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

97–598 PDF 2016

VIOLENCE ON THE BORDER: KEEPING U.S. 

PERSONNEL SAFE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 

Serial No. 114–51 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

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

http://www.house.gov/reform 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DeSAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Staff Director 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

ART ARTHUR, Staff Director, Subcommittee on National Security 

SARAH VANCE, Clerk 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 9, 2015 ....................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

The Hon. Gregory B. Starr, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, U.S. Department of State 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Ambassador William H. Moser, Deputy Director, Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations, U.S. Department of State 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Ms. Sue Saarnio, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Western Hemisphere 

Affairs, U.S. Department of State 

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Mr. Robert L. Harris, Director, Joint Task Force-West, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Mr. Brandon Judd, President, National Border Patrol Council, American Federation of Government Employees 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

APPENDIX 

Mexico 2015 Crime and Safety Report: Mexico City ............................................ 56 

Letter to Congressman Cummings from Alejandro Estivill ................................. 72 

Statement of Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney .............................................. 73 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

VIOLENCE ON THE BORDER: KEEPING U.S. 

PERSONNEL SAFE 

Wednesday, September 9, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Jordan, Amash, Gosar, 

DesJarlais, Farenthold, Massie, Meadows, DeSantis, Mulvaney, 

Buck, Walker, Blum, Hice, Russell, Carter, Grothman, Hurd, Palmer, Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Clay, Lynch, Connolly, Cartwright, Kelly, Plaskett, DeSaulnier, Welch, Lujan Grisham, and 

Cuellar. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Good morning. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will come to order. And without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. 

We have a very important hearing today. Appreciate you joining 

us. The title of this hearing, ‘‘Violence on the Border: Keeping the 

U.S. Personnel Safe.’’ 

The United States is Mexico’s largest trading partner and largest 

foreign investor. Mexico is the United States’ third largest trading 

partner after Canada and China and is this country’s second largest foreign supplier of petroleum. 

We have a lot of familial ties. We have people who have loved 

ones there. It’s a great place to travel. It’s one of the more beautiful 

places on the planet, a lot of recreation. A lot of reasons, good reasons to interact with the good people of Mexico and to enjoy one 

of the most amazing countries that is on the border of the United 

States of America. It is one of the busiest and most economically 

important borders in the world, with nearly 1 million legitimate 

travelers and nearly $1 billion worth of goods legally crossing the 

border each day. 

But Mexico is also a dangerous place. I would argue it’s one of 

the most dangerous places on the planet. To understand how dangerous it is, we don’t have to look further than the State Department’s own warnings about travel to Mexico. Specifically, the State 

Department warns, ‘‘Gun battles between rival criminal organizations or with Mexican authorities have occurred in broad daylight 

on streets. Criminal organizations have created road blocks to prevent the military and police from responding to criminal activity. 

Carjacking and highway robbery are serious problems in many 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

parts of the border region, and U.S. citizens have been murdered 

in such incidents.’’ 

According to the United States Department of State’s Bureau of 

Diplomatic Security, Nuevo Laredo’s municipal police was suspended in July of 2011, ‘‘among allegations of large-scale corruption.’’ Benjamin Galvan Gomez, who had been the mayor of Nuevo 

Laredo until 2013, disappeared on the night of February 27, 2014, 

near his house, along with businessman Miguel Angel Ortiz. 

Prosecutors say that Galvan was kidnapped in Nuevo Laredo, 

killed and dumped near Monterrey about 135 miles south to the 

state of Nuevo Leon. Their bodies were found in the trunk of a car 

on March 1, 2014, according to press reports. In June of 2012, a 

bomb exploded in Galvan’s parking spot at City Hall, killing one 

bystander and injuring others. 

The month before, cartel members left the decapitated bodies of 

14 people in a van in front of City Hall accompanied by the banner 

that claimed to be from Joaquin El Chapo Guzman, leader of the 

Sinaloa cartel. The banner threatened Galvan and accused him of 

working with the Zetas. 

In February 2013, the police chief of Nuevo Laredo disappeared, 

and his two brothers were found dead in the trunk of a car in 

Nuevo Laredo. Just yesterday—I happen to be a member of the 

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and further to the 

south there’s an article out about an LDS Mission President. Somebody from the United States, actually from my district, going down 

and serving a religious mission who was shot during a robbery in 

Mexico. It is a violent place, a dangerous place. 

The lawlessness is a direct result of drug cartels operating in 

Mexico evolving into massive criminal organizations. These cartels 

have expanded their operations into kidnapping, extortion, and 

murder. Unfortunately, this is not new news. It has been going on 

for some time. According to the National Border Patrol Councils— 

we’ll hear testimony today—‘‘The official death toll from cartel violence in Mexico is 60,000. However, the unofficial death toll in 

Mexico is over 120,000 killed and another 27,000 missing or presumed dead.’’ 

Mexico ranked 103rd out of 175 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, which ranks countries and 

terrorists based on how corrupt their public sector is perceived to 

be. It’s in company of Algeria, China, Bolivia, Moldova, and Niger. 

According to the Institute for Economics and Peace ranking of 

countries from least to most violent, Mexico was 144 out of 162 

countries surveyed, being similar to Lebanon and Colombia and 

others in terms of violence in 2015. 

Today, the Department still operates nine consulates in an embassy in Mexico City. Two of those consulates, just south of the 

United States border, are of particular interest in today’s hearing. 

Matamoros and Nuevo Laredo, where I’ve been able to visit the 

Nuevo Laredo facility, both consulates operate directly across the 

Rio Grande River from the United States despite the State Department’s warning, ‘‘Violent criminal activity occurs more frequently 

along the northern border.’’ 

In attempt to approve safety of our personnel in those consulates, 

the Department is set to build new consulate compounds in both 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

Matamoros and Nuevo Laredo. Despite these plans, construction 

has been long delayed. Both of these facilities are being constructed 

under the Department’s design excellence initiative. 

Design excellence takes longer than the standard embassy design, which has been used successfully by State in previous years. 

Several independent studies have gone and shown that they build 

them faster and less expensive. Unfortunately, the State Department, under President Obama and Secretary Clinton, changed the 

way we do this. They’re now more expensive, they’re slower, and 

consequently, we keep more people in danger for long periods of 

time. 

Given State’s own warnings about the danger Mexico poses to 

U.S. citizens and officials, it seems that building these facilities 

should be a priority; yet, it has been a fiasco over the last few 

years. Construction will not be completed until November 2017 in 

Nuevo Laredo and until spring of 2019 in Matamoros. 

We had a chance, Stacey Plaskett and I, had a chance to visit 

the embassy in Mexico City. State Department entered into a contract in Mexico City to purchase from Colgate-Palmolive a $120 

million piece of land to build a new embassy. We have paid roughly 

half of that, $60 million to Colgate-Palmolive. But the transfer does 

not complete until Colgate-Palmolive cleans up the site of all contaminants as approved by the Mexican environmental authorities. 

But the place that they decided to buy—and we have documentation of this—was a brownfield. It was dirty. It was toxic. It was not 

ready to be built on. They thought they could clean it up, but it 

continues to be so dirty today that the Mexican Government will 

not approve it because it’s too toxic. 

So we have an older facility that’s not adequately fortified. We 

have massive growth—massive growth in the number of personnel 

that they want to go into this embassy, and the construction costs 

have jumped 38 percent to $763 million. In fact, if you look at the 

total costs, including the site acquisition, design and construction, 

we’re looking at $943 million to build this embassy that is now 

years behind. 

Part of the reason that increase that’s happening there is the 

number of desks. The number of desks projected at the beginning 

was going to be 891; now it’s 1,335. Why the increased number of 

desks? In large part because of the security problems in Mexico. 

Yes, we do increase the amount of trade, but we need more security 

personnel to do the assessments from all the various agencies. This 

puts the total at roughly $706,000 per desk. 

Now, the original embassy in Mexico City was scheduled to be 

completed in February of 2019, but we’re looking at least middle 

of 2020, if not further. It has still—still to this day not been approved by the Mexican Government. The money has been paid, but 

we’re not able to move into that new facility. And it’s totally unacceptable. 

The State Department also recently indicated it plans to take 

away danger pay allocations for U.S. personnel who have been receiving it in Mexico. Danger pay is additional money provided to 

State Department employees who are willing to work in a particularly dangerous area. It defies logic for the State Department to 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

warn Americans about the high risk of danger—high risk in danger 

and traveling in Mexico but to end danger pay for diplomats here. 

Behind the scenes, the State Department says, ‘‘Oh, don’t worry 

about it. Don’t worry about it. They’ll be taken care of.’’ Having 

traveled to Mexico a couple of times now and talking to State Department personnel, it’s right at the top of their plate. Right at the 

top of their issue. Don’t take away our danger pay. 

You have people who work in the consulate in Nuevo Laredo directly across the border who have literally just a couple of square 

miles of which they can move. I’ve talked to the State Department 

personnel who cannot freely go out and shop or go to a movie or 

do anything other than stay on that compound because of the extreme violence and danger, and yet the State Department wants to 

take away that danger pay. 

We have people who are shaking their heads saying, ‘‘Oh, that 

is silly. That’s ridiculous.’’ But you know what? How ironic that the 

House Republicans are fighting to help keep the danger pay for the 

State Department employees. And they want to change that in 

Mexico. And that doesn’t make sense to us. We’re going to explore 

that. 

Crime in northern Mexico has already impacted U.S. assets in 

the country. On June 7, a truck leaving the United States consulate in Matamoros was hijacked by armed robbers. The hijackers 

stole more than 11,500 U.S. border crossing cards, which are visas 

that can be used to enter the United States. Some of these were 

recovered, but nearly 2,000 of these cards and a dozen passport 

cards are still missing. 

The hijacking of this truck should come as no surprise to the 

State Department. The Department’s own travel warning makes it 

clear that, ‘‘No highway route through Tamaulipas,’’ which is the 

state, which includes Matamoros and Nuevo Laredo, ‘‘are considered safe.’’ 

American assets in the sky are also at risk. In June, members 

of the Zeta cartel were shot at at a Customs and Border Patrol helicopter, hitting it twice and forcing it to land near Laredo, Texas. 

I’ve seen that helicopter. I talked to the pilot. I talked to the other 

gentleman who was on that helicopter. They were on the United 

States side of the border but taking fire from the Mexican side of 

the border, a pretty brazen attack on a U.S. helicopter doing patrol 

on the United States side of the border. 

Previous to that there were attacks on Mexican helicopters from 

drug cartel members. It actually took down a helicopter in another 

part of Mexico. While no one was injured, this attack made it clear 

that cartels have no reservations about expanding the scope of 

their violence on the American side of the border. Danger and violence in Mexico is apparently not much of a priority for this administration. 

Secretary Kerry, I understand he’s got a busy job. But here we 

have one of the most important partners; the most important relationships that we have in the world is with Mexico. And in the 29 

months since Secretary Kerry has been the Secretary of State, how 

many times has he visited Mexico? One time. It’s not a priority for 

this administration. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

Instead, they’re taking away danger pay. They’re trying to make 

the case that, ‘‘Oh, it’s all safe. Everything’s good here.’’ And yet, 

I’ve got an LDS Mission president who was shot yesterday. I’ve got 

border patrol agents that are being shot out of the sky. I’ve got people who know that there are violent—by the tens of thousands of 

people being killed on that side of the border. 

And we, as the United States of America, need to do better. We 

have to do better. They’re our next door neighbors. There’s over 100 

million people there. That demands a little bit more attention from 

the Secretary than one quick visit down there. It makes me wonder 

whether they want Americans to think things are fine and safe for 

America, and it’s hard to understand why so little diplomatic effort 

had been there. 

We have a lot to discuss today. Very frustrated with the State 

Department and the requests made on July 15. We had sent a letter. It barely goes on to the second page. We had four asks. And 

on Friday, before this hearing, going into Labor Day weekend, 

State Department dumped on our desk 110,000 documents. 

Couldn’t do a rolling production. Couldn’t allow their staff to pour 

through this. 

But this is how the State Department acts with the Oversight 

and Government Reform Committee. So we’ll digest that. But to 

dump 110,000 documents, honest. Friday, right before Labor Day, 

we’re coming into this hearing. You all knew that we had this. 

Come on. Really? You expect that to go unnoticed? Unacceptable. 

Unacceptable. 

My question for the panel today, do we have all the documents? 

I want you to certify and tell me that I have everything I asked 

for. And that will be one of my first questions. 

Yield to now the gentleman from—our ranking member, Mr. 

Cummings, from Maryland, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank you for holding this hearing today. And as I listen to you, 

I’m hoping that our witnesses listen very carefully. I think you 

raised some legitimate concerns and I’m hoping that they will address them. 

I also want to thank Congressman Vela, the ranking member of 

the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, for being a 

leader on this issue and for promoting aggressive action to protect 

the United States and our diplomatic corps overseas. 

Drug cartel violence in Mexico threatens American and Mexican 

citizens and their families on both sides—on both sides of the border. It also negatively impacts our important bilateral trade relationship with Mexico. Combatting the violence and stabilizing this 

region needs to be a top priority for both countries. 

Congressman Vela’s position is that the consulates should remain open to support American citizens and economic interests on 

both sides of the border. And I agree with him, and I find his argument quite persuasive. 

Closing U.S. consulates in Mexico will simply destabilize the region making our borders less safe. Consulates in Mexico play a critical role in implementing Laredo initiative, which is our Nation’s 

$2.5 billion investment in disrupting organized groups, institutionalizing the rule of law, and building stronger communities. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

Many of our U.S. consulates also house our Federal law enforcement efforts to combat the drug trade and strengthen border security. In addition, many U.S. companies, including DuPont, Tyco, 

and General Electric, have significant business interests in Mexico. 

These other businesses provide 65,000 jobs in Matamoros, our consular district alone, and they depend on the support provided by 

U.S. consulates. U.S. consulates also provide crucial services to 

U.S. citizens residing in and visiting Mexico. 

