Congress should require clear reporting on metrics from DHS.35 Such metrics would better allow Congress and the public to hold the immigration agencies accountable and assess 

whether and what additional resources are needed (or not needed) to secure our border. 

The Cost in Dollars 

The immigration enforcement budget has increased massively since the early 

1990s, but Congress continues to call for more taxpayer dollars to be spent at the 

border. 

• Since 1993, when the current strategy of concentrated border enforcement was 

first rolled out along the U.S.-Mexico border, the annual budget of the U.S. Border Patrol has increased more than ten-fold, from $363 million to more than 

$3.8 billion (Figure 1).36

• Since the creation of DHS in 2003, the budget of CBP has more than doubled 

from $5.9 billion to $13.2 billion per year (Figure 2).37

• On top of that, ICE spending has grown 85 percent, from $3.3 billion since its 

inception to $6.1 billion today (Figure 2).38


h:\seals\115235.eps
141 

39 U.S. Government Accountability Office, ‘‘U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Review of the 

Staffing Analysis Report under the Border Patrol Agent Reform Act of 2014,’’ May 2016, http:// 

www.gao.gov/assets/680/677475.pdf. 40 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification, fiscal year 2003 

and 2012, https://www.dhs.gov/dhs-budget. 41 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification, fiscal year 

2003–2016, https://www.dhs.gov/dhs-budget. 

Increases in Personnel 

• Since 1993, the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents nearly doubled from 

10,717 to a Congressionally-mandated 21,370 in fiscal year 2016 (Figure 3).39

• The number of CBP officers staffing ports of entry (POEs) grew from 17,279 in 

fiscal year 2003 to 21,423 in fiscal year 2012 (Figure 3).40

• The number of ICE agents devoted to Enforcement and Removal Operations increased from 2,710 in fiscal year 2003 to 7,995 in fiscal year 2016 (Figure 3).41


h:\seals\115236.eps
142 

42 Greg Chen and Su Kim, Border Security: Moving Beyond Past Benchmarks (Washington, 

DC: American Immigration Lawyers Association, January 2013), http://www.aila.org/content/ 

default.aspx?bc=25667 43061. 43 Ibid. 44 Homeland Security Advisory Council, ‘‘Report of the Subcommittee on Privatized Immigration Detention Facilities,’’ Department of Homeland Security, December 1, 2016, https:// 

www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS%20HSAC%20PIDF%20Final%20Report.pdf; 

National Immigrant Justice Center, ‘‘Immigration Detention Bed Quota Timeline,’’ January 

2017, https://immigrantjustice.org/sites/default/files/content-type/commentary-item/documents/2017-01/Immigration%20Detention%20Bed%20Quota%20Timeline%202017l01l05.- 

pdf. 

The Federal Government has already met the border security benchmarks laid 

down in earlier Senate immigration reform bills. 

• As the American Immigration Lawyers Association pointed out in a January 

2013 analysis, the ‘‘benchmarks’’ for border security specified in the bipartisan 

2006, 2007, and 2010 immigration-reform legislative packages in the Senate 

have been largely met.42

• The requirements in those Senate bills for more border enforcement personnel, 

border fencing, surveillance technology, unmanned aerial vehicles, and detention beds have been fulfilled and in many ways surpassed—an all-time high.43

As the Homeland Security Advisory Panel noted in 2016, ICE detention rose 

from the normal 34,000 beds to 41,000 an all-time high.44

Border security depends on the smart and efficient use of available resources. At 

the same, border enforcement cannot and should not be done in isolation. Instead, 

it must be examined in the larger context of reforms needed for the entire immigration system. 

ATTACHMENT B 

THE HIGH COST AND DIMINISHING RETURNS OF A BORDER WALL

For generations, politicians have talked about constructing a border wall. The fact 

is that building a fortified and impenetrable wall between the United States and 

Mexico might make for pithy sound bites, but in reality it is unnecessary, complicated, ineffective, expensive, and would create a host of additional problems. 


h:\seals\115237.eps
143 

Extensive physical barriers already exist along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

• The U.S.-Mexico border is 1,954 miles long. Border security involves managing 

the flow of people and goods across the border and preventing the illegal entry 

of people and goods. The existing border security infrastructure includes physical barriers, aerial surveillance, and technology. More than 21,000 Border Patrol agents—as well as other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) personnel—staff ports of entry, Border Patrol stations, forward operating bases, and checkpoints. 

• Current physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border include those intended 

to prevent illegal border crossings by foot (pedestrian fencing) and impede vehicles from smuggling persons or contraband (vehicle fencing). Secondary and tertiary layers of fencing further impede illegal crossings. 

• As of early 2017, approximately 650 miles of border fence already exists: 350 

miles of primary pedestrian fencing, 300 miles of vehicle fencing, 36 miles of 

secondary fencing behind the primary fencing, and 14 miles of tertiary pedestrian fencing behind the secondary fence. 

• The existing barriers include tall metal or concrete posts, solid corrugated steel 

walls, metal fencing, and combinations of these designs. 

• In addition to physical barriers, surveillance tools, towers, cameras, motion detectors, thermal imaging sensors, stadium lighting, ground sensors, and drones 

are part of the vast existing infrastructure aimed at stopping the unauthorized 

entry of people, drugs, arms, and other illicit items. 

Congress acknowledged that additional physical barriers are not necessary. 

• The Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109–367), a law that passed with bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, required the construction of about 

850 miles of double-layer fencing along five segments of the border. 

• A few years after passage, Congress recognized that 850 miles of additional border fencing was not feasible or necessary. In 2008, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 amended the 2006 law to reduce the required mileage of reinforced fencing to ‘‘not less than 700 miles of the Southwest Border where fencing would be most practical and effective... ’’. In addition, DHS is not required to install fencing ‘‘in a particular location along the international border 

of the United States if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of 

such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location.’’ 

• Even Senator Chuck Grassley (R–IA), a long-time opponent of immigration reform, said in early January 2017, ‘‘We’ve already appropriated money for walls. 

We’ve got walls right now.’’ 

The wall is expensive. 

• The Government Accountability Office found that single-layer pedestrian fencing could cost approximately $6.5 million per mile. In addition, millions would 

have to be spent on roads and maintenance. 