Our diplomatic relationship with Mexico is a critical tool for stabilizing the region. We need to strengthen this diplomatic relationship, especially in regions that need it most, not damage it by closing these consulates, as some have suggested. I believe Mexico 

should do more to enhance security in the region. But the U.S. also 

has a role to play, such as stemming the flow of guns. 

Congressman Vela has suggested establishing secure economic 

zones in northern Mexico similar to those that have already been 

implemented in southern Mexico. These zones would include a joint 

economic plan that would provide more opportunities for communities on both sides of the border. These ideas deserve serious consideration. 

We must ensure that Mexico is doing everything it can to root 

out the corruption that plagues law enforcement and civil institutions in order to effectively combat drug cartels. Greater stability 

will encourage more economic investment. 

On our side of the border the United States must do more to 

stem the flow of guns into Mexico. In March, the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, and Firearms reported that more than 100,000—more 

than 100,000 guns were recovered in Mexico and submitted for 

tracing from 2009 to 2014. Of those 100,000 guns, 70 percent of 

them originated in the United States. Guns that are entering Mexico are being trafficked in from the United States. 

This is one reason I’m proud to cosponsor with my good friend, 

Congresswoman Maloney, the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act, 

which is being reintroduced today on a bipartisan basis by our colleague, Mrs. Maloney. If we can stem illegal gun trafficking in the 

United States, there’s no doubt the positive effects will be seen by 

our neighbors to the south. 

Finally, let me say this: The United States must take all appropriate steps to ensure that our diplomats are safe and fully and 

fairly compensated. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that that 

must happen. This includes building modern, secure, diplomatic facilities. Construction plans are underway in Mexico, Matamoros, 

and Nuevo Laredo to build new diplomatic facilities that will house 

Marine barracks to ensure even greater protection of our personnel. 

I understand that the State Department is changing how it pays 

employees serving in dangerous and difficult environments. I appreciate the Department’s efforts to use resources effectively and 

consistent with the law. But I believe no employees who serve on 

the front lines abroad should face reductions in pay. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how to further improve the safety of U.S. personnel while promoting our longstanding and mutually-beneficial relationship with Mexico. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank the gentleman. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And I would like to associate myself with 

your comments about some of our colleagues, Mr. Vela, as well as 

Mr. Cuellar, who is here and joining us on the stand. My understanding is that Congressman Vela would also like to participate 

with us today. 

Even those these two gentlemen are not on our committee, we 

have had a tradition of allowing and asking unanimous consent to 

allow people to sit in on these hearings. So I would ask unanimous 

consent that our colleagues, Congressman Filemon Vela and Congressman Henry Cuellar be allowed to fully participate in today’s 

hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

We appreciate the perspective from these two gentlemen. They 

live in great proximity to the issues of things that we’re going to 

be talking about today, and they’ve been invaluable to me in providing a good, I think, balanced perspective. And appreciate their 

passion on this issue and their care for the loved ones that are 

there in that area. Appreciate their perspective. Glad they’re joining us today. 

We’ll now recognize our first panel of witnesses, but I would like 

to tell members that I will hold the record open for 5 legislative 

days for any members who would like to submit a written statement. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. We’re pleased to be joined by Mr. Gregory 

Starr, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of the Diplomatic Security at the United States Department of State. 

Ambassador William Moser is the Principal Deputy Director of 

the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations at the United States 

Department of State. And he has a long storied history at the State 

Department. Appreciate your service and thank you for joining us 

here today. 

Ms. Sue Saarnio—did I pronounce it properly? I hope so—is the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the 

United States Department of State. 

Mr. Robert Harris is the Director of the Joint Task Force-West 

at the United States Customs and Border Protection. 

And Mr. Brandon Judd is the President of the National Border 

Patrol Council of the American Federation of Government Employees. We thank you all for being here. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn before 

they testify. So if you will please rise and raise your right hand. 

Thank you. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony 

you’re about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing 

but the truth? 

Thank you. You may be seated. 

Let the record reflect that all witnesses have answered in the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for discussion, we would appreciate limiting your verbal testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be made part of the record. 

Mr. Starr, we will start with you and then we will simply go 

through and get to the question portion of the hearing. 

Mr. Starr, you’re now recognized for 5 minutes. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY B. STARR 

Mr. STARR. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, 

and distinguished committee members, good morning. And thank 

you for your invitation to appear today to discuss the security situation near U.S. consulates at the border in Mexico. We share your 

concerns regarding the security of the U.S. personnel in Mexico, 

and I look forward to discussing these issues with you today. 

Our national interests often require us to serve in dangerous 

places around the world. However, it is clear that the U.S. Embassy and consulates in Mexico are exceptionally important platforms for diplomatic and consular engagement to advance our national interests. 

I was in Mexico a few weeks ago and can bear witness to the 

hard work and dedication of the U.S. personnel serving on both 

sides of the border. I also saw the challenging circumstances in 

which many of our people operate. Environments such as Mexico 

involve constantly shifting threats that require comprehensive 

planning, agile decisionmaking, and deft diplomacy. Most of all, 

they require us to be present, fully engaged, and 100 percent committed to the security of our people and our facilities. 

In Mexico, we engage with and seek support where necessary 

from a host government that recognizes Mexican and American 

vital interests are linked and that bilateral cooperation is required 

to counter the threats posed by transnational criminals. In every 

incident, threat, and attack in Mexico, this only underscores the 

continued importance of the strong bilateral relations and the comprehensive security cooperation. 

Our embassy and consulates in Mexico play a critical role in providing services to American citizens, issuing visas, and implementing key foreign policy objectives. I work closely with my colleagues in the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations as the Department builds diplomatic missions in Mexico to increase safety 

and security. These new facilities are vital platforms for diplomacy, 

all of which will meet the rigorous Overseas Security Policy Board 

standards for safety and security. 

During my recent visit to some of the border consulates, I walked 

with the principal officers and regional security officers to view the 

additional security measures taken and augmented host country 

security presence protecting our facilities. These protective features 

allow us to operate necessary programs that strengthen Mexico police capacity, reinforce critical law enforcement cooperation, and 

improve security along our southern border. 

These consulates also aid the expansive bilateral trade that supports both countries totaling over $500 billion annually. But it is 

simply not enough to improve physical security. We are also training the Foreign Service community on how to better respond in 

these environments. 

All officers under chief of mission authority at our border post in 

Monterrey are required to take the Foreign Affairs Counter Threat 

training course, also known as FACT, which teaches them hard security skills. As a result, personnel in our missions are better prepared for operating in challenging environments, and we are workVerDate Sep 11 2014 09:35 Feb 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\97598.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
9 

ing towards making FACT training universal for all Foreign Service personnel at our posts overseas regardless of the threat levels. 

I recognize the hardships that our people and their families endure in such environments. It is a testament to their courage, their 

commitment, and the important work that they are accomplishing 

abroad. Having served over 30 years in the Foreign Service, I understand wholeheartedly the sacrifices our people make. It is simply woven into the fabric of what uniquely defines the Foreign 

Service community. Knowing the challenges ahead, they willingly 

and courageously step up to fill the important positions that we 

have in Mexico and throughout the world. 

I look forward to working with Congress to ensure our personnel 

are serving abroad safely and that they continue to have safe platforms for advancing our national interests. And I want to thank 

Congress for the resources and support that you have provided over 

the years, and we look forward to your continuing support in years 

ahead. 

Thank you. And I’ll be glad to answer any questions that you 

have. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Starr follows:] 

[For complete submitted testimony, please see the following 

website: https//oversight.house.gov/hearing/construction-costsand-delays-at-the-u-s-embassy-in-kabul] 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Ambassador Moser, you’re now recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR WILLIAM H. MOSER 

Mr. MOSER. Good morning, Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member 

Cummings, and members of the committee. And thank you very 

much for the invitation to appear before the committee today to 

discuss the U.S. consulates in northern Mexico. 

Security is a top priority for the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations. Since the enactment of the Secure Embassy Construction 

and Counterterrorism Act, SECCA, of 1999, OBO has completed 

122 more secure facilities and have an additional 39 in design or 

under construction. These facilities provide more than 35,000 people with a safer workplace. 

Constructing secure diplomatic facilities in Mexico underscores 

our commitment to strengthening our bilateral relationship and reflects increased U.S.-Mexican commitments to issues such as migration, counter-narcotics, trade, and border security. 

Over the last 7 years, OBO has constructed new Consulate General facilities in Mexico in Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana, and most recently in Monterrey. Together, these facilities provide safer work 

space for over 770 staff. 

Our work continues in northern Mexico with the new U.S. Consulate General in Nuevo Laredo under construction and expected 

to be completed in 2017. This new consulate will provide workspace 

for approximately 150 staff. Another U.S. Consulate General in 

Matamoros is in design and expected to be awarded for construction this fall and completed in 2019. This new Consulate General 

is planned to accommodate approximately 197 staff. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
10 

We have an active and aggressive site search underway in Mexico to meet our commitments. We are under contract for new Consulate General sites in Nogales, Guadalajara, Hermosillo, and anticipate closing on these sites in 2015 and 2016. We are also in the 

process of evaluating sites in Merida to replace the existing facilities. 

Additionally, a new U.S. Embassy in Mexico City is currently in 

design and includes office space for over 1,300 staff members, a 

U.S. Marine security guard residence, and a consular area with 

over 75 teller windows. 

OBO works closely with Diplomatic Security every step of the 

way on all of our projects. OBO and Diplomatic Security physical, 

technical, and industrial security specialists are involved in project 

development from early site selection, planning, design, construction, and through occupancy. All U.S. diplomatic facilities built by 

OBO meet the Department’s standards for security and life safety. 

By 2020, we expect to have constructed or broken ground on over 

nine new diplomatic facilities in Mexico that will serve as secure 

platforms from which to conduct diplomacy and to fulfill foreign 

policy objectives for many years to come. 

And I’m happy to answer your questions at any time. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Moser follows:] 

[For complete submitted testimony, please see the following 

website: https//oversight.house.gov/hearing/construction-costsand-delays-at-the-u-s-embassy-in-kabul] 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Ms. Saarnio, you are now recognized for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SUE SAARNIO 

Ms. SAARNIO. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, 

distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

As the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State responsible for our 

Mexico portfolio in the Western Hemisphere Bureau, I want to assure you, as my colleagues have, that the safety and security of our 

colleagues in Mexico are our top priority. 

I started my diplomatic career in Mexico City, and I would be 

proud to serve in Mexico again. I’d like to share with you today the 

work that the State Department performs to assist American citizens in Mexico’s border region. I will highlight the measures we’re 

taking to enhance security in Mexico through strong, bilateral cooperation, while ensuring the safety of U.S. personnel, particularly 

of those serving in the U.S. consulates along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

The State Department closely examines all threats to our diplomats, locally-employed colleagues, and U.S. facilities. The Department assesses daily the risks the U.S. personnel face as they do 

their jobs in a constantly-shifting landscape. We seek a balance between the critically-important work our people do, including the 

consular services provided to American citizens in Mexico, and the 

inherent risk of working in a challenging security environment. 

At every step, we work to ensure the security and safety of all 

American citizens, but particularly our diplomatic colleagues in 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
11 

Mexico. We remain vigilant and we analyze carefully new potential 

threats. 

Our embassy and our consulate personnel meet frequently with 

Mexican Federal, state, and local counterparts to discuss these concerns and to assure that all appropriate measures are being taken 

to protect our personnel and U.S. citizens of business. 

We have systems in place that allow us to communicate rapidly 

and effectively with U.S. citizens when the security situation 

changes. Our travel warning, country-specific information, and security messages provide U.S. citizens with our best assessment of 

the risks they may face when traveling to certain regions in Mexico. 

The United States and Mexico share a mutual investment in security and prosperity. The State Department, along with key U.S. 

Government agencies, such as the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and others 

work with the Mexican Government through the Merida Initiative 

to combat transnational criminal organizations and to protect our 

citizens from the crime and violence these organizations generate. 

Because of our robust and ongoing dialogue with Mexico on security issues, Mexican Federal authorities have taken action to improve security conditions and reduce violence, particularly in the 

state of Tamaulipas, where the United States Government is represented at the border consulates of Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros. 

The bilateral economic relationship between our two countries is huge. Indeed, the two-way trade topped $550 billion in 2014. 

Eighty percent of that trade crossed the U.S.-Mexico land border. 

Our integrated economic relationship supports thousands of jobs in 

both countries and hundreds of thousands of people legally cross 

our border each day. Mexico remains the top foreign destination for 

travelers from the United States. In fact, we estimate that on any 

given day there are 1.5 million American citizens in Mexico. 

Our U.S. Consulate General in Nuevo Laredo, and Matamoros in 

particular, support this vibrant relationship through visa services 

for tourists, students, and workers. They provide critical services to 

the some 138,000 U.S. citizens living in their consular districts, 

and to thousands of U.S. visitors and the commercial travelers. 

These services include passport issuances and renewals, 

issuances of consular reports of birth abroad, providing information 

on voter registration, and offering notary services for documents to 

be used in the United States. The consulates also provide emergency services to American citizens who are arrested, kidnapped, 

or face temporary destitution in Mexico. 

We share the committee’s concern about the levels of violence in 

certain areas in Mexico, and we assess the overall environment on 

a daily basis. We believe that U.S. interests are best protected by 

maintaining a strong presence on the ground in Mexico and continuing our close law enforcement and security relationship. We review and monitor the situation daily and have been taking all appropriate steps to ensure the safety of American citizens, including 

government personnel. 

I want to assure you, this is and will continue to be a top priority 

for me, my leadership, and the Department. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
12 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Saarnio follows:] 

[For complete submitted testimony, please see the following 

website: https//oversight.house.gov/hearing/construction-costsand-delays-at-the-u-s-embassy-in-kabul] 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Mr. Harris, you’re now recognized for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. HARRIS 

Mr. HARRIS. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, 

and distinguished members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to speak about the Department of Homeland Security’s Southern Border and Approaches 

Campaign’s Joint Task Force-West, which represents the next evolution of border security on our Nation’s southern border. 