• The easiest parts of the border fence have been built, according to Marc 

Rosenblum, formerly of the Migration Policy Institute and the current DHS 

Deputy Secretary of the Office of Immigration Statistics. The estimated cost of 

the remaining border wall segments are between $15 and $25 billion, with each 

mile of fencing costing $16 million. 

• According to the fiscal year 2017 DHS budget, $274 million was spent on border 

fence maintenance. Based on that expense, one can extrapolate that if fencing 

is built on the final two-thirds of the Southern Border, the maintenance costs 

will triple to more than $750 million annually. 

• In fiscal year 2006, appropriations for building and maintaining border infrastructure was $298 million, and then jumped to $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2007 

to pay for the fencing mandated in the Secure Fence Act. Fiscal Year 2016 appropriations were $447 million. 

The Federal border agencies have not asked for a wall. 

• Outgoing Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Gil 

Kerlikowske said in January 2017, ‘‘I think that anyone who’s been familiar 

with the Southwest Border and the terrain... kind-of recognizes that building a wall along the entire Southwest Border is probably not going to work,’’ 

adding that he does not ‘‘think it is feasible’’ or the ‘‘smartest way to use taxpayer money on infrastructure.’’ 

• The head of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing 16,000 

Border Patrol agents which endorsed President Trump during his campaign, 

said, ‘‘We do not need a wall along the entire 2,000 miles of border.’’ He went 

144 

on to say, ‘‘If I were to quantify an actual number, I would say that we need 

about 30 percent. Thirty percent of our border has to have an actual fence [or] 

wall.’’ The existing 650 miles make up more than 30 percent of the 2,000-mile 

border. • According to an internal U.S. Government study obtained by Reuters in April 

2016, CBP believes that more technology is needed along the border to create 

a ‘‘virtual wall.’’ The agency requested better radios and more aerial drones, but 

only 23 more miles of fences. 

There are complications to building a wall. 

• Natural barriers. The Rio Grande River runs along 1,254 miles of the border 

between Mexico and the United States and does not flow in a straight line— 

instead twisting, turning, and flooding regularly. Under the International 

Boundary and Water Commission, created in 1889 between the United States 

and Mexico, border barriers may not disrupt the flow of the Rio Grande. As a 

result, the current border fencing in Texas is located miles away from the border on private landowner’s property. In addition, the mountain range at Otay 

Mesa in California makes it extremely impractical to construct a wall or fencing. • Private land ownership. After the passage of the Secure Fence Act, the Government attempted to seize private property for purposes of constructing border 

barriers through eminent domain. These efforts led to protracted legal battles 

that in some cases lasted 7 years. The Federal Government had to provide monetary compensation to the landowners and agreed to construct several access 

points along the fence on that property. Some of the existing gaps in the fence 

are in affluent areas where residents fought construction. It would likely cost 

the Federal Government considerable amounts of money to purchase land and 

build in those areas. • Native American land. The Tohono O’odam Nation runs along 75 miles of the 

Southwest Border, and members of the Tribe have already stated they will not 

allow a border wall to be built on their reservation. A wall would effectively cut 

the reservation in half and make movement across the border, but within the 

reservation, difficult. It would separate families and make it difficult for tribe 

members to care for burial sites located in Mexico. Additionally, Federal law requires the Federal Government to consult with Tribal governments before constructing on the land. Without the Tribe’s support, the Federal Government 

could resort to condemning the land and removing it from the trust of the 

Tohono O’odam Nation. 

The wall would create a host of additional problems. 

• Border deaths. History has shown that when barriers are erected along the border, people attempt to cross at more remote and dangerous locations. According 

to U.S. Border Patrol statistics, the Southwest Border witnesses approximately 

one death per day. Over the past 18 years, nearly 7,000 people have died of 

hypothermia, drowning, heat exhaustion, or dehydration. • Harm to wildlife. The border region is home to many species and some of the 

most endangered species, including the Sonoran Pronghorn, the Mexican gray 

wolf, and the jaguar. If their natural habitat is divided by a large barrier, animals are left with a smaller habitat and may venture outside their usual 

ranges, causing potential harm to the animals and people. • Damage to the environment. A wall could impede the natural flow of floodwaters, resulting in damage and erosion, as it did in 2008. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Thank you. 

I want to follow up on some of what was asked. There have been 

a number of comments about the wall being an obstacle, not a barrier. Then in our packet I see these photos of what appears to be 

people smuggling drugs just climbing over a fence that appears to 

be easy for them to hop over. 

Who is the wall most effective against? Is it most effective 

against the drug cartels, people smuggling drugs, or the families 

that are coming over because they are escaping violence? Who is 

it most effective against? 

Mr. MCCRAW. I think it is equally effective to either, frankly. But 

again, as I have testified and I believe some of the other—the sheriffs have testified, is that unless you are—have technology on that 

145 

fence, unless someone is observing, unless you have coverage on 

that fence, unless you have someone to do the interdiction when 

someone comes over that fence or under that fence or through that 

fence, it is a obstacle and not a barrier. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Does anybody have any information on how often 

or how frequently the border agents will catch somebody hopping 

the fence or, you know, shortly after they have? 

Sheriff MARTINEZ. I guess in hopping the fence I don’t think they 

have that many apprehensions where I am located, but for the 

week of January 27 through February 3 they apprehended 461 individuals in the Del Rio sector. Del Rio has a 2-mile fence. I think 

Maverick County, Eagle Pass, Texas has a 3-mile fence, so all those 

individuals that were—my belief, all those individuals that were 

apprehended were apprehended outside of that boundary. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Were those that were apprehended people that 

turned themselves in, or people that were—didn’t voluntarily turn 

themselves in? 

Sheriff MARTINEZ. I would believe that they didn’t voluntarily 

turn themselves in. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Sheriff Wilmot, do you want to add to any of 

that? 

Sheriff WILMOT. Congresswoman, I would have to defer to Border 

Patrol for those numbers. I do not have that available to me. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK. 

Sheriff WILMOT. I could only comment on the facts that I know 

for sure. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Great. 

Judge TREVINO. The only comment I would add, Congresswoman, 

is the fact that in speaking with the local border sector chiefs I do 

know that the apprehensions are—have decreased considerably 

over the last several years. That is the only statistic that I am 

aware of, but I don’t have the specific numbers. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK. 