I assumed the position of director of the newly-created pilot joint 

task force on December 15, 2014. Prior to this position, I was the 

first then-commander of Customs and Border Protection’s South 

Texas campaign where I served from February 2012 to December 

2014 in Laredo, Texas. 

I’ve held numerous executive leadership positions in my more 

than 30-year Border Patrol career, to include serving as chief patrol agent of the Laredo, Texas, and Spokane, Washington, Border 

Patrol sectors; chief of intelligence operations and as the deputy 

chief of the U.S. Border Patrol where I led and managed the transition of the U.S. Border Patrol into the then newly-created U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection in 2003. 

I want to take a moment to speak to you about the Southern 

Border and Approaches Campaign and the Joint Task Force-West. 

This campaign directs DHS resources in a collaborative fashion 

with pre-identified, component-validated, Secretary-approved targets, spanning a range of threats and challenges, including the terrorist threat, illegal immigration, drug, human, and arms trafficking, and the illicit financing of all of these operations. 

I’m working hand in hand with my counterparts, Vice Admiral 

William Dean Lee from the U.S. Coast Guard, director of Joint 

Task Force-East; and Special Agent in Charge David Marwell, HSI 

special agent in charge director of joint task force investigations. 

Although we are in our early stages, we are working to coordinate DHS forces and leverage Department of Defense international, 

State, local, and tribal resources to combat the transnational criminal organizations who exploit vulnerabilities in our southern border 

and approaches. This level of integration among DHS component 

agencies is unprecedented since the creation of the department in 

2003. 

The Joint Task Force-West will secure the southern border and 

its approaches through departmental unity of effort, thereby integrating and prioritizing DHS security operations. Our five primary 

objectives in Joint Task Force-West are, integrate and align our intelligence capabilities; institutionalize integrated counternetwork 

operations to identify and target transnational criminal organizations and their illicit networks; prioritize investigative efforts to 

disrupt, degrade, and dismantle transnational criminal organizations and illicit networks; strengthen international prosecutorial 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
13 

and deterrent efforts against transnational criminal organizations 

enterprises and significant activity impacting the Joint Task ForceWest joint operating area; and finally, advance the Joint Task 

Force-West mission through unified communication and messaging 

efforts. 

The structure of the Joint Task Force-West focuses cross-departmental and integrated counternetwork operations on strategic objectives across four geographic corridors: California, Arizona, New 

Mexico, West Texas, and South Texas. The Joint Task Force-West 

will focus on creating and implementing a standardized methodology for identifying and prioritizing strategic targets based on national security, public safety, and border security threats. 

We have begun the threat prioritization process by developing a 

concept of operations plan and courses of action for each corridor. 

The goal will be to expedite integrated counternetwork operations 

against a list of prioritized transnational criminal organizations 

across the southwest border on October 1, 2015. This has never before been done in a coordinated and integrated means across the 

entire southwest border. 

These corridor operations will expand our ability to impact illicit 

networks beyond the border from their point of origin to destination point through integrated DHS and interagency cooperation. 

These joint efforts will result in consequence application to identified targets through investigation, enforcement, and administrative 

actions. The joint task force framework also enables DHS to 

streamline our collaboration, innovation, and integration with other 

government entities. 

For example, in the South Texas corridor, we have taken steps 

to move past collaboration and into the integration of intelligence, 

investigation, and interdiction resources, and have conducted 

counternetwork operations against prioritized threats. This new 

partnership further reduces institutional barriers and duplication 

of effort, provides for a unity of effort understanding the threat network, and enhances our ability to dismantle these networks. 

I am confident that moving forward the Southern Border and Approaches Campaign will effectively disrupt, degrade, and dismantle 

threats in a strategic and coordinated manner like never before 

and improve our ability to combat criminal organizations who 

present a threat to our efforts to secure the southern border. 

I look forward to answering any questions. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:] 

[For complete submitted testimony, please see the following 

website: https//oversight.house.gov/hearing/construction-costsand-delays-at-the-u-s-embassy-in-kabul] 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Mr. Judd, you’re now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BRANDON JUDD 

Mr. JUDD. Thank you, Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member 

Cummings. 

In June, a CBP helicopter was shot and forced down in Laredo, 

Texas. To many in Washington, this was a wakeup call to the inVerDate Sep 11 2014 09:35 Feb 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\97598.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
14 

creasing violence on the Mexican border. Unfortunately, this was 

far from an isolated incident. 

For example, in 2014, less than 100 miles from the helicopter 

shooting, Border Patrol Agent Javier Vega was murdered defending 

his family from two armed illegal immigrants while on a fishing 

trip. One of the murderers had been deported four times, the other 

twice for illegally crossing the border. 

Twenty years ago, and about the time I joined the Border Patrol, 

the Zeta, Sinaloa, Gulf, and Knights Templar cartels did not exist 

or were not widely known. Although narcotics and illegal immigrant smuggling were conducted by organized crime, it was not 

nearly on the level we see the cartels operating today. There were 

even relatively small-time players conducting smuggling operations 

within a given area of operations. 

Although violence could and did erupt, the older generation of 

smugglers took the long view. They would rather risk losing a load 

of narcotics to the Border Patrol than opening fire on agents. Violence brought unwanted attention on both sides of the border, and 

that was bad for business. This all began to unravel in the early 

2000s with the emergence of the drug cartels. 

These cartels are well organized, heavily armed, and pathologically violent. To give you a sense of the violence, the official death 

toll—as you quoted earlier—the official death toll from the cartel 

violence in Mexico is 60,000. This is more than the United States 

military lost in Vietnam. However, the unofficial death toll in Mexico is over 120,000 killed and another 27,000 missing and presumed dead. 

In Mexico, the cartels kill without hesitation or fear of prosecution. In May of this year, cartel members shot down a Mexican 

Army helicopter in the state of Jalisco. Why would we expect them 

to behave any differently on the U.S.-Mexico border? 

The second factor driving the increased violence is the rise of 

criminal aliens. When I first started in the Border Patrol, if you 

were a citizen of Mexico, we simply took down your information, 

took a single fingerprint, loaded you on a bus and drove you to the 

border for repatriation. It was a revolving-door border enforcement 

policy with cases where agents often arrested the same individual 

twice in the same shift. 

Three positive developments, however, changed this. The first 

was the change in the way we collected information. Instead of just 

capturing one fingerprint, we began taking the prints of all ten fingers and running the prints of those arrested against all criminal 

databases kept in the United States Department of Justice. We 

were then able to identify with certainty criminal aliens attempting 

to reenter the United States or to identify those who were arrested 

during interior patrol activities. 

The second positive step was the implementation of the various 

consequence delivery systems used in certain places along the border, and the third was Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 

criminal deportation program. 

I want to be very clear on this, especially given the recent incendiary comments about who is crossing the border and the assertions that the border is far safer than it has ever been: In 2014 ICE 

deported 177,000 convicted criminals. Of this number, 91,000 were 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
15 

arrested by the Border Patrol trying to illegally reenter this country. 

To put this figure in perspective, in 2014 the Border Patrol apprehended and arrested just under 500,000 illegal immigrants. 

Meaning that one in every five arrests last year by the Border Patrol was a criminal alien. Almost 50 percent of the criminal aliens 

supported in 2014 were convicted of aggravated felonies. These 

charges include murder, rape, sexual assault of a child, and drug 

and weapons trafficking. These are not petty criminals, and approximately 60 percent of those deported last year had already 

been deported at least once before. 

This is the challenge we are facing at the border today. There are 

those who will point to lower apprehension rates and tell you the 

border is secure. Border Patrol agents, however, throughout this 

nation will tell you the border is not secure and the southwest border certainly is not safe. 

We know what the problems are. What can we do to improve? 

First thing, increase manpower. Currently, there are 21,370 Border 

Patrol agents in this country. And that’s actually what Congress 

mandates that we have. We’re actually about 2,000 less, under 

that. So we don’t even have the floor that Congress has mandated 

that we maintain. We do not have to double the size of the Border 

Patrol to gain operational control of the border, but we are, in my 

opinion, approximately 5,000 agents short of where we should be. 

Secondly, supervisory staffing levels. The Border Patrol is an extremely top-heavy organization with far too many layers of management. The average large police department has one supervisor 

for every ten officers. The Border Patrol has one supervisor for 

every four agents. The committee should mandate a ten-to-one 

ratio and achieve it through attrition in the supervisory ranks. 

This could easily return another 1,500 agents to the field. 

Because of time, I’m just going to point out the other points. We 

need to continue with interior enforcement, we need to improve our 

training, and we need to prosecute assaults against Border Patrol 

agents. In this manner, I believe that we will decrease the violence 

on the border and we will help to maintain border security. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Judd follows:] 

[For complete submitted testimony, please see the following 

website: https//oversight.house.gov/hearing/construction-costsand-delays-at-the-u-s-embassy-in-kabul] 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank you all for your participation and 

your service to this country. 

I’ll now recognize myself for 5 minutes to our three State Department witnesses. 

Four people on this committee, myself, Elijah Cummings, Ron 

DeSantis, and Steve Lynch sent a letter dated July 15, 2015. My 

question is, what percentage of the documents asked for in this letter has the Congress—has this committee, have they been given? 

Ambassador Moser, do you know? 

Mr. MOSER. I don’t know the exact percentage. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Can you use your microphone, please. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
16 

Mr. MOSER. Excuse me. I’m sorry. I don’t know the exact percentage sir. I do know that we have provided 150,000 pages of documents. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. It doesn’t matter unless we get the right 

percentage. 

So Ms. Saarnio—— 

Ms. SAARNIO. Saarnio. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. —what percentage? 

Ms. SAARNIO. Sir, I’m not aware of that. That would be in Ambassador Moser’s—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. It’s directed to Secretary Kerry. 

Mr. Starr, what percentage of the documents do we have? 

Mr. STARR. I do not know, sir. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Should we issue a subpoena, Mr. Starr? 

Mr. STARR. I believe that most of the documents are OBO-produced documents. I know that they’re working hard to—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Ambassador Moser, is that true? Where are 

these documents? 

Mr. MOSER. Sir, we have a process for producing them. And I do 

want to assure you that I or members of my staff are more than 

happy to work with your staff in order to prioritize—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. We sent the letter on July 15, and you 

can’t tell us that we got all the documents. So what do we need 

to do to get there? Do I need to issue a subpoena? 

Mr. MOSER. Sir, we will work with you to try to produce the documents that you require. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. When will you have all those documents to 

us? 

Mr. MOSER. Sir, I can’t tell you how fast the process will work. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. That’s for sure. I agree with you on that. 

I shouldn’t have to waste any of my time asking for documents that 

we requested back in July knowing that we were working towards 

a hearing on this date. 

Mr. Harris, of the border, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 defined 

operational control as, ‘‘the prevention of all unlawful entries into 

the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful 

aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband,’’ 

The goal of this was to achieve 100 percent operational control. 

Based on your knowledge, your experience, what percentage of 

the border today is secure? 

Mr. HARRIS. Sir, I would have to defer to CBP to give a more detailed response to that question. In my current capacity, that’s not 

within my area of focus. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Is there a metric that you all looked for on 

that, or no? 

Mr. HARRIS. Well, I’m really involved in counternetwork operations, basically to work with the components across DHS—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Okay. So you don’t have an answer to that 

question. 

Mr. Judd, what percentage of the border is under operational 

control? 

Mr. JUDD. According to the agents that I speak with that are actually on the frontline that actually work and see what we arrest 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
17 

and what gets away, I would say that we would be lucky if we’re 

40 percent. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Mr. Starr, one of the frontline people 

that—some of the frontline people that we rely on, and for those 

Americans who are working at our consulates, and certainly at the 

embassy are the local guards, do you know what we’re paying those 

local guards on a monthly basis? 

Mr. STARR. Congressman, I couldn’t quote you an exact dollar figure. We did go over this with the new contract that we’re putting 

in place. I would tell you that it’s a competitive salary in terms of 

any other local guards in the country, and, in fact, it probably is 

competitive with the police as well. But it is based on Mexican salaries. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And that’s the concern, is that we’re paying 

these local guards, at least what our staff has been told, roughly 

$316 per month is their monthly salary. And I recognize it’s Mexico. It’s not New York City. Wages are going to be different. But 

does that number sound about right, $316 per month for a local 

guard to guard our U.S. facilities? 

Mr. STARR. Yes, sir, that’s about the prevailing wage in Mexico. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. The opportunity for corruption, I think you 

can see, is of great concern. I don’t know what the magical number 

is, but Mr. Judd, I was going to ask you about the ratio of management and the agents that you need, but I think you’ve addressed 

that. 

One of the great concerns I have is getting these new facilities 

to secure our American personnel. I’m going to put up a slide here. 

To give a little background in history, we were operating under 

standard embassy design. This is something Secretary Powell put 

into place. But under the Obama administration with Secretary 

Clinton they moved to this design excellence. 

And here is the concern. If you go to the second slide, Tijuana 

was built under standard embassy design. Is there anything 

wrong—Ambassador Moser—with the Tijuana facility? Is it too 

ugly for Mexico? 

Mr. MOSER. Not to any knowledge, sir. But in fact, it really 

wasn’t a standard embassy design, sir. It was a derivative. It didn’t 

really do the exact standard embassy design. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So we spent about $668,000 per desk but 

it’s as close to standard embassy design as we have. But then we 

have these modified design excellence. Monterrey was built, it 

jumped cost at $900,000 per desk. But the two under construction, 

Matamoros and Nuevo Laredo, we’re now looking at $1.8 million 

per desk; in Nuevo Laredo at $1.7 million per desk. We’re talking 

$191 million to build something in Matamoros in Nuevo Laredo at 

$154 million. How do you explain that? 

And by the way, in Matamoros—I’m sorry, Nuevo Laredo, $154 

million, you start doing that math, you know, it’s like 88 desks. 

How do we afford to do that around the world? Why we have such 

a massive jump in expense? These expenses could go to personnel, 

guard forces. And you all want to take away danger pay. So why 

so much expense on these? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 

Mr. MOSER. Sir, I acknowledge your concerns, and it is my obligation as a career State Department employee to make sure that 

we’re doing our best to serve our taxpayers’ concerns. 

I will tell you that over time our security standards and our 

building quality has increased in order to adapt to actually new circumstances. And it’s very hard without a detailed analysis that 

looks at site, where building is located, what we’re trying to accomplish in each building to compare on a desk-by-desk basis. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Well, what other metric would you use? 

Mr. MOSER. As I’ve told you, it takes more of an accounting approach where you look at what the inputs are and then gauge it 

to what comes out. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Yeah, well, that’s costing tens of millions of 

dollars more and it’s taking a longer time. We will continue to have 

hearings about this. It is an outrageous amount of money and it’s 

taking longer. No doubt that we need new facilities. 

I do need to ask before I yield back about the danger pay. I’m 

not sure which one of the three to ask you about, but I guess, Ms. 

Saarnio, we’ll start with you. To what Mr. Cummings said, are people working for the State Department in Mexico, is there any 

threat of their wages going down by the loss of danger pay? 

Ms. SAARNIO. Congressman, thank you for that question. You 

know, I’m glad I get to answer this, because I’m very proud of our 

Foreign Service colleagues who have—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Yeah, I know. We’re all proud of them. 

Keep going. What’s the answer to this question? Are you going to 

cut their pay? 

Ms. SAARNIO. The answer is that our allowances change over 

time as situations change. And yes, we have developed a new system by where we’re changing danger pay and hardship pay. In 

Mexico we’re going—the changes will be some posts will go up and 

some posts will go down. But that reflects, we believe, the change 

in the situation on the ground. 

The danger pay that’s been calculated in the past, some of the 

elements of that, the criminal violence and living conditions, social 

isolation that you mentioned, those are also accounted for in hardship pay. And so if we look at the net pay for our colleagues, for 

example, our colleagues in Matamoros, will be getting a 5 percent 

increase. Our colleagues in Nuevo Laredo and Tijuana will be going 

down by 5 percent. So we think that reflects the accurate situation. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So Nuevo Laredo, there is no mayor that 

has authority over a police force there. We’ve documented the violence. Are you telling me it’s more safe now in Nuevo Laredo than 

it has been? 

Ms. SAARNIO. By our calculations, it is. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. The American Foreign Service Association 

takes great issue with this. You disagree with them, their analysis 

in that? 

Ms. SAARNIO. I’m a former board member of the American Foreign Services Association. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Yeah. They disagree with this position. 

Ms. SAARNIO. Well, I’m not so sure about the specific cases. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Well, I’ll read you the quote‘‘On the basis 

of conditions of environments which differ substantially from condiVerDate Sep 11 2014 09:35 Feb 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\97598.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
19 

tions of environments in the continental United States, it’s a recruitment and retention incentive.’’ My understanding is they disagree with this. 

You’re telling me that in northern Mexico, it’s less secure in Matamoros now and more secure in Nuevo Laredo. 

Ms. SAARNIO. So we believe the situation on the ground has 

changed and our allowance is perceived—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. In Nuevo Laredo, if you work at the consulate, do you know how far you can travel away from the consulate as an American? 

Ms. SAARNIO. I do. I’m aware of the situation. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Okay. How far can you travel? 

Ms. SAARNIO. You don’t. You stay close by your home, and your 

social life is very restricted. That’s true and that’s taken into account—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. You have about nine square miles that you 

can operate, that you are allowed to go. And you’re going to decrease their pay? 

Ms. SAARNIO. Sir, when Foreign Service officers sign up to go to 

these posts, they recognize the situations may change and the allowances may change in the time that they’re serving there. It’s 

part of the process, and we recognize it when we go to these posts. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I’m just telling you, you’ve got a lot of people on this panel that don’t understand, given the massive amount 

of violence, the statistics that we just went through, particularly 

with Mr. Judd, the violence that’s going on there; and you’re going 

to decrease these people’s pay. I went down there. It was the number one issue. 

My time is well expired. This is not an acceptable conclusion to 

your so-called analysis. I do not agree that it is more safe than it 

has been, and it’s an exceptionally difficult place to live. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

pick up exactly where the chairman left off. Mrs. Saarnio, how 

often are these reassessments made with regard to pay allowances? 

I see Mr. Starr is jumping up and down. You can answer. You may. 

Mr. STARR. Ranking Member Cummings, if I could answer the 

question. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Please do. 

Mr. STARR. At least once a year we review the allowances at all 

of our posts. The danger pay that the chairman is referring to, in 

August of 2014, we began a review of how we issued danger pay. 

We looked at also our hardship allowances. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. When was that? 

Mr. STARR. In August of 2014. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. 

Mr. STARR. It’s been a continuing review. Our goal is to make 

sure that we have equitable implementation of our allowances 

across our entire world program. The global program includes posts 

that in many cases are much more dangerous than Matamoros or 

Nuevo Laredo. 

Yes, I absolutely admit there are high levels of violence in both 

of those places. But in our analysis, it is very different, that the 

violence there is not directed against the consulate or consulate 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
20 

personnel. They can be in the wrong place at the wrong time. We 

have many places in the world where we serve where the violence 

is directed against our people, and those are the places where our 

employees are getting danger pay. 

For the types of criminal violence that we see in Mexico, that is 

reflected in their hardship differential, and many of them have gotten increases in their hardship differential to reflect the criminal 

violence. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. What do you define hardship as? 

Mr. STARR. Hardship, it looks at many different factors. It can 

look at isolation. It can look at pollution. It can look at the medical 

condition. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. The nine-square-mile limitation would be a hardship? 

Mr. STARR. Exactly. Exactly, sir. But I would also tell you that 

these posts in Mexico, our employees can get in a car and in 10 or 

15 minutes be in the United States and across the border and 

shopping and going to school. 

We have people in places like Chad. We have places, Mali, and 

different places where no such types of outlet exist, and in those 

places they’re going to get a higher level of danger pay if it exists, 

and they’re going to get higher hardship differentials. We’re very 

careful in how we look at this. We want to make sure that our people are getting the right allowances for the conditions on the 

ground. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Did you have something, Mr. Moser? Ambassador; I’m sorry. 

Mr. MOSER. No. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I think you’ll find, Mr. Starr, that this is a bipartisan effort to try to make sure our people are treated fairly and 

that they are paid adequately, but when I thought about what Ms. 

Saarnio said, she said a lot of times when these people go into 

these positions, they know what they’re going into. 

I mean, I know that sounds simple, but when you’re a person 

who really wants to serve your government, yeah, that may very 

well be part of the basis of which, that you know what you’re going 

into. I assume that a lot of these people will take these positions 

because it’s a part of their job. Am I right, Madam? 

Ms. SAARNIO. Yes. I think many of the Foreign Service officers 

are willing and go to these posts knowing the dangers, but they 

also know that these allowances change over time when you’re at 

post; and if the situation changes, they could be changed while they 

are serving there or after they leave. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So Mr. Starr said, you look at them about on a 

yearly basis. If something radical happened and there was a major 

problem, would there be any kind of exception to that general rule 

of one year? Do you follow me? 

Mr. STARR. Congressman, not typically. I would tell you that 

when we have a radical change in a situation, we look at the measures that we take. We may implement additional security. We may 

withdraw personnel. We may take family members out of a post. 

Typically the allowances are looked at once a year. On an exceptional basis, if something really drastic does happen, we can look 

at it; but generally allowances are looked at once a year. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
21 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Starr, in your testimony, going to another 

subject, you referenced a recent visit to some of the border consulates in Mexico. Is that right? 

Mr. STARR. Yes, sir, I went early last month. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now would you describe for us the situation that 

our American personnel on the ground are experiencing? 

Mr. STARR. I spent a great deal of time talking with our employees, both our local employed staff and our Americans. They are 

aware. They know the levels of violence that are going on around 

them. We are not having trouble staffing those posts. 

I also met with OSAC constituents, Americans that are working 

with American companies that are there, and talked with them as 

well. And I think it’s very clear in our OSAC travel warnings that 

are out to the American businesses, American businessmen, and 

the consular warnings, we’re not pulling any punches on the level 

of danger down in Mexico. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. As a matter of fact, in the Matamoros consular 

district, there was a spike in crime in February. Is that right? 

Mr. STARR. Exactly, sir. We looked at that almost daily as we can 

began to see that two cartel or actually sub groups within a cartel 

were beginning to fight it out among each other and higher levels 

of violence. We were plotting every single day where the violence 

was taking place. 

We were looking at the location of our residences, the location of 

where we went shopping, the location of our facilities, against 

where the violence was. We were ready to pull the pin and move 

people out if that violence came into our neighborhoods but we look 

at those things almost daily when that level goes up. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So back then in February, there were six times 

as many incidents as compared to the month before. Is that right? 

Mr. STARR. That’s approximately right, sir, yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, did any of these security incidents involve 

U.S. citizens? 

Mr. STARR. Yes, there were some U.S. citizens, not from the consulate that were involved, but yes, there were U.S. citizens that 

were affected. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And so you talked about how you were monitoring the problems, but what else has the State Department done 

or is doing to address that type of increase? 

Mr. STARR. I think that’s where the value of the consulates is 

most apparent and the embassy as well. As we monitored the violence going up, we could play a role both through our consular offices and warning Americans and Americans that were working 

there. 

Through OSAC we put out warnings. Our consul general was 

dealing with the governor of the region and talking with the police. 

The regional security officer was talking with the police, and the 

ambassador and the others in the embassy in Mexico City were 

pointing out that the levels of violence were going up and that the 

government needed to address this quickly and effectively. And 

there soon after that—and I don’t want to say that this is entirely 

just at our urging. Clearly the government of Mexico understood 

this as well—they put additional forces on the ground to try to 

stem the violence. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
22 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, Mr. Harris, in June of this year, shots were 

fired at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection helicopter near 

Laredo, Texas. The shots appear to have come from the Mexican 

side of the border. Fortunately no one was injured in this incident, 

but it does raise concerns about the safety of our Federal law enforcement officers that are protecting the border. I understand that 

in response to Customs and Border Patrol, they sent two armored 

Blackhawk helicopters equipped to handle small arms fire to be 

used in the region. Is that correct? 

Mr. HARRIS. Yes, sir, that’s correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And what else has been done to ensure the safety of the agents on the ground? 

Mr. HARRIS. Well, first of all, before I answer the question, I’d 

like to say that the job of a Border Patrol agent is very dangerous 

work. We have had 122 Border Patrol agents killed in the line of 

duty since the Border Patrol was created in 1924. And DHS and 

CBP was created in 2003, and since that time we have had 33 officers killed in the line of duty, and 29 of those were Border Patrol 

agents. 

So there’s no question that being a U.S. Border Patrol agent is 

dangerous work. I think because we deal with a large population 

of economic migrants, but mixed in with those individuals are obviously some criminals. So it’s important that our agents stay on 

their toes on a routine basis. 

We try and take a look at what we call hot spots, which are 

zones that are known for a high-level of criminal activity and make 

sure that we have sufficient agent resources and equipment and 

the training and tactics in those areas to deal with those types of 

situations. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just two last questions. Mr. Harris, can you 

think of anything else Congress can do to help protect these brave 

men and women on our borders? 

Mr. HARRIS. Well, first of all, we appreciate all the support that 

you all have also given us. I would also like to point out on the helicopter shooting incident that Congressman Chaffetz responded to 

that situation, as he had referenced. 

You know, it’s just more stay engaged with the border. I think 

there’s a lot of misinformation coupled with border security efforts. 

So we welcome any visits by Members of Congress to my new office 

so that you can see and hear what’s going on on the border firsthand. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And, Mr. Starr, can you think of anything else 

we can do to help out on that end? And by the way, while you’re 

formulating your answer, I just want you to know, Mr. Harris, on 

behalf of all of us, we understand how dangerous the job is, and 

we appreciate everything that you all do to address the issues that 

you have because they are very difficult, and we’re sorry for the 

many losses and injuries that you just spoke about. 

Mr. Starr? 

Mr. STARR. Congressman, I believe that what we need to accept 

is that the battle to increase security rule of law and justice in 

Mexico is going to be a long-term battle. I think that we can see 

what has happened in Colombia and the types of improvements 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
23 

that have been made there, and I think those are the types of improvements that we’re going to have to help Mexico make. 

I think DAS Saarnio could probably talk more effectively about 

this in terms of the programs that we have in place. But I think 

continuing those types of programs that we started in Colombia 

and we’re currently running in Mexico to improve the judicial system, the training of the police, all those types of things are what’s 

ultimately going to make this a safer location, safer country. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Before the gentleman yields back, I’ll point 

out that there is no police force in Nuevo Laredo. There is none. 

So you can work on training them, but there isn’t even one. It’s run 

by the drug cartels, and shame on the State Department for cutting the people’s pay there from the State Department. 

That’s not the way you’re going to build morale and do more 

things. You’re given tens of billions of dollars, and you’re going to 

cut those poor people’s pay. You can talk about training the local 

police force, but there isn’t even a local police force to train. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming by zero time. Mr. 

Starr, would you please answer what Chairman Chaffetz just said. 

I think he makes a good point. 

Mr. STARR. Chairman Chaffetz is correct, to my knowledge, that 

the local police force is actually not functioning there, but there are 

levels of police forces as well. There are police from the governors— 

from that governate, it’s like a state type of police, and there are 

Federal police is also there and soldiers. 

So I think while Chairman Chaffetz is correct that we have great 

concerns about the fact that the mayor was murdered, that the 

local police have tremendous difficulties, we also work with the 

Federal and state authorities to ensure that other types of security 

services and police are as effective as they can. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I would ask unanimous consent to enter 

into the record, this is the United States Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Mexico 2015 Crime and Safety Report 

Nuevo Laredo into the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding 

the hearing. 

First of all, before we get to Mr. Judd, has the situation gotten 

worse? Is the violence just as bad in Mexico as it’s been? Mr. Starr, 

what do you say? 