Sheriff Wilmot, you—I know some people have asked about 

this—you have advocated for removing funding for FEMA and moving it into DHS. Who would suffer—who is being serviced by the 

FEMA funding that you are advocating that we move those funds 

over? 

Sheriff WILMOT. I don’t believe anybody would suffer any financial loss from moving those funds from FEMA to DHS. They started out in DHS to begin with, as I understand it. So nobody would 

lose any funding. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Do you know what their funds are currently used 

from—for that we would be pulling from FEMA? 

Sheriff WILMOT. Those funds were specifically designated from 

the very beginning for Operation Stonegarden overtime and equipment to help partner with our Border Patrol and Federal counterparts. There was no funding removed, that I am aware of, from any 

other budget for that to happen. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Congresswoman, it was just administratively 

changed. It used to be in DHS—administered the homeland security grants. It was moved to FEMA. So the funding stream didn’t 

change, just who administrates it. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK. 

146 

Then the last question: Sheriff Wilmot, you mentioned—and I 

didn’t catch it all, which is why I wanted just to follow up—you 

mentioned that there has been prevention of a number of deaths 

in the desert. Can you just elaborate on what you said and how 

that prevention occurred? What was it that caused the prevention? 

Sheriff WILMOT. As I stated in the beginning of my testimony, in 

2005, 2006 Yuma County was the worst in the Nation in regards 

to cross-border traffic as well as the criminal element that so much 

accompanies it. We were experiencing, unfortunately, having to go 

out into the desert, sometimes on a weekly or monthly basis, to recover those victims that were abandoned by those smugglers out in 

the desert. 

We, as sheriffs, we are the ones that have to respond out there, 

whether it is Federal land, State land. We have to process those 

crime scenes, and our officers were going out there, as I stated, if 

not weekly or monthly to recover those victims that were left out 

there abandoned to die. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. But what prevented that? That what my question part—— 

Sheriff WILMOT. The deterrent factor between the partnerships 

with our Federal officers, is the combination of fencing, law enforcement presence on the border, and the technology with the 

cameras and sensors to be able to detect individuals crossing the 

desert was all a contributing factor in reducing that criminal element and those individuals being victimized coming across—rapes, 

robberies, and the homicides. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Great. 

Sheriff MARTINEZ. If I can just add, in Brooks County since 2006 

I think that they have worked 563 deaths in that county, and they 

are 100 miles from the border. That is people that have come 

across. So I don’t know what the makeup of the—if there is a fence 

there on the border in that area, but that is what Brooks County 

has suffered since 2006. All that, I think—a lot of that is at the 

taxpayers’ expense. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Great. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL [presiding]. Thank you. 

I want to ask one last question. I know you have got flights to 

catch. I will make it fast. 

We hear a lot, you know, bricks and mortar versus fencing. I 

hear a lot of different—you know, I mean, there are a lot of people 

with the wall being talked about that they want a brick and mortar 

wall like Israel has, you know, and they say that will be most effective. 

Then I talk to people that actually—like yourselves—who actually live down there, and the fencing you can actually see through 

it, which provides an advantage if it is done correctly—if the fencing is. 

Does anybody on the panel have any comments on that comparison? 

Mr. MCCRAW. No, but I think Secretary Kelly made a good point 

about seeing through it. I mean, you would like to see what is on 

the other side of it. To the extent that it can add the same obstacle 

type of capability and you can see through it, there is value in that. 

147 

Chairman MCCAUL. I tend to agree. 

Sheriff Martinez. 

Sheriff MARTINEZ. Yes. I have been to Israel and I have seen the 

fence there, and I see what—I have seen what they go through. 

But, you know, just here in the District of Columbia how many 

fence-jumpers have you had here on this property here? It took an 

armed Federal agent, you know, on the other side of that fence to 

neutralize the situation. 

So, back home is going to need the same kind of attention. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Yes. 

Sheriff Wilmot. 

Sheriff WILMOT. I would agree that it helps to be able to see 

through. We have that type of fencing and it is a plus, as far as 

our Border Patrol agents are concerned. You know what is on the 

other side so you are not encountering that threat without even 

knowing it is 5 foot away from you. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Exactly. 

Judge. 

Judge TREVINO. Mr. Chairman, from my meetings and conversations with the Border Patrol agents they certainly appreciate the 

fact that they are able to see and not necessarily always be seen. 

The concern behind a more concrete or less visible barrier would 

give the advantage to the other side. As the sheriffs have alluded 

to, I think our agents have to be able to know what is on the other 

side in order to properly defend themselves and protect whatever 

it is—— 

Chairman MCCAUL. It is very helpful because, you know, again, 

a lot of these Members that tout, you know, the bricks and mortar 

have never been down there. You guys are really the experts, so 

thank you for being here today. 

Members may have additional questions in writing. I would ask 

that you respond in—Sheriff, did you have one last comment? 

Sheriff WILMOT. I would like to throw out there, sir, that our priority would be also to add in being able to support the U.S. attorney’s office and getting U.S. attorneys that can actually handle the 

caseload. They built a brand new Federal courthouse in Yuma 

County that only has one Federal magistrate, so all of our agents, 

all of our U.S. attorneys have to travel 3 hours to get to court in 

Phoenix. 

They could save a lot of money by hiring a district judge to be 

in Yuma to handle the caseload and free those officers and agents 

up and those U.S. attorneys to be able to perform their jobs. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Yes. The Secretary discussed that, and my 

conversations with Jeff Sessions, who will be the attorney general. 

You know, he agrees. We talked about Operation Streamline, which 

was very effective from a deterrent standpoint with prosecutions. 

So that is very good. 

Also, pursuant to rule 7(d) the hearing will be open for 10 days. 

With that, without objection, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:21 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(149) 

1While some may characterize secondary inspection as ‘‘detention,’’ CBP would disagree. 

Rather, a secondary inspection is merely a continuation of the processing performed on primary. 

Continued 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE WILL HURD FOR JOHN KELLY

Question 1. It is my understanding that the Department of State is in the midst 

of awarding a new contract for the development and issuance of the next generation 

of U.S. passports. As the lead agency dealing with the security of our borders and 

inspecting everyone who enters our country, I am curious about your thoughts on 

what requirements should exist for this document throughout its life span from production to expiration. 

Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officers function as the front line 

of border control verification and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement/ 

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) enforce Federal statutes related to the use 

of passports. As such, both components supported the Department of State (DOS) 

in the Next Generation Passport Working Group and provided operational expertise 

on areas of interest including book design to make executing the Department of 

Homeland Security’s mission easier. However, DHS defers additional requirements 

to DOS as it maintains lead of all matters regarding U.S. passports, including the 

Next Generation Passport Working Group. 

Question 2. Does the Department of State requiring that all personnel working 

on the Program have DOD Secret (or higher) clearance? 

Do you know if the executives (president, CFO, security officer, etc.) of the prime 

contractor AND the major subcontractors have the appropriate clearances? 

Answer. The Department of Homeland Security defers to the Department of State 

on this question. 

Question 3. Was DHS consulted when setting the requirements for the next generation passport throughout its life span? 

Answer. Yes. U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement Forensic Labs consulted with the Department of State. 

Question 4. Do you believe that the supply chain for the Next Generation U.S. 

Passport is as secure as it could be? 

Are there any concerns if the new passport personalization system is manufactured outside the United States? 

Answer. The Department of Homeland Security defers to the Department of State 

on matters regarding U.S. passports. 

Question 5. Are there any cybersecurity concerns if the software provided by the 

passport personalization contractor is manufactured and later updated outside the 

United States? 

Answer. Given that this contract for the development and issuance of next generation passports is being led by the U.S. State Department, I respectfully defer to 

them for a more comprehensive answer to this question. 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON FOR JOHN KELLY

Question 1. Pursuant to the ban, how many travelers did CBP detain? 

How many withdrew their applications for admission? 

How many were removed from the country? 

How many received waivers to enter the country? 

How many were denied boarding? 

How many visas were revoked while the Executive Order was actively implemented by CBP? 

Answer. CBP does not detain travelers.1 However, when ordered by the District 

Court in Darweesh v. Trump, 17–cv–480 (E.D.N.Y.) to identify individuals affected 

150 

See, United States v. Galloway, 316 F.3d 624, 629 (6th Cir. 2003) (noting ‘‘secondary inspection 

is no less a matter of course and no less routine than the primary inspection’’). 

by Executive Order 13769 (since revoked) and encountered by CBP between 9:37 

PM on January 28 and 11:59 PM on January 29, CBP identified 765 individuals. 

With respect to individuals whose visas may have been physically cancelled at the 

ports of entry, including those who withdrew their applications for admission, CBP 

has provided the attached declaration in that same matter. Finally, with respect to 

those individuals who CBP recommended to a carrier that they not be permitted to 

board, as of February 2, 2017 CBP’s publicly-available website indicated 1,222 individuals. 


h:\seals\115241.eps
151 


h:\seals\115242.eps

3. I am familiar wilh the President's Exeeutive Order I 3 769, "Protect inc the Nation 

from Foreicn Terrorist Entry into lhe United States" issued on January 27.2017 ("Executive 

Order"), and the steps that CBP took to implement it. 

4. I am familiar with the Iener issued by the Department of State on January 27, 

20 I 7, provisionally revoking all nonimmigrant and immigront visas of nationals of Iraq, Syria, 

Iran, Sudan, Libya. Somalia, and Yemen, subject to limited exceptions, pursuant to the Executive 

Order (the "State Re,-ocation Letter"), and with lhe letter issued by the Department of State on 

Febnulry 3, 2017, reversing the aforementioned provisional revocations ("State Reinstatement 

Letter''). 

5. I am also familiar with the Decision and Order issued by this Cour1 in the above· 

styled action on January 28, 2017 (the "E. D. N.Y. Order"), and the Temporary Restraining Order 

issued by lhe District Co uri, Western District of Washington, on February 3, 20 I 7 (the "W.O. 

Wash. TRO"), enjoining and restraining enforcement of certain provisions within the Executive 

Order. 

COP Efforts to Identify lndjvidual' ~ilh Physi('ally "Revoked" Viu' 

6. 1.!~ of tbe W .D. Wash. IRO, in<li.Y.iduals.holding passpons from lroq, 

Syria, Iron, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, containing valid United States visas, may apply 

for admission to the United States to the same extent as before lhe Executive Order. However, 

CBP understands that there is a subset of individuals originally affected by the Executive Order 

who may experience difficulties traveling to the United States in order to apply for admission. 

7. When CBP encounters an applicant for admission with 1 visa lhat has been 

revoked by the Depar1mcnt of State, it is CBP's normal pructicc to physically mark the visa as 

"revoked." Between January 27, 201 7 (lhe date ofthe Executive Order and the State Revocation 
152 


h:\seals\115243.eps

Leuer)and February 3, 2017 (lhedate of the W.O. Wash. TROand the State Reinstatement 

Letter), CBP encountered individuals subject to the Executive Order with visas revoked by the 

Department of State. and CBP marl<ed many of those visas os ~ked." Because these 

individuals possess visas physically marl<ed os "revoked,'' air carriers may deny these individuals 

boarding of Righu bound for the United States. 

8. To identify affected individuals with visas physically marl<ed ~voked," CBP 

SCIII'Chcd its records to identify those individuals holding passports from Iraq, Syria. Iran, Sudan, 

Libya, Somalia, or Yemen, who, between January 27,2017 and February 3, 2017, were 

inspected by CBP and deemed inadmissible to lhe United States on the basis of the Executive 

Order. CBP identi1ied 141 such individuals-forty-four that were encountered at United States 

airports, and another ninety-seven that were encountered at land border ports of entry or 

prcclcanancc locations abroad. 

9. The forty-four individuals encountered by CBI' at airporu were all encountered 

on January 27 or 28,2017. Upon being determined inadmissible, each of these forty-four 

individuals voluntarily withdrew their applications for admission to the United States and 

returned to a foreign destination on an outbound night. AccQJAi.Jlgj_o COP records, twenty-four 

of lhe forty-four individuals have since traveled back to, and been admitted to, the United States, 

many with the assistance by COP des<:ribed below. 