Mr. STARR. The violence in Mexico ebbs and flows, sir. 

Mr. MICA. But right now. 

Mr. STARR. In certain places it’s better than it was a year or 2 

or 3 years ago. In certain places it’s certainly worse. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. Ambassador Moser. 

Mr. MOSER. I’m not an expert on Mexico but, Congressman 

Mica—— 

Mr. MICA. Overall it’s not getting much better. Is that right? 

Mr. MOSER. I think there’s ebbs and flows. There are parts of 

Mexico like Ciudad Juarez that are safer now than they were before. 

Mr. MICA. But overall it’s still a pretty violent country? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
24 

Mr. STARR. Yes. 

Mr. MOSER. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. Ms. Saarnio, same thing? Same assessment? 

Ms. SAARNIO. Actually, sir, I would say that we are cautiously 

optimistic that we think the situation is somewhat better in certain 

parts of the country, and that’s reflected in our danger pay 

changes. We’ve seen parts of the country that were in insurgency 

status a few years ago that are actually quite operating a lot better 

now. And a lot of that—— 

Mr. MICA. And there are places that are worse? 

Ms. SAARNIO. That’s true there are places that are worse—— 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Harris? 

Mr. HARRIS. Similar response. I would say that depends on the 

area. I travel to Mexico on a personal basis and professional level. 

Some areas you travel with security and others you don’t; but overall dangerous place, no question. 

Mr. MICA. A dangerous place. Well, I read all the testimony. Mr. 

Judd, I think every Member of Congress should read yours. I think 

it’s an incredible assessment. 

Also, a little bit historic; I chaired Criminal Justice and Drug 

Policy from 1998 to 2000 and was in Mexico, and we had information at that time from the President’s office to the cops on the 

street; corruption was prevalent. Unfortunately that’s pretty much 

the same situation that we have today, but your report details it 

very well. 

Startling is the number of 2014, you outlined the number of convicted criminals, and you cite the increasing number of criminal 

aliens coming across. Now we’re better able to detect them, but the 

numbers are astounding. It says to put the figure in perspective, 

in 2014 the Border Patrol apprehended and arrested just under 

500,000 illegal immigrants. Meaning one in every five arrests last 

year was a criminal alien. Is that correct? 

Mr. JUDD. From the research that we have done—— 

Mr. MICA. So to get arrested, they had to be in and caught. 

Right? 

Mr. JUDD. That is correct; yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. That’s absolutely astounding. Simple math, that’s 

probably 100,000 criminal aliens entering the United States. Basically it’s out of control. And then you said that there—what can the 

Oversight Committee do to improve it. You said there has to be 

consequences. Right? 

Mr. JUDD. Absolutely. 

Mr. MICA. And there aren’t consequences. I was stunned to find 

out the fact that Mexico is one of the most important illegal immigrant and narcotics transit points in the country. How many agents 

do we have in Phoenix? 

Mr. JUDD. We have none. 

Mr. MICA. None. You know, the other thing too is, there has to 

be consequences. How many consulates do we have? I counted 

about nine in Mexico. Is that right? I think we should close every 

one of those consulates immediately. Put the property up for sale. 

I think you have to have some consequences for actions. The place 

is out of control. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
25 

I just read—well, you cited the helicopter shooting at a U.S. Helicopter; right, and Chairman Chaffetz had helped on that, Mr. Harris. And in your report, I think, Mr. Judd, you said they actually 

shot down a Mexican helicopter the month before. Is that correct? 

Mr. JUDD. Yes, they did. 

Mr. MICA. And most startling, we heard the chairman, one of the 

missionaries down there shot yesterday, the 43 kids that were 

turned over by local authorities and shot or killed and then their 

bodies burned or destroyed, and this week or so I guess ago they 

just produced sort of a whitewash report on what took place. 

And one of the leaders, of Mr. Jimenez Blanco was found dead 

about 2 weeks ago. He was interviewed by CNN just a couple of 

weeks ago and said that last week, Jimenez told CNN—Mexico 

that more than 100 bodies had been found hidden in graves in the 

area since October, decrying a worsening security situation. 

So it doesn’t sound like it’s getting much better. They’re even 

killing the people who are trying to do something about the injustice and slaughter that’s going on in Mexico. Is that correct, Mr. 

Judd? 

Mr. JUDD. Yes, it is. And what I find the scariest part of all of 

this border violence is how it’s extending now into the interior of 

the United States. We just had a young man shot in the back by 

presumed an illegal alien from the country of El Salvador associated with the Mara Salvatrucha gang. We just had a U.S. citizen 

in San Francisco who was just killed. So we’re not only seeing violence on the border, but this is extending into the United States, 

and that’s scary. 

Mr. MICA. And finally, Mr. Chairman, just I read this week, I 

think most of the illegal marijuana is still coming in from Mexico. 

But, congratulations, we just passed this past week, I saw the report that our young people, our students, more of them are now 

hooked on marijuana than on cigarettes. Congratulations. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I now recognize the gentlewoman from 

New York, Mrs. Maloney, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all of the panelists and Ranking Member, for calling this truly important hearing. 

And Mr. Judd hit it right on the head with his comment that it’s 

not only on the border now. It is coming into the United States. 

Just this past week a news reporter and her cameraman were shot. 

A police officer putting gas in his car was shot. A woman from Illinois was shot. The incidents that you mentioned, and as Mr. Starr 

said, it’s going to be a long effort on the border. And as my colleague, Mr. Mica, mentioned, it is out of control. 

And I would like to point out that a lot of the shooting is coming 

from guns that were manufactured and slipped over the border into 

Mexico. In fact, Mexico has some of the most restrictive gun laws 

in the entire world, yet it’s seen a tremendous surge in gun-related 

violence. 

Just yesterday Chairman Cummings shared with me this letter 

that was sent to him from Charge de Affairs of Mexico, Alejandro 

Estivill, and in it he says that the ATF found that over 70 percent 

of the guns recovered in Mexico in 2014 were sourced from the 

United States. Now, that is a shocking statistic. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
26 

Seventy percent of the guns came from America. And in it he further writes, ‘‘Congress can play a very important role in combatting 

these transborder criminal organizations and the flow of illegal 

firearms by enacting proper legislation,’’ I ask unanimous permission to put this letter into the record, Mr. Cummings, and Mr. 

Chaffetz. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mrs. MALONEY. And we are trying to do just that. Earlier today 

in a bipartisan way, Ranking Member Cummings and others, Member Kelly from Illinois, introduced legislation to make it a felony 

to deal with illegal guns, to be a trafficker. It’s not even a felony 

in our country to traffic in illegal guns. I would say how dumb can 

you be? We should pass a bill making it a felony tomorrow, today. 

And also the penalties, as we have heard in hearings before this 

committee, on the fast and furious hearings we had from law enforcement, they don’t even bother to arrest traffickers or straw purchasers, those who purchase guns for others that are known criminals or drug dealers or gang leaders because there’s no penalty. It’s 

like a paper penalty, so they don’t waste their time doing it. And 

they literally pled with us to give them the tools to do the job. 

So today we are introducing this bill in a bipartisan way that 

would increase penalties for straw purchasers and make trafficking 

in illegal guns a felony. 

Now, in Mexico, just to give an example, to make a purchase in 

a gun store, and they only have one gun store in the whole country, 

but to make a purchase they are required by law, and their store 

is operated by the Army, they must pass a background check, 

present identification, pass through a metal detector, hand over cell 

phones, a camera, just to enter the building. And once inside, a 

perspective buyer is fingerprinted, photographed, and then permitted to buy a single weapon and a box of ammunition; and 

they’re required to take that home and put it under lock and key. 

So they have strong gun laws, but the obvious question is where 

are all these guns coming from? And these guns are coming from 

the United States. 

And, Mr. Harris, in your testimony you said, ‘‘the U.S. Mexican 

border, the primary threats are southbound gun smuggling, northern bound drug trafficking, human trafficking, illegal immigration, 

and the violence associated with these activities.’’ Could you elaborate, please, Mr. Harris, on the southbound gun smuggling. How 

big is it? Can you tell us more about this gun smuggling? 

Mr. HARRIS. Yes, ma’am. I’ll answer that question in kind of two 

parts. One is what my role is in southbound weapons smuggling at 

a strategic level. As I had also mentioned in my testimony, for the 

first time ever we have identified across the border the top 

transnational criminal organizations who are involved in the full 

gamut of smuggling activities which are listed. I would ask to add 

southbound bulk cash smuggling to that list as well. 

But this to me is a huge accomplishment, never before seen in 

my career. All investigative agencies, whether FBI, DEA, ICE, they 

all have their cases that they work; but for the first time ever we 

have interagency agreement on which top criminal organizations 

we believe represent the highest threat to U.S. national security. 

Some of those organizations are involved in southbound weapons 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
27 

smuggling. Our success on targeting these organizations before this 

has pretty much been on the domestic side, but this new position 

gives me the capability to target these organizations all the way 

from the origination point to the final destination point. That’s one 

part of the—— 

Mrs. MALONEY. How many guns do you think are being trafficked into Mexico each year? Do you have any feel for it? 

Mr. HARRIS. Well, the second part of my answer will respond to 

that. I’m not an expert at port of entry operations. I’ll have to defer 

to my CBP counterpart. However, from my former capacity as a 

Border Patrol chief in Laredo, we routinely augment southbound 

inspections by OFO officers with detailed Border Patrol agents. I 

would say by and large our success in targeting southbound weapons smuggling is due to the vigilance and capabilities of our agents. 

As I’m sure you know, we do not have the same kind of technology going southbound that we have going northbound. Nor do 

we do 100 percent southbound inspections. We do halts and surge 

operations and operations based on intelligence and investigative 

information, but largely the southbound weapons seizures are cold 

hits. It would be helpful to have some similar technology going 

southbound to what we have going northbound, a nonintrusive inspection technology, some of the backscatters would be very instrumental, and I think that would give us a better picture of what 

kind of weapons are going southbound. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

Mrs. MALONEY. My time is expired, but if I could say, Mr. Chairman, in one second, obviously part of controlling the crime in 

America and at the border is controlling the sale of illegal gun trafficking and straw purchases of illegal guns. Thank you. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Farenthold, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get started, Ms. Maloney points out in her call for more gun laws here in 

the United States, that Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws 

and yet has the high violence. I think that just goes to make the 

point that restrictive gun laws actually take guns out of the hands 

outs of law-abiding citizens and put them into the hands of criminals 

Mrs. MALONEY. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I don’t have much time. If I do at the end, I 

will. I have some points I’d like to make because I used to represent the border at Brownsville and joined Mr. Chaffetz in June 

in his visit to Laredo after the helicopter was shot at, had the opportunity to visit with some of the Border Patrol agents down 

there. 

Real quickly, while I get started, Mr. Harris, have we caught the 

people who shot at the helicopter, or has the Mexican Government 

caught them. 

Mr. HARRIS. Well, the FBI is responsible for investigating all assaults on Federal agents. They’re responsible for that investigation. 

It’s my understanding that an individual was taken into custody. 

He was transported to Tampico, where he went before a judge, but 

he’s now missing. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
28 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. That’s reassuring. One of the things that I 

learned down there in visiting with some of the Border Patrol 

agents and actually spending some time on the border with some 

of the agents, was a level of frustration with some of the policies 

that this government has that makes it difficult to do their job. I 

hear it referred to as catch and release, or a policy that if there 

are only a certain number of illegal aliens in a vehicle, the coyote, 

or human smuggler, is not prosecuted and is let go, a frustration 

with seeing the same folks again and again. 

They’re caught; they’re shooed across the border, counted as a deportation, and are back in the United States in a matter of hours. 

In fact, I visited with some of the Sheriffs in the district I represent, Sheriff T. Michael O’Connor in Victoria, or Frank Osborne, 

Matagorda County, and Jess Howell of Wharton; and they’re all 

very upset and concerned about the Priority Enforcement Program, 

in which case very often the Federal Government refuses to take 

illegal aliens that they apprehend for deportation. 

Mr. Judd, I’ll start with you. Can you talk a little bit about, was 

my characterization of the frustration of the rank and file agents 

accurate? 

Mr. JUDD. I think it was too soft. I think that you could have expressed a much greater level of frustration. 

I want to point out that on the northern border, there was an 

arrest made of an illegal alien in the Havre Border Patrol sector. 

We took this individual into custody. We immediately released the 

individual on the street. Within weeks that individual went up to 

I believe it was Great Falls, Montana, and raped a 14-year old girl. 

We had this individual in our custody. We had the authority to remove this individual from this country, and we didn’t do it. And 

then that individual went and raped a 14-year old girl. Her life will 

never be the same. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And we see this again and again with the tragic murder of Kate Steinle, the shooting of the Border Patrol agents 

in the Rio Grande Valley by a pair of men who had been between 

them deported I think seven times. And there was a story in the 

news, I think it was just in the past couple of days, where a convicted burglar from Mexico with a history of repeated felony convictions and deportation was caught last week. It was the fifth time 

he crossed the border and had actually spent the bulk of the past 

30 years in various jails. It just seems absolutely critical that we 

get the border secured. No point working on immigration before we 

get that done. 

Mr. Harris, can you talk a little bit about the Priority Enforcement Program, the PEP, and have you heard from the sheriffs as 

well about their concern? They catch somebody, an illegal alien, 

and basically have nothing to do with them but turn them loose. 

We just defunded sanctuary cities in this country, but with PEP 

and the Border Patrol not taking aliens sheriffs caught, we have 

basically created a sanctuary country, haven’t we? 

Mr. HARRIS. I’ll answer that question again in two parts. One is, 

as was noted in my testimony, I’ve been in the Border Patrol for 

31 years. I’ve been in the Border Patrol when we made up to 1.6 

million apprehensions a year with about 3,000 agents on duty. 

Most of those individuals were from the country of Mexico, very 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
29 

easy to deal with those individuals. It was a revolving door type 

of a situation, as Mr. Judd had indicated earlier. But the border 

dynamics have changed over my career from what it was. 