10. For those individuals encountered at land border ports of entry or prccleannce 

locations, upon being dctennined inadmissible, each ofthe ninety-seven individuals voluntarily 

withdrew !heir applications for admiss;on to the United States. According to COP records, 

fourteen of the ninety-seven individuals ha'-e since returned to and boen admitted to the United 

States. 
153 


h:\seals\115244.eps

CBP Effort! to fariHtate Return Travel for Affetted ndividual~ 

II. In an efTO<tto fully comply with all court orders, including the E. D. N.Y. Order 

and the W.O. Wash. TRO, COP, in partnership with the Department of State, has taken, and 

continues to take, reasonable steps to facilitate travel to the United States for those individuals 

whose •isas were physically marked as "revoked" on the basis of the Executive Order. 

12. CBP personnel routinely commwlieate with air carriers. To facilillltc close 

cooperation between CBP and air carriers, COP developed the Carrier L.ia.lson Program, through 

which CBP maintains a 24n Regional Carrier u.ison Group (RCLG) phone center to provide 

real-time entry requirements and document valid tty advice to carriers worldwide. 

13. Since January 28,2017, COP has "orlced through its RCLG to facilitate the 

boarding of flights to the United SIJltes of affected individuals, on a case-by-case basis. Once 

CBP receives a request from an affected individual and determines that facilitation of travel is 

appropriate, COP infonns the air carrier, through the RCL.G, that the particular individual may be 

permitted to board nn aircmfi bound for the United States without the carrier fearing it will be 

lined under 8 U.S.C. § I 323. While COP cannot require an air carrier to board and transp0<1 any 

individual, CBP advises the carrier that although the individual posses.<es a United States visa 

that is marlced as revoked, the individual's visa has been reinstated and is deemed by COP to be 

valid for travel. 

14. CBP has utilized this process to successfully facilitate the return travel for 

approximately twenty-four individuals. For example, S.A. (nnmc withheld to protect the privacy 

of the individual) was initially inspected by CBP at JFK lntcmational Airport on January 28, 

2017. Based on the Executive Order and the SIJlte Revocation Letter, Ms. A. was determined to 

be inadmissible to the Umted States. and her United States visa was physically marked by CBP 
154 


h:\seals\115245.eps

as revoked. She withdrew her application for admission to the United States and departed for a 

foreign destination. On February 3, 2017, CBP received notice that Ms. A. wished to trnvel back 

to the United States. CBP utilized its RCLG to contact the air carrier, and Ms. A. was cleared to 

board her aircrntl. Ms. A. was admiued to the United States on February 6, 2017. 

15. CBP is currently utilizing this same process to facilitate the return travel of H.E., 

who was initially encountered by CBP on January 28,2017, at Orlando International Airport. 

H.E. was determined to be inadmissible. withdrew her application for admission, and her visa 

was marked "revoked." On February 13,2017, CBP received notice that H.E. wished to travel 

back to the United States. CllP utilized its RCLG to conll!ctthe air carrier, and H.E. was cleared 

to board her aircraft. H.E. is currently on board an aircraft and in transit to the United States as 

of the signing of this Declarntion. 

16. CBI' will continue to utilize this process, on a case-by-case basis, as CBP 

becomes aware of affected individuals with physically revoked visas as described above who 

wish to retun1 to the United States where sueh facilitation is appropriate. Of course, CBP cannot 

commit to the relum of any particular individual, or to ensuring admission of any individual. as 

cs_p lacks capacity or authotity to engage with jndivid®ls who are not currently presentiJlg 

themselves for admission and CBP is unable to make a final admissibility detemtination as to 

any traveler until the traveler is inspected by a CBP officer. In addition, and regardless of 

whether CBP may otTer input or a recommendation, carriers ultimately decide whether to pennit 

each passenger to board their aircraft. Nevertheless, CBP is taking the facilitation steps possible 

within the practical and legal limitations imposed on it. 

Coordination with the Department of State to Notify Affected Individuals 
155 

Question 2. What guidance did DHS and/or CBP headquarters provide CBP officers regarding implementation of this Executive Order? 

When was this guidance drafted? 

When was it communicated to the field? 

What resources were made available to the field when conflicts or questions about 

implementation arose? 

What were some of the most common challenges faced by CBP officers? 

Answer. Due to the complex nature of this effort, CBP’s Office of Congressional 

Affairs would like to set up a briefing to address your questions on this matter. 

Please contact Ms. Kim Lowry, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Office of Congressional Affairs, to arrange a date and time that CBP may come and brief you and 

your staff on this important initiative. 

Question 3a. The Executive Order on border security signed by President Trump 

last month requires you to ‘‘take all appropriate steps to immediately plan, design, 

and construct a physical wall along the Southern Border . . . to most effectively 

achieve complete operational control of the Southern Border.’’ It provides no further 

specifics. 

What are your plans for deploying the wall? 

Answer. In response to Executive Order (EO) 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is 

directly soliciting industry input for conceptual wall design(s) with the intent to construct multiple prototypes. The primary purpose of this effort is to develop design 

standards for a border wall that may be constructed along the Southwest Border 

with Mexico in support of U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) operational requirements. Any 

and all prototypes will be designed to deter illegal entry into the United States. 

Question 3b. For example, how many miles, what locations, what type of wall? 

Answer. CBP anticipates constructing multiple prototypes. USBP is in the process 

of evaluating operational requirements to determine wall placement. 

CBP requested proposals for both solid concrete wall prototypes and non-concrete 

prototypes. Through the solicitation process CBP will partner with industry to deVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:32 Sep 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17FL0207\FINAL\26396.TXT HEATH

h:\seals\115246.eps
156 

2The President’s Executive Order on Border Security and Interior Enforcement Improvements 

defines Operational Control as the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, and instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and 

other contraband. 

termine the best means and methods to include materials for constructing such prototypes. 

Question 3c. What is the estimated cost? 

Answer. CBP is aligning funds to support border wall prototype planning, design, 

construction, and evaluation. CBP is currently working to refine its prototype estimate. However, any more specific estimate information is procurement-sensitive. 

Question 3d. How much of the land involved is private property? 

Answer. CBP does not anticipate being required to acquire additional land for the 

prototype construction. However, until the solicitation process is complete and the 

prototypes have been selected, CBP cannot rule out the need to acquire additional 

property. 

Question 3e. What other challenges do you see in the Department’s ability to deploy additional wall along the border? 