About 42 percent of everyone we apprehend is from a noncontiguous territory, most of those being from Central America, and a lot 

of them being women and children. So it’s a different kind of a dynamic on how we deal with those individuals. And about 33 percent 

of everybody the Border Patrol arrests has to go before some kind 

of an immigration judge or an immigration proceeding. So the Border Patrol does not own all of the process, nor am I seeking that 

ownership, but it does not own all of the process that would allow 

for immediate repatriation of those individuals. 

The second part of my response again is what my job is is really 

to target the criminal network from beginning to end. That does 

not necessarily mean that we are targeting criminal aliens 

throughout the United States as part of my job, but I’ll just give 

you one example. I think ICE fugitive operations does a great job 

of picking up criminal aliens. And when I stepped into this job, 

they had just done a press event where they had arrested about 

2,000 criminal aliens throughout the country. No question—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. But your job and your men’s job would be easier if there were consequences to entering this country illegally and 

folks were deported and they faced consequences for multiple offenses? Mr. Judd, Mr. Harris, just a yes or no; would that be a better situation, because I’m out of time? 

Mr. JUDD. Yes. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Are you with us on that one, Mr. Harris. 

Mr. HARRIS. Excuse me, sir? 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Do you think it would be better if we had some 

consequences and repatriated folks? 

Mr. HARRIS. Well, I think every law enforcement officer regardless of what the profession is, when they’ve taken action they want 

to see some sort of a consequence delivered, but a little bit more 

challenging with the population we’re dealing with. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, and my time is expired. And I 

apologize to the gentlelady from New York in not being able to 

yield to her. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the 

gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This discussion about undocumented criminals, violence of course on the border, raises the question for me of the role that consulates play with 

respect to security, particularly in northern Mexico. 

Now, as I understand it, Mr. Starr, the security agencies, the law 

enforcement agencies, are coordinated or facilitated through the 

consulate. I have in mind Customs and Border Protection, Drug 

Enforcement Agency, Immigration, of course, and Customs Enforcement, Marshal Service, is the consulate the place where these 

agencies would be stationed? 

Mr. STARR. Ma’am, I can’t say that every single one of those 

agencies is at every single one of the consulates, but you are correct that the consulates do serve as a base for consular operations 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
30 

and for those types of operations, along with the Embassy in Mexico. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Starr, what I’m trying to get at is, you know, 

the average American if you say what’s a consulate for would think 

about visas and tourism and the rest. We’re talking about violence, 

undocumented criminals, and the rest; and I’m trying to get at 

what we’re doing on the ground in Mexico through our consulates 

and the role they play. 

Now, the United States I think, Mr. Starr, has wisely tried to involve itself in reform of the criminal justice system in Mexico itself 

in order to truly get at drug trafficking, gun trafficking, organized 

crime, which of course is always at the top of our agenda. And I’d 

like to ask you in that regard about the so-called Merida Initiative, 

which as I understand it, is charged with disrupting criminal organizations, strengthening judicial institutions in Mexico, improving 

stability in the surrounding communities. 

Ms. Saarnio, or Mr. Starr, does that sound like what the Merida 

Initiative is about? 

Ms. SAARNIO. Yes. Thank you, Representative, for bringing that 

up. I really appreciate you mentioning that because what we’re 

talking about is the Merida Initiative. It’s our security initiative 

with Mexico. We have been working with Mexico extensively since 

2008. We have invested about $1.4 billion right now in trying to 

improve the security situation in Mexico by working with the Mexican Government at the Federal, state and local levels, and we actually have seen areas where we have made progress, and we think 

a lot of that progress is because of our presence on the ground. 

If we’re working in Ciudad Juarez or in Tijuana or in Monterrey, 

our law enforcement officials, our military officials, can work with 

Mexican counterparts to give them advice, to lend assistance when 

they need it, to provide training if possible; and it’s because of the 

funding provided by Congress, which we’re very grateful for, where 

we have been able to actually make some in-roads and help Mexico 

establish the rule of law and the system that they are seeking. 

Ms. NORTON. What impact would closing the consulates have on 

an initiative like the Merida Initiative? 

Ms. SAARNIO. I think it would be very tragic not to have our colleagues down there in Mexico. They work very well every day on 

a daily basis with our counterparts all over the country. 

Ms. NORTON. Is the Consulate where they’re based? 

Ms. SAARNIO. They’re based at the embassy primarily, but 

they’re also based at several of our consulates, yes. So in some of 

the cases where we have had the most success, it’s where our officials were working locally with the officials locally; so, yes, it would 

have an impact, and I think it would be detrimental to not have 

it. 

Ms. NORTON. What impact has it had so far on security in the 

region? 

Ms. SAARNIO. Well, we believe the strong presence of our consulates actually helps establish the security. Not only are we providing for the security of American officials, American citizens who 

are there, but we also can work with local authorities and, as I 

said, to help them rebuild their institutions and help the Mexican 

Government achieve what it’s seeking to do. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 

Our colleagues are really working all over the country all the 

time with the Mexican Government; and we’re trying to help them 

achieve their goals. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman 

from Georgia, Mr. Carter, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Starr, earlier in 

your opening remarks, you said environments such as that in Mexico involve constantly shifting threats, require comprehensive planning, agile decisionmaking, in depth diplomacy. You went on to 

say, but it’s simply not enough to improve physical security. We’re 

also training the Foreign Service community on how to better respond in these environments. 

Since 2008 the State Department has had a plan to build a Diplomatic Security training center, and included in that has been the 

curriculum, the infrastructure, and the personnel. But the OMB 

and the GAO have come out with reports on this. And during those 

studies, those studies that the OMB and the GAO have come out 

with, the OMB report has not been released. I have seen the OMB 

report, and my staff has seen the GAO report. Both of those reports 

cite the lack of cooperation by the State Department in trying to 

come up with proposals for this facility to be built. 

Can you tell me on a facility that’s this important, on a facility 

that’s this expensive, why the State Department would be uncooperative in addressing this? Can you tell me why FLETC, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, in Glynco, Georgia, was 

only given 60 days to respond to this? Don’t you think that they 

deserve more than 60 days? Don’t you think the taxpayers of this 

country deserve to know exactly apples and apples what’s going to 

be the best facility? What are we going to get the most from our 

taxpayers’ dollars there? Would you agree with that? 

Mr. STARR. Yes, sir, I would. I believe that it’s clear that spending money on something that doesn’t meet our requirements is not 

going to be a good investment. In previous hearings and in previous discussions with FLETC, they could not take our entire program and don’t have the facilities that we need for the types of 

weapons that we use at the FLETC facility. 

They proposed using the Townsend Bombing Range, which is 

about 60 miles north of FLETC. That is a Marine Corps bombing 

range that is at the moment under consideration from going from 

a nonlive munition bombing range to a live munition bombing 

range—— 

Mr. CARTER. I understand that, Mr. Starr. If I could. 

Mr. STARR. We believe that the Fort Pickett site is the best—— 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Starr, let me ask you, Mr. Starr; did you make 

this clear FLETC? Do you think that they had all the information? 

Because when you talk about the curriculum requirements for the 

training center, both in the OMB report and the GAO report, ‘‘It 

says the course information is only in the minds of the instructors, 

and providing it would cause a significant delay in Diplomatic Security operation.’’ 

How can we get a price on the curriculum, how can we get an 

idea, when it’s only in the minds of the instructors? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 

Mr. STARR. I’m sorry, sir, that’s not correct. We have extensive 

records—— 

Mr. CARTER. This come right out of the report. 

Mr. STARR. We have extensive records. We have provided the 

curriculum. This is not just in the mind of the instructors, sir—— 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Starr, I have seen the report. 

Mr. STARR. Which report, sir? 

Mr. CARTER. The OMB report, which you have denied to be released. I found nothing in there sensitive whatsoever. 

There were six comparisons done. FLETC came out on top with 

three of those comparisons. Two of them were even, and one of 

them favored Fort Pickett. Can you tell me why that report’s not 

being released? 

Mr. STARR. Sir, the OMB report is a preliminary study. 

Mr. CARTER. Why is it not being released? 

Mr. STARR. I don’t know, sir. That’s an OMB report. I can tell 

you that the GAO report does not reflect that. GAO report has been 

finished. It has not been released yet either. I think it is probably 

wise to wait until that report is released. 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Starr, you would agree this is important. Protecting the lives of our Foreign Service members are very important. Protecting their lives, and training is very important. We all 

agree with that. 

This is easy. This is easy when we sit here and when we sat here 

a couple months ago and talked about Afghanistan, and said, hey, 

we spent too much money. We should have, could have, would 

have, but what’s not easy is to do something about it and to learn 

from it and to have an apples-to-apples comparison. You need to go 

back; you need to compare the two sites, compare them fairly. If 

you’re right, then I will be the first one in line to support you in 

that, but I’m telling you, you have not done that yet. 

The State Department has made up their mind, they’re not going 

to change their mind. It can only be built near Washington, D.C. 

Because after all, everything comes from Washington, D.C. That’s 

the only way it can ever work. Mr. Starr, this is not right. You 

need to go back. You need to make it apples-to-apples comparisons. 

If we sit here and we say we shouldn’t have spent this much 

money, but we don’t learn from it, and we don’t do something about 

the future, then we’re all at fault here. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Cartwright, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank all the 

witnesses for coming today. This is an enormously important discussion we are having. 

We heard from you, Mr. Harris, and particularly from you, Mr. 

Judd, some really vivid testimony about the level of violence that 

we’re seeing connected with the border and the level of criminal 

that we’re seeing at the border; but really Chairman Chaffetz 

called this hearing in large measure to talk about whether we 

ought to close those three consulates that he discussed. 

And actually my colleague, Mr. Mica, is calling for the closure of 

all nine consulates in Mexico. What I didn’t get from you, Mr. Harris, or you, Mr. Judd, was the nexus between that discussion and 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
33 

the discussion of the level of violence that you’ve been talking 

about. How does it cut, starting with you, Mr. Harris, how would 

closing these three consulates that Chairman Chaffetz is talking 

about, how would that cut on the violent situation there? 

Mr. HARRIS. Sir, first of all, let me just say I’m not familiar with 

the criteria that was referenced on the office and the pay systems 

and all that. I’ll just say that in terms of my business, our relationship with Mexico and our ability is to protect and promote U.S. Interests is critically important to border security. I routinely travel 

to Mexico, work with the State Department and all of the country 

team in Mexico City, so having our people deployed in a way that 

we can best protect and promote the interests of the United States 

is critically important. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Judd? 

Mr. JUDD. When I came to testify, I came to testify about violence on the border and keeping U.S. Personnel safe. 

As far as Mexican consulates go, I have no idea how to do that. 

All I can tell you is I am an expert in border security and what 

comes across the border and how we can better promote operations 

to effectively secure the border, and that’s what I’m trying to give 

testimony on. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Okay. So that’s kind of a separate discussion 

that you gentlemen are giving us, but I appreciate your coming, 

and those are sobering comments that both of you gave us. 

In February of this year, in fact, right at the time of the spike 

of the violence at Matamoros area, I spent some time with my dear 

friend and colleague, Congressman Filemon Vela in Texas. In fact, 

we were right across the border from Matamoros at the time in 

February. I met with individuals from CBP who work tirelessly to 

make sure that our border is secure, most notably, and something 

that almost never gets mentioned, is keeping our borders secure 

from insects that would infiltrate our American crops. And I thank 

you for all the work in that regard. 

I witnessed how vitally important our trade relationship is with 

Mexico. The U.S. is Mexico’s largest foreign investor. More than 

18,000 U.S. companies operate in Mexico. My State of Pennsylvania exports $3.44 billion worth of goods to Mexico every year, so 

that accounts to 246,400 Pennsylvania jobs, so this is a subject of 

interest to me. 

On my trip I learned about the role of the maquiladoras, the factories where Mexican workers assemble products for foreign companies. Most are U.S.-owned or subsidiaries and employ American 

managers and engineers, many of whom work in the Mexican 

maquiladoras as managers, middle managers by day, and then 

come back over the border to places like McAllen, Texas, where 

they live. 

Our working relationship with Mexico is enormously important 

to our economic security; and as I witnessed, the work of the consulates is vital to that mission. Ms. Saarnio in your testimony you 

recognize the importance of the bilateral relationship between the 

U.S. And Mexico. You stated, ‘‘Two-Way trade topped $500 billion 

in 2014, with 80 percent of that crossing the U.S.-Mexico land border.’’ Ms. Saarnio, how do U.S. consulates facilitate our trade relationship with Mexico? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
34 

Ms. SAARNIO. Thank you, Congressman. That’s an excellent question. Our consulates are very active with the business community 

on the ground in dealing with both security issues, but also in promoting the trade and the business that goes back and forth. The 

U.S. and Mexico share this very close North American trading relationship, but it’s gotten deeper in the last 20 years after NAFTA. 

I have to say that I think our consulates, besides providing daily 

contact with the American companies there, they support business 

documents need to be signed. They need to be notarized. They need 

to help moving freight across the border. If something gets stopped 

because of the lack of paperwork or something, they’ll work with 

them to help facilitate, and they make that trade more efficient on 

a daily basis. 

Our consulates are very active in working with that, and it is my 

understanding the business community is very supportive of an active presence by the consulates in those regions. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, ma’am. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the 

gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hurd, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Cartwright, in highlighting the 

problem of insects on the border. It’s a real problem and something 

we deal with all the time. I represent over 820 miles of the border 

from Eagle Pass, Piedras Negras on the Mexican side, to El Paso, 

Ciudad Juarez, on the Mexican side, with Beto O’Rourke, Filemon 

Vela, and Henry Cuellar. We represent all of the Texas border, so 

this is something that we engage in on a weekly basis. And I don’t 

have much time. 

So my first question to you, Mr. Judd—and I’m going to try to 

keep our little tet-a-tet tight. We spent a lot of time here discussing 

the violence on the border and the danger of the border and that 

it’s expanding in the interior. I was down the border last week in 

Ojinaga and Presidio, and I know one of the challenges I heard a 

lot was the lack of manpower in some of these locations, especially 

a place like Presidio. Can you tell us a little bit about what that 

means from an operations perspective, and if you can keep that answer tight. 