Answer. CBP is not yet in a position to forecast the challenges that may arise 

with the deployment of additional wall. CBP will be in a better position to make 

this assessment after the prototypes have been fully considered. 

Question 3f. What is the estimated cost for maintenance of that wall? 

Answer. Border wall maintenance costs have not yet been determined. Once the 

prototypes have been fully considered by CBP, CBP will be in a better position to 

estimate potential maintenance costs. 

Question 4a. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and others have reported on the need for better data and metrics to assess the effectiveness of various 

border security investments, including infrastructure and technology. The Border 

Patrol has struggled to replace its ‘‘operational control’’ metric with another meaningful measure of border security. 

What goals and measures will you use to assess efforts and investments to secure 

U.S. borders? 

Answer. Based on an internal study and direction from Congress, most recently 

in the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), DHS is developing a unified outcome-based border security performance management framework, 

which will relate the President’s border security outcome, Operational Control,2 to 

the Department’s strategic lines of effort and investments in border security, including personnel, infrastructure, and technology. Consistent with the President’s definition for Operational Control, Congress’s direction in the Fiscal Year 2017 NDAA, 

and the border mission described in the most recent QHSR, DHS’s main outcome 

measures for border security will include estimates of the total successful entry of 

illegal aliens and illicit goods into the United States. DHS is working to develop 

these illegal entry estimates across several domains, including at and between ports 

on the southern land border as well as the southern maritime border (Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean). In addition to these outcome metrics, DHS also tracks input, 

activity, and output metrics to inform strategic and operational decision making and 

is actively enhancing some of these metrics in response to the NDAA. Investment 

measures, sometimes referred to as ‘‘inputs,’’ include the number of Border Patrol 

agents, technology, and tactical infrastructure employed, among others. Activities 

measured include illegal aliens apprehended, drugs seized, and number of UAS sorties flown, among others. Strategic output metrics include the probability of apprehending aliens attempting to cross the border illegally and deterrence rates. 

Concurrently, DHS’s Management Directorate, supported by CBP, ICE, USCIS, 

and USCG, is leading a 180-day Comprehensive Southern Border Security Study in 

response to the President’s Executive Order on Border Security and Interior Enforcement Improvements (Section 4.d). This study will include an assessment of current 

border security that will leverage some of the measures being developed for the 

NDAA. Additionally, this study will propose an overarching strategy to achieve 

‘‘complete operational control’’ of the Southwest Border. 

Question 4b. When can we expect to see these metrics in use by the Department? 

Answer. Congress directed the Department, through the Fiscal Year 2017 NDAA, 

to provide the new outcome-based and other specified measures initially by June 22, 

2017, then as part of annual reporting commencing on November 30, 2017. Concurrently, the Department is conducting an assessment of current border security as 

part of the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Study due to the President on 

July 24, 2017. While DHS continues to maintain and report our current Government 

Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance measures for the border security 

157 

mission, we will update these measures accordingly, based on the results of the 

NDAA and Executive Order reports. 

Question 5a. Each year, millions of visitors, foreign students, and immigrants 

enter the United States on a legal temporary basis. The majority of visitors depart 

on time; however, significant numbers of visitors overstay their authorized periods 

of admission. Although DHS has spent significant resources on exit-related efforts, 

the Department has yet to implement a biometric exit capability. 

What are your plans to successfully implement a biometric exit capability so that 

DHS can accurately count the number of overstays, identify foreign nationals who 

overstay or violate the terms of their visit, and enforce relevant laws? 

Answer. CBP encountered significant infrastructure, operational, and logistical 

challenges during the initial deployment of the biometric exit program. However, despite these early challenges, CBP, in partnership with the DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), conducted several biometric exit pilots in the air and land 

port environments. CBP used lessons learned from these pilots (e.g., technological 

approaches, passenger dynamics, multi-modal biometric collection, and process/operational impacts) to successfully design and implement, beginning in June 2016, a 

Biometric Air Exit pilot at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Five 

key parameters guided the pilot: 

• Minimal impact to existing travel processes; 

• Integrate with existing airport infrastructure; 

• Leverage existing airline systems, processes, and business models; 

• Use current passenger behaviors and expectations without requiring new or unexpected steps for travelers, and; 

• Utilize advanced passenger information and, to the greatest extent possible, existing traveler data and Government systems to stage biometrics in small 

batches to facilitate faster matching. 

The Atlanta pilot proved to be a successful, and potentially feasible, way forward 

using a simple camera at the airline’s boarding pass checkpoint to take a traveler’s 

photo. This checkpoint biometric collection is quick, easy, and contactless. Facial 

recognition technology would then match the checkpoint photo with the traveler’s 

previously collected passport/arrival photo(s), associated with travel documentation 

or immigration processing information. Biometrically matching a traveler’s departure record to their previous arrival record strengthens the integrity of the immigration system. Due to the success of the pilot, CBP believes it has developed an 

achievable vision and realistic plan for implementation of a biometric air exit program. This not only solves a 20-year statutory requirement, but it also provides an 

opportunity to re-design the entire travel process for airlines and passengers, bringing greater convenience and security. 

Throughout fiscal years 2017–2018, CBP will use lessons learned regarding technology, passenger behavior, and multi-modal biometrics, and further expand the biometric exit program toward meeting the mandate given by Congress. CBP will ensure that any future concept of operations for implementing biometric exit (air, land, 

or sea) adheres to, as appropriate, the aforementioned key parameters with the ultimate goal of enhancing security while facilitating legitimate trade and travel. 

Question 5b. How will you ensure that the capability does not impede legitimate 

travel and commerce? 

Answer. CBP’s approach will create an opportunity for CBP to transform air travel by enabling all stakeholders in the travel system to match travelers to their data 

using biometrics, leverage passenger behaviors and expectations that do not require 

new or unexpected steps for travelers, and unlock benefits that continue to enhance 

CBP’s ability to fulfill its mission to enhance security while facilitating legitimate 

travel. 

Question 5c. What are your plans to develop and implement a strategy for addressing overstays once an exit capability is operational? 

Answer. The completion of a full exit capability will improve CBP’s ability to accurately identify overstays, as more complete arrival and departure information will 

then be available for all travelers. Today, CBP uses travel manifests received from 

commercial and private aircraft and commercial sea carriers; manifest data voluntarily provided by bus and rail carriers; data collected by CBP officers during border 

crossings; cooperative information-sharing agreements; and data received from U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or U.S. Department of State to determine how long a visitor is eligible to remain in country or, conversely, how long they 

have overstayed if that authorized period of admission has expired. CBP uses this 

information to take actions against individuals who are confirmed overstays either 

directly or in coordination with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

and others. The consequence for overstaying can range from losing the ability to 

158 

participate in programs such as the Visa Waiver Program to deportation and removal proceedings. 

In terms of enforcement, ICE actively identifies and initiates action on priority 

overstay violators. ICE’s overstay mission is accomplished in close coordination with 

CBP. ICE’s primary objective is to vet system-generated leads in order to identify 

true overstay violators, match any criminal conviction history or other priority basis, 

and take appropriate enforcement actions. Within ICE, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) has dedicated units, special agents, analysts, and systems in place 

to address nonimmigrant overstays. Through investigative efforts, HSI is responsible for analyzing and determining which overstay leads may be suitable for further National security investigation. 

From a DHS processing standpoint, ICE analyzes system-generated leads initially 

created by, or matched against, the data feed for biographical entry and exit records 

stored in CBP’s Arrival and Departure Information System (ADIS). ADIS supports 

the Department’s ability to identify nonimmigrants who have remained in the 

United States beyond their authorized periods of admission or have violated the 

terms and conditions of their visas. Once the leads are received, ICE conducts both 

batch and manual vetting against Government databases, social media, and public 

indices. This vetting helps determine if an individual who overstayed has departed 

the United States, adjusted to a lawful status, or would be appropriate for an enforcement action. 

As part of a tiered review, HSI prioritizes nonimmigrant overstay cases through 

risk-based analysis. HSI’s Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit 

(CTCEU) oversees the National program dedicated to the investigation of nonimmigrant visa violators who may pose a National security risk. Each year, the 

CTCEU analyzes records of hundreds of thousands of potential status violators after 

preliminary analysis of data from the Student and Exchange Visitor Information 

System (SEVIS) and ADIS, along with other information. After this analysis, 

CTCEU establishes compliance or departure dates from the United States and/or determines potential violations that warrant field investigations. 

The CTCEU proactively develops cases for investigation in furtherance of the 

overstay mission and monitors the latest threat reports and proactively address 

emergent issues. This practice, which is designed to detect and identify individuals 

exhibiting specific risk factors based on intelligence reporting, travel patterns, and 

in-depth criminal research and analysis, has contributed to DHS’s counterterrorism 

mission by initiating and supporting high-priority National security initiatives 

based on specific intelligence. 

Additionally, DHS has made substantial improvements over the last 5 years to 

identify, prioritize, and address confirmed overstays. DHS system enhancements 

that have strengthened our immigration enforcement efforts include: • Improved ADIS and Automated Targeting System—Passenger (ATS–P) data 

flow and processing quality and efficiency, increasing protection of privacy 

through secure electronic data transfer. 

• Extended leverage of existing ATS–P matching algorithms, improving the accuracy of the overstay list. Additional ADIS matching improvements are underway to further improve match confidence. 

• Developed an operational dashboard for ICE agents that automatically updates 

and prioritizes overstay ‘‘Hot Lists,’’ increasing the efficiency of data flow between the DHS Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM) and ICE. 

• Implemented an ADIS-to-IDENT interface reducing the number of records on 

the overstay list by providing additional and better quality data to ADIS, closing information gaps between the two systems. IDENT refers to the Automated 

Biometric Identification System, which is the current DHS biometric repository 

for storage and matching. 

• Improved ability of ADIS to match U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ 

(USCIS’) Computer Linked Adjudication Information Management System 

(CLAIMS 3) data for aliens who have extended or changed their status lawfully, 

and therefore have not overstayed even though their initial period of authorized 

admission has expired. 

• Created a Unified Overstay Case Management process establishing a data exchange interface between ADIS, ATS–P, and ICE’s LeadTrac system, creating 

one analyst platform for DHS. 

• Enhanced ADIS and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Alien Flight 

Student Program (AFSP) data exchange to increase identification, efficiency, 

and prioritization of TSA AFSP overstays within the ADIS overstay population. 

• Enhanced Overstay Hot List, consolidating immigration data from multiple systems to enable ICE employees to more quickly and easily identify current and 

relevant information related to the overstay subject. 

159 

• Established User-Defined Rules enabling ICE agents to create new or update 

existing rule sets within ATS–P as threats evolve, so that overstays are 

prioritized for review and action based on the most up-to-date threat criteria. 

The DHS steps described above have strengthened data requirements through 

computer enhancements, identified National security overstays through increased 

collaboration with the intelligence community, and automated manual efforts 

through additional data exchange interfaces. 

Question 6. On January 23, 2017, President Trump signed a memorandum ordering a freeze on the hiring of Federal civilian employees to be applied across the 

board in the Executive branch. The memorandum provided that the head of any Executive department or agency may exempt from the hiring freeze any positions necessary to meet National security or public safety responsibilities. 

Presumably the hiring of Border Patrol agents, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) special 

agents is exempt, correct? 

But what about other non-law enforcement, but mission-critical positions, such as 

CBP agricultural specialists, seized property specialists, and support personnel? 

If these positions go unfilled, law enforcement officers will likely be pulled from 

their field to compensate. Please explain how the hiring freeze is being implemented 

with respect to these critical, non-law enforcement positions and at the Department 

of Homeland Security generally. 

Answer. Department leadership is committed to ensuring the successful accomplishment of its National security and public safety missions. During the hiring 

freeze, the DHS hiring freeze exemption process, approved by the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management, enabled DHS to quickly 

exempt front-line and support positions such as CBP agriculture specialists. Now 

that the hiring freeze is over, DHS continues to fill critical positions to accomplish 

its mission in accordance with OMB memo M–17–22 ‘‘Comprehensive Plan for Reforming the Federal Government and Reducing the Federal Civilian Workforce.’’ 

Question 7. Recent cyber hacks and attacks have compromised business operations, critical infrastructure, and even campaign activity. There is no sign that the 

cyber threats we face will become less frequent or less severe. 