Mr. JUDD. Absolutely. Without the manpower on the border, we 

can’t properly—we just physically can’t secure the border. We need 

men and women on the borders to do that. When you have specific 

areas like Presidio where the living conditions are absolutely horrendous, it’s literally impossible to keep agents in that area, and 

so we need to do something. It was interesting that a couple years 

ago they took away the designation from Presidio. 

Mr. HURD. You’re reading my mind, brother. And so my understanding that some of these locations have changed their status 

from hardship posts, and I’ve seen a disproportionate share of 

agents leave or simply transfer out. Part of the move away from 

hardship designation was an effort to save money. Is the Union 

open to some form of solution that would allow and agent to move 

up in terms of the eligibility or preference for the next post if they 

spend a certain amount of time in a hardship posting? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
35 

Mr. JUDD. We have been pushing the Agency for that, and unfortunately they haven’t reciprocated. 

Mr. HURD. Excellent. And we’re going to have some more conversations on that. Mr. Starr, Ambassador Moser, I want to thank 

you all and your organizations and your predecessors for what you 

do. I spent 9 years as an undercover officer in the CIA. I was in 

some really dangerous places like Pakistan, Afghanistan. I’ve been 

in embassies that have been bombed. I’ve been in embassies that 

have been shot up. I’ve been in embassies where thousands of people have marched on it, and because of the work of you all’s two 

organizations, you had Mama Hurd’s youngest son come home, and 

so I appreciate that and what you do. 

My only real concern is the cost of some of these embassies. Texas A&M University built 110,000-seat stadium for about $450 

million. I think there’s some expertise we can rely on there. But 

one of the problems that I actually have, and what I appreciate 

that you all do with the travel advisory in Mexico, the advisory in 

Mexico is the only advisory where you all split it up by state. 

Right? And I think that shows the important relationship that we 

have with Mexico. We can secure our border. I know Mr. Judd and 

his colleagues are working hard every single day, and we can facilitate the movement of goods and services at the same time. We 

must. And that’s super important. 

So Juarez, 2008, the murder capital of the world. 2010, half has 

many murders as Detroit and New Orleans. Ojinaga, right, there’s 

less murders in Ojinaga in 2014 than there were in Baltimore. So 

my concern is when we talk about Mexico is a big place, 80 percent 

of the violence is in 20 percent of the country. That’s about five 

states. And if you break that down into municipalities, it’s about 

20 municipalities outs of hundreds. 

And I get frustrated when we try to talk about Mexico as one 

place, and it’s not. And so I’m just looking to work with you all on 

making sure that the travel advisories in some of these cities are 

reflective of the needs on the grounds. And I made a comment 

when I was in Ojinaga. I’ve been in some pretty dangerous places, 

and Ojinaga is not one of them. 

And I’m looking just for you all’s opinions on being able to ensure 

that those travel advisories are reflective of those communities, because on the border, it’s not two communities. It’s one community. 

And the importance of trade and people, goods and services going 

back and forth, is so critical to this country. What’s good for northern Mexico is good for southern United States, and it’s good for 

both countries. And, Mr. Starr, your comments, please. 

Mr. STARR. Thank you, Congressman. Specifically to that topic, 

both OSAC and the warnings that we work with from each individual consulate and the OSAC country councils and city councils 

that we have, look specifically at the areas. 

The consular warning sheets are countrywide, but there are also 

post-security bulletins that come out from the consulate, and I 

think this is one of the arguments for why we have consulates in 

different places. American citizens can go to that Web site for each 

individual consulate and look at what’s going on in that immediate 

area. I recognize that, yes, sometimes the consular warning sheets 

are a rather blunt tool because we have I think, Sue, is it over 25 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 

million Americans a year visit Mexico, and we do have to give them 

sort of honest, open advice, but we also further break it down for 

those people that are in specific areas, and we try to do that. But 

I will take your concerns back with me. 

Mr. HURD. Thank you very much. And my last point, and I’m already over time—I apologize, Chairman. Ms. Saarnio, please communicate to the members of the Foreign Service, and they’re sometimes overlooked at the difficulty of their job. They’re doing it in 

hard places. They’re working hard every single day to export our 

soft power around the world, and they do it in tough places. I recognize that. I had the honor of serving side-by-side with many of 

those. Thank you for what you do and please communicate that 

back. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I’ll now recognize Ms. Kelly for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Everyone here today would 

agree that the Mexican Government must work to enhance security 

in their country. The violent crime that takes place in some places 

in Mexico, taking into consideration what my colleague just said, 

often resonates across the border here in the United States and 

simply cannot be ignored. 

We know that American firearms often turn up at crime scenes 

in Mexico. In March, the ATF reported that out of 104,850 guns 

traced between 2009 and 2014, 70 percent originated in the United 

States. Mr. Harris, I’m sure that Customs and Border Patrol encounters many guns at the border. Do you agree that the consistent 

flow of firearms from the U.S. Across the border to Mexico is a serious problem? 

Mr. HARRIS. Yes, ma’am. I had responded to a previous question. 

I think our men and women do a great job on southbound inspections. The OFO personnel who are doing sometimes random southbound inspections are oftentimes augmented by Border Patrol 

agents detailed over to assist with that effort. And the firearms 

that are seized during southbound operations without the aid of intelligence or investigative information are largely due to the hard 

work of the men and women. 

However, as I’m sure you know, we do not have the same level 

of technology and inspection capabilities going southbound as we 

have northbound. And I think if we would have some similar technology, the backscatters and other nonintrusive inspection capabilities to augment the great work of the men and women on southbound inspections, it would probably help us to do a better job of 

seizing more weapons going into Mexico, which, as you indicate, is 

a problem. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. 

In 2008, the Mexican ambassador to the United States pled with 

the U.S. to do something to help stem the flow of weapons into his 

country, saying, ‘‘Between Texas and Arizona alone, you’ve got 

12,000 gun shops along that border with Mexico, and a lot of these 

gun shops provide weapons that feed into organized crime in Mexico. So we really need the support of the United States.’’ 

Ms. Saarnio, do you agree with that, American firearms are contributing to the violence within Mexico or some parts of Mexico? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 

Ms. SAARNIO. Thank you, Congresswoman. I think the problem 

of violence in Mexico and as it crosses over in the United States 

is a problem that we share with Mexico. We share a common border. We share many issues. They’re multifaceted issues. I think we 

have to deal with problems on our side of the border and the Mexicans have to deal with problems on their side of the border, and 

we do work very closely with them on it. But I am sure that if we 

were to deal with some of these issues in our side, they would be 

appreciated in Mexico. 

Ms. KELLY. This is a tremendous problem because one of the 

principal tactics used by criminals to obtain these weapons is straw 

purchasing. And I know my colleagues have already raised this 

issue, and I’m proud to join Ranking Member Cummings and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney to introduce the bipartisan Gun 

Trafficking Prevention Act of 2015, House Resolution 3455. I feel 

this bill will close this glaring loophole and would help with the 

issue. So thank you. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I’d like to make a note here that the—from 

Homeland Security Customs and Border Patrol, this is the number 

of seizures of guns on the southwest border in 2015, 60. Six zero. 

That’s it. 

If you look at the ATF statistic, some 8,200 traces in a category 

called U.S.-sourced firearms. I want to be careful, because U.S. 

source, under the definition provided by the ATF, refers to those 

firearms that were determined by ATF to be manufactured in the 

United States or legally imported into the United States by an 

FFL, a Federal firearms licensee. 

So legal transportation of it, they may have been used in a crime, 

but if they were manufactured in the United States, they would 

also fall into that statistic. So I think it is a little bit high. And 

if anybody on this panel is concerned about the illegal flow of guns, 

then you’ve got to look first at what the Obama administration did 

in Fast and Furious. 

And this panel, this Oversight Committee asked for the documents from the State Department and from others about the operation—or from the Department of Justice, I should say, about Fast 

and Furious. Did the administration work with us in an open and 

candid way? No. Did the administration provide the documents to 

Congress? No. We had to take them to court. In fact, that is still 

pending. Because the Government through the Department of Justice knowingly and willingly gave the drug cartels nearly 2,000 

weapons. 

So we can drag out Mr. Holder and other people in the Obama 

administration, but they gave out nearly 2,000 AK–47s to the drug 

cartels, and we want to look at that. We had to hold the attorney 

general in contempt of Congress. We had to actually go to the 

courts to try to get those documents. We still don’t have those documents. 

So for people to say, ‘‘Oh, we’re worried about the drugs or the 

guns that are going back and forth,’’ let’s look at what our government did in a complicit way to provide the drug cartels those weapons. That is an investigation this committee will continue. It’s still 

in the courts. And it’s one of the most outrageous things to happen. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

So I would actually agree with the gentlewoman. But it shouldn’t 

start with our government knowingly giving those weapons to the 

drug cartels. 

Thanks everybody for their indulgence. 

I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Walker, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate your passion 

on this issue. 

I want to talk a little bit about—go the direction concerning 

human trafficking and human smuggling, if I could, and I want to 

tie it into the border crossing cards. I have a question, what are 

the risks of these thieves that are able to duplicate these cards? Is 

that possible of the 11,500 that were made? Because I have a card 

here as well, and it’s a card that I use here in D.C. Sometimes I’ll 

use it to vote. Other times I just show it and I’m kind of granted 

access here. So help me understand. Can that be duplicated? 

Mr. STARR. Sir, they have features in them that make it very difficult to do a photo substitution or duplicate them. 

I think the other thing that’s important to remember on the 

cards that were stolen, that anybody that’s actually trying to do illegal activity would not want to use one of those cards that was 

stolen because every one of those is registered electronically as a 

stolen card now. So if they go to the border and show it, it automatically rings a bell and, you know, these people are going to be 

doubly inspected. 

So we have a high degree of confidence that the cards that were 

stolen, the majority have been recovered. Those that haven’t been, 

very difficult to duplicate and likely that the cartels or anybody 

else engaged in illegal business would not want to use them. 

Mr. WALKER. And the RFID can be turned off remotely. So are 

we under the impression—I mean, is this something that we can 

go on record saying those are 100 percent inoperable? Those cards 

are now rendered completely useless, that they would not be used 

by someone trying to smuggle a human being? Is that fair to say? 

Mr. STARR. I would think, sir, that nobody that’s in the smuggling business is going to try to go legally across a border would 

want to use one of those cards that’s entered as stolen. And as I 

say, that would raise the profile. What they would really want is 

to steal a card from a legal user that’s not been declared stolen 

that has a similarity on it to the person on it. But still, even the 

biometrics then are not going to be the same. 

Mr. WALKER. So it’s not just something that they could use ever 

as far as an ID card or passing through anything. These cards now, 

once they’ve been deactivated, so to speak, if that’s the right terminology, there’s no way they can use those at any place or any location for whatever purpose? 

Mr. STARR. Sir, I wouldn’t go that far. I think, you know, along 

the border where there’s active inspection of them, I think they’ll 

be detected very quickly. I think people do use them for other purposes. But, again, if the photograph doesn’t match, and they’re very 

hard to do photo substitutions without destroying that card, it 

would be very difficult. 

Mr. WALKER. Okay. Mr. Judd, do you have any concern or other 

comments on that? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

Mr. JUDD. No. The ports of entry, I don’t work at the port of 

entry. I work between the ports of entry. For me, it would be very 

difficult if somebody took a card from, like for instance my card. 

If somebody took my card and I encounter them in the interior, 

there’s no way for me to actually run that through the checks that 

Mr. Starr currently—— 

Mr. WALKER. Fair enough. I’m satisfied with that answer. 

Let me ask you this: In moving forward, have we pretty much 

solidified that this mistake is now moving forward? This won’t happen again? Is that something we’ve looked into, as far as how this 

was broken, how this was stolen, how these things got lost to begin 

with? 

Mr. STARR. I visited the transit facility that they went out of, sir, 

talked with the employees there. There had been a very hard look 

at how we were moving those cards. We have made some changes 

in how they’re delivered. We are now only—I would prefer not to 

speak about some of the ways that we have gone into making some 

of those changes, sir, but we did look closely at it. 

I think our consular sheets are still accurate, that, you know, hijacking and carjacking can still be—is very, you know, a problem 

in Mexico and we have to watch out for that. But we are taking 

additional measures to try to ensure that this doesn’t occur again. 

Mr. WALKER. Well, I appreciate you doing—did I hear somebody 

else weigh in? I’m sorry. 

Human trafficking in my State, North Carolina, even that far 

away from the border is now number nine in the country. We were 

able to pass early on training for border security. That piece of legislation is now law. This is a very technologically advanced, even 

in our own research here we’re showing, even some of your reports 

showing these aren’t just ma and pa. These have been kind of assimilated into these large international organizations, if we want 

to make sure we’re doing everything we can to shut that down at 

the border. Appreciate your help. 

And with that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. If the gentleman will yield. How many border crossing cards are there in circulation? Do you have any idea? 

Millions, right? 

Mr. STARR. Millions, sir. Certainly tens of millions. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So the idea is that Mexican nationals can 

get a border crossing card that is valid for 24 hours—for is it 24 

hours in the United States? It’s a day pass basically. 

Mr. STARR. By State, there are distances that they can go within 

a certain State with them and other limitations on them. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So the idea is that you can basically go for 

the day, go shopping in, say, Nogales and then go back across the 

border. But there are millions of them. There’s no exit program, 

correct? Do you have any way—Mr. Judd, are you scanning any— 

how many of the border crossing cards that are used daily are 

scanned in their exit? 

Mr. JUDD. That I’m aware of, none. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. How many are scanned on the inbound? 

Mr. JUDD. All of them. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So we have statistics about how many 

come into the United States and we have zero statistics on how 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

many actually leave the United States. What’s the consequence of 

being caught in the United States with just a border crossing card? 