How do you expect the President’s Federal hiring freeze to affect the Department’s 

ability to carry out its cybersecurity mission? 

Will you be able to hire the talent you need to protect our networks? 

Answer. On January 23, 2017, the President issued a Memorandum directing 

agencies to implement an across-the-board hiring freeze of Federal civilian employees. The President authorized the heads of departments and agencies to exempt positions he or she deemed necessary to meet National security or public safety responsibilities. Given the Department of Homeland Security’s critical mission to secure the Nation and ensure the public safety, a number of positions within the Department were exempted from the hiring freeze. Positions necessary to carry out the 

Department’s mission to safeguard and secure cyber space were among those exempted from the hiring freeze. 

Due to the exemption of cybersecurity positions from the hiring freeze, and other 

hiring and retention authorities provided by Congress, we have been able to hire 

the talent we need without interruption. 

Question 8a. President Trump’s Executive Order on border security directs the 

hiring of an additional 5,000 Border Patrol agents, but gives no other specifics. 

What is the time frame for hiring these additional agents? 

Answer. CBP will to comply with the President’s Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements. Projecting a time frame for hiring 

5,000 additional Border Patrol agents (BPA) is a work in progress as we map out 

screening, vetting, hiring, and training executables that ensure there is no degradation in the quality of our BPA while reaching the President’s goals. We will work 

diligently with the Department of Homeland Security, the Congress, and other Federal Government and private partners to meet the Executive Order mandate. Staffing the front line with well-qualified individuals of the highest integrity and operational quality remains a top mission support priority for CBP. CBP will maintain 

the hiring surge that has been in effect since fiscal year 2014. 

To this end, CBP has intensified all aspects of our hiring strategy, including initiatives designed to attract qualified applicants, expedite the pre-employment time 

line, refine the hiring process to address all potential bottlenecks, and reduce the 

attrition rate of our existing workforce. We continue to build on the momentum of 

our process improvement efforts, which in the last 2 years, have led to a significant 

reduction in the time-to-hire and an increased applicant-to-entrance-on-duty rate. 

We’ve incorporated lessons learned from our 2015 hiring hub program into a new 

expedited hiring process that, as of April 2017, is being used for all front-line appliVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:32 Sep 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17FL0207\FINAL\26396.TXT HEATH
160 

cants. The average time-to-hire dropped from 469 days in January 2016 to fewer 

than 300 days in March 2017. We anticipate this number will continue to decrease, 

as the hiring hub model has shown the ability to hire applicants in an average time 

of as low as 160 days. 

CBP is working to further refine its hiring process and eliminate redundancies, 

improving the applicant experience and further reducing the time-to-hire. This is a 

key aspect of our larger strategy, as shorter hiring times can prevent otherwise 

qualified candidates from dropping out of the process due to fatigue or accepting immediate job offers elsewhere. We are also reviewing modifications to the administration of the polygraph exam, entrance exam, and physical fitness tests, with each 

modification carefully assessed for all risks and mitigation measures. Our process 

is meant to ensure only individuals with the highest integrity serve as agents and 

officers safeguarding our borders and ports of entry—and we remain committed to 

upholding these standards amid the increasing urgency to hire more personnel. 

Parallel efforts include intensified recruitment and marketing activities designed 

to increase the number of qualified applicants entering the hiring pipeline. This includes a large-scale rebranding effort that incorporates data-driven marketing campaigns across multiple platforms and recruitment events in many strategic regions 

of the country. CBP has also worked with the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) to obtain direct-hire authority to help fill the additional BPA positions, as 

well as other positions involved in protecting our borders. OPM also approved a revision for qualifying BPAs to enable us to change our methods for filling BPA positions and thus improving our ability to meet certain mission-critical hiring needs. 

Additionally, CBP through the DHS Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, has 

submitted a consolidated DHS request to OPM on May 2, 2017 for approval of dual 

compensation waiver positions. Approval of this authority would enable CBP to rehire annuitants who can help build an adequately-staffed mission support infrastructure and provide all necessary support. This will strengthen the performance 

of CBP’s various law enforcement, National security, and trade operations that protect our borders. 

These and other efforts will not only ensure CBP compliance with the Executive 

Order but also further establish our long-term ability to staff the front line in accordance with the expanding complexity and demands of our mission. 

Question 8b. Are you aware that Border Patrol is already more than 1,800 agents 

short of its existing staffing target and has struggled to hire enough agents just to 

keep pace with attrition? 

Answer. Yes, CBP’s challenges in recruitment predate the President’s Executive 

Order, and we have worked aggressively over the past several years to implement 

a multifaceted recruitment strategy and execute large-scale improvements to our 

front-line hiring process and capability. While these efforts have led to considerable 

progress in many areas—including declines in the overall time-to-hire and BPA attrition rates—CBP intends to further strengthen all aspects of its recruitment strategy in order to meet the Executive Order hiring mandate. As part of this strategy, 

CBP has worked with OPM in order to obtain necessary recruitment and hiring 

flexibilities. 

Question 8c. CBP’s Office of Field Operations is having similar problems. How are 

you going to address hiring challenges at CBP while ensuring that new hires are 

suited for the job? 

Answer. CBP will continue the aggressive implementation of its recruitment strategy across all three of its front-line components: U.S. Border Patrol, Office of Field 

Operations, and Air and Marine Operations. Our efforts focus primarily on attracting more applicants who are better-suited to the unique demands of our mission. 

To this end, CBP will look to further improve brand awareness and convey the importance and scope of our mission within the public sphere. We will continue to 

focus on increasing our digital and social media presence to reach the millennial 

generation, expanding our outreach at high schools and colleges, and collaborating 

with the Department of Defense to help transitioning service members find rewarding and suitable careers with CBP. 

161 

CBP is also in the process of examining every aspect of its pre-employment process to identify areas in which further improvements can be made. While modifications to our process are being considered—many of which were proposed prior to the 

release of the Executive Order—CBP will not implement any change without carefully weighing risks and mitigation measures. To be clear, CBP is not lowering its 

standards for any of its front-line personnel. The changes under consideration may 

result in more applicants passing the pre-employment process, but all successful applicants must still successfully complete basic training at our Academies, whose core 

function is to uphold our front-line standards and ensure mission-readiness. 

Æ