Mr. JUDD. Next to nothing. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So we give out millions of passes, we have 

no exit program, we have no way of verifying, and there’s no consequence if you do it anyway. And so thousands of them get stolen. 

I’m still worried that they’re used many ways as a flash pass saying, ‘‘Yeah, I’m here legally. I’m just here for the day.’’ Even though 

in some places you can only go 25 miles into the United States. In 

other places, I think it’s up to 40 miles, if I’m not mistaken. But 

it’s not supposed to be your free entry into the United States of 

America, and yet it’s just inexcusable you have no exit program to 

be able to scan these passes. 

I’ll yield back. My apologies. 

Ms. Plaskett, you’re now recognized for a very generous 5 minutes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Very generous, I like that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And good afternoon to all of you. 

I’m sitting here and I know that we’re talking about consulate 

construction, but I just came home from the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

which is now, along with Puerto Rico, considered the fourth border. 

And we had a weekend of violence that was profound, with a young 

man being gunned down in a daycare parking lot while his wife 

went to pick up their child; 100 shots being fired in the early 

evening in another part of the town; and then the following morning in front of a high school at 9:00 in the morning, granted it was 

a Saturday, another individual being gunned down. 

And I understand that a lot of this is, one, due to economic nonopportunity, failing schools, but also because of the guns and drugs 

that come through borders like my own. And when I look at, in 

2007, that the U.S. and Mexico began what I hear is called the 

Merida Initiative, which, according to the State Department, is an 

initiative with four general goals: To disrupt criminal organizations, strengthen judicial institutions, improve border infrastructure and technology, and improve stability in the Mexican community. 

I wish that places like Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

had an initiative with its own government like that. But when I 

see some of the bills that are coming through and the lack of appropriations and the lack of support I’m getting from many of my 

colleagues on that, it makes me question if any of that’s ever going 

to happen. 

But I know we’re here supposed to talk about consulate construction and progress in Mexico, and so I’ve digressed and I’ll get back 

on topic to what I was supposed to be talking about. 

I was fortunate to go with my colleague, Mr. Chaffetz, to Mexico 

in May because I was interested in seeing how borders and consulates operate to stem not just the tide of illegal drugs and guns 

and individuals coming undocumented into this country, but also 

the amount of work and cooperation that’s done in agriculture as 

well in places like between Mexico and the United States, and the 

amount of trade and consumer goods and commerce that happens 

in these areas. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

And so we went and we visited the site where the new Mexico 

City Embassy was supposed to be built. And I understand that 

there are a lot of consulates in this area because of the amount of 

commerce and trade along with individuals that go on in these 

areas. 

So I wanted to ask—and I think, Mr. Moser, you would be the 

appropriate person—the three consulates in dangerous areas near 

the border, Tijuana, Juarez, Monterrey, they’ve all recently been 

completed in 2008, 2011, and 2014 respectively. Is that correct? 

Mr. MOSER. Yes, that’s Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana, and Monterrey. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. And all of these three consulates meet security standards? 

Mr. MOSER. Ma’am, I cannot build a building without Mr. Starr’s 

explicit approval. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So Mr. Starr, did they meet your approval? 

Mr. STARR. Yes, they do. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. And there’s another consulate that’s currently under construction that’s estimated to be completed in 2017. 

Mr. Starr, is that correct? Is that accurate? 

Mr. STARR. Yes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And then this consulate in Matamoros and the 

Embassy in Mexico City are also supposed to soon be under construction? 

Mr. MOSER. Yes, ma’am, that’s correct. 

Ms. PLASKETT. The four remaining consulates are in the site acquisition phase for new locations, correct? 

Mr. MOSER. That’s correct, ma’am. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And as for the completion timelines, when we 

travel to Mexico City, they were told that the Matamoros consulate 

was estimated to be completed in 2019 and Mexico City Embassy 

estimated to be finished in 2020. Are those timelines still in place? 

Mr. MOSER. Yes, ma’am. They do depend somewhat on Mexico 

City’s case about when we will receive the clean site. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. And as I recall, the clean site was not for 

the entire space. It was for a portion of that embassy? 

Mr. MOSER. For a very small portion in the southern corner of 

the site. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And do we have an idea when Mexico’s—the government will give that? 

Mr. MOSER. Ma’am, we are working with our seller in order to 

obtain the clean site, and we are working currently on a timeline 

for the delivery of that, and we expect it to be sometime in the fall 

of 2016. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. And can you explain how State is responding to the delays in that, aside from just working with the seller? 

Mr. MOSER. If you mean how we’re responding, I will say this: 

You know, we looked for 10 years, over a decade, at 20 different 

sites in Mexico City to find one that would meet our very robust 

and—by this hearing everyone acknowledges—very important diplomatic platform that we have in Mexico City. 

When we finally identified from our seller the Nuevo Blanco site, 

which is a short couple mile distance from our current location, we 

realized that this would actually fulfill all of our programmatic 

needs, from providing an effective platform for our law enforcement 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

agencies to our traditional diplomatic activities, to even providing 

space for a Benjamin Franklin library, which is very important for 

our public diplomacy outreach. 

Yes, there have been delays in acquiring the site, but we still feel 

that within this timeline that this is sufficient for us to build a 

building from the time we receive the site and get it up and operational. And that construction timeline is around 50 months. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And when I talked with the people on the site, 

primarily—one of the main reasons why this was such a great site 

is because the ability to buy land of that size from multiple sellers 

is almost impossible in Mexico City. 

Mr. MOSER. Yes, ma’am, that is correct. Because, you know—and 

one of the things I want to note here, you know, it would’ve been— 

it would’ve been possible, of course, to find a greenfield site if we 

wanted to be well outside of Mexico City. 

But to the extent that we need to engage with our colleagues in 

the Mexican Government and in businesses, we need to be in an 

urban location that really mirrors our present diplomatic platform. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. Thank you so much. I’ve exhausted my gracious and generous time. 

And thank you, Mr. Chair, for your generosity. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me begin, Mr. Judd, with you. Is it your understanding— 

okay. I know that you said you don’t work at the ports of entry. 

But is it your understanding that the BCC cards can be used by 

individuals illegally to get into the country? 

Mr. JUDD. The BCC cards, if somebody is not properly looking 

and inspecting who the person is, for instance if you come through 

the port of entry and you present your card and they don’t look at 

you and they just swipe it and it’s a good card and they pass you 

through, absolutely they can do that. 

But the cards really are, as Mr. Starr said, they’re very good 

cards. They’re very difficult to duplicate. But if you have somebody 

else’s cards and they don’t properly inspect you, you could get into 

the United States. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. Is there any evidence, Mr. Starr, that that has 

ever happened? 

Mr. STARR. Not to my knowledge yet, sir, no. 

Mr. HICE. All right. So you would say that no one has ever entered this country with a stolen card? 

Mr. STARR. Sir, that would be very hard to say absolutely. I 

would say that—— 

Mr. HICE. Yes, it would. 

Mr. STARR. —it would be very difficult. 

Mr. HICE. It would be very difficult. Because from what I understand that has happened and there are times inspectors don’t check 

the cards properly so there certainly are occasions where, as the 

chairman brought up earlier, they’re used as flash cards. 

How often does an individual just flash the card and they’re 

waived on into the country? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 

Mr. STARR. Sir, I can only tell you, I spent about 3 hours at the 

San Ysidro border crossing with the Homeland Security personnel 

that were there. I saw an incredibly dedicated group of people with 

very many duplicative stops where they’re checking the people, 

they check the cars. I can’t tell you, because it’s out of—I’m with 

the State Department, but I have to tell you I was exceptionally 

impressed with how good they were. 

Mr. HICE. Did they know you were there? 

Mr. STARR. Yes, they did. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. That probably has something to do with it. 

Is it true that the CBP was only able to read the cards, the RFID 

cards about two-thirds of the time? 

Mr. STARR. I’m sorry, sir. I don’t know the answer to that. 

Mr. HICE. It’s my understanding that the cards don’t always 

work properly. And so my question, ultimately, is coming to if the 

cards don’t always work properly then the stolen cards could still 

be used. 

Mr. Harris, you’re nodding your head. 

Mr. HARRIS. Well, I didn’t notice I was doing that, but—— 

Mr. HICE. Okay. It appeared to be you were. 

Mr. HARRIS. —it was an accident, I guess. 

I’m not a port-of-entry expert but, again, I’ll defer to my area of 

responsibility in what I’m focused on, which is targeting the criminal network. I will tell you, through investigative means I won’t 

talk about here, we’re getting much better at identifying and rooting out those individuals who are using the border crossing cards 

for criminal purposes. 

We’ve identified, as a starting point in South Texas, a little bit 

less than 1,000 individuals. Probably about half of those are border 

crossers. And we’re systemically removing the cards from those individuals when they cross the border. So I think with the technology that you all have supported us with, we’re much better at 

being able to identify the people who are using the cards for illicit 

purposes versus for legitimate reasons. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. So none of you have any awareness of the RFID 

cards not working? 

Mr. STARR. No, sir, I’m not aware that they’re not working. I 

think we have a very high degree of confidence in the card and a 

very high success rate with that card. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. Mr. Starr, do you have any idea how many— 

or any of you, for that matter—how many U.S. citizens have disappeared, have been kidnapped, abducted? 

Mr. STARR. I don’t have the figures in front of me, sir, no. 

Mr. HICE. Who would have those figures? 

Ms. SAARNIO. Sir, I have some figures from last year and this 

year. If we’re talking about U.S. citizens—— 

Mr. HICE. Correct. 

Ms. SAARNIO. —we believe from the reports that we have that in 

2014 we had a total case of 146 kidnappings reported, U.S. citizens. 

And in this year through September 8, we have had 64 cases reported. 

Mr. HICE. All right. What about other crimes from disappearances to abductions? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 

Ms. SAARNIO. Other crimes are also down. In terms of violent 

crimes, we look at murder cases. Last year we had—there were 

about 100 murder cases reported of homicides involving American 

citizens. This year we’re counting 89 so far to date. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. Is there any evidence of Americans being targeted? 

Ms. SAARNIO. Not to my knowledge, no. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know my time is 

up. 

I would just like to add that I have put forth—Mr. Judd mentioned a while ago about the horrible crime committed in Montana 

after a person was in your hands, and I put forth a bill, TRAC, 

which stands for Tracking Re-offending Alien Criminals, specifically the sex offenders. I would urge my colleagues to check that 

out, H.R. 2793, and cosponsor. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

And we don’t have the—necessarily the proper panelists to deal 

with this part of it, but to lead on, to follow up with what you said, 

one of the most infuriating parts of this are the people who are 

here illegally and commit crimes only to be released back into the 

interior of the United States of America. 

For fiscal year 2013 and 2014, the Obama administration released roughly 66,000 criminal aliens. According to enforcement 

and removal operations, there are 925,000 people with final orders 

to be removed from the country who have not—that they haven’t 

been removed. 

You know, there are people that are here illegally, and then 

there are people that are here illegally and they committed a 

crime. And to not focus on those people and make sure that they 

leave the country—and then when they do, to find that a huge percentage of them have to get picked up coming back across the border, I mean, how do you look people in the eye and say 925,000 

people are here illegally or ordered to leave the country and they 

did not. 

And then you add on top of that the number of other criminals, 

they’re in our possession. We have them. They were caught. They 

were convicted. And we said, ‘‘Go ahead. You’re released.’’ And we 

have horrific stories in just about every single State you can think 

about. And it’s just horrendous. 

We’re now pleased to recognize Mr. Cuellar who lives in Texas. 

He’s very dedicated on this issue. We appreciate him and glad to 

waive him in by unanimous consent. We’ll now recognize him for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing me to 

be back in my former committee. Thank you and thank the ranking 

member also. 

I want to thank the witnesses from the State Department. Thank 

you for the good job that you do. I know it’s a difficult job, but we 

appreciate it. 

My good friend Robert Harris, who used to live in Laredo, moved 

to the northern part of my district of San Antonio. It’s always a 

good pleasure to see you and all the good work you did down there. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 

Mr. Judd, all your men and women that work for Border Patrol— 

I mean that work along with you and with Robert and all that, 

they do a good job. You know, I think anybody on the border—as 

you know, my brother is Border Patrol—I mean, well, border sheriff should I say down there in the border. So he and I, you know, 

we’ve lived there all my life. Like I said, I drink the water. I 

breathe the air down there. My family lives there. I go back every 

weekend back to the border. So I do want to say thank you for all 

the work that you all do. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I do know there’s a couple issues, and I 

think there’s some things that I would like to work with you, as 

we talked a while ago. I want to talk about danger pay. I think on 

danger pay, for the folks at the State Department, I think we need 

to talk about it. I think that’s something that I think Congress will 

probably be involved in this issue. 

My understanding is you already let some of your employees 

know—you haven’t let us know, but I can tell you that Congress 

will probably have a say so on this. Not that we want to micromanage, but I think it’s part of—at least the appropriations process 

will be involved. 

The issue of cost of construction—and I understand—I’ve been to 

the one in Mexico. I understand what they’re doing over in Laredo 

and other parts of the world. I think the cost of construction is extremely high. Sometimes people, I think, they charge us just because we’re the Federal Government, they charge us more. I understand all the arguments about security and you’ve got to do this. 

I understand all that, but I still think they’re a little high. 

On the issues of closing the consulate, Mr. Chairman, I think we 

definitely disagree on that. I don’t think we ought to close the consulates. Let me just try to address, Mr. Chairman, if you allow me 

just a few minutes beyond my 5 minutes, since I think everybody’s 

gone now except you and I. Let me talk about the border. I want 

to go from the border and then go into Mexico. 

If you look at the FBI statistics, the border crime rate or the national crime rate is about 4.5 murders per 100,000. Laredo, my 

hometown, is about 1.5 murders per 100,000. You take the border 

crime rate, it’s lower than the national crime rate using FBI stats, 

murder, assaults, rapes, you know, name them. 

If you look at the top ten cities with the highest murder rates 

in the U.S. for 100,000 population, none of them are on the border. 

None of them are on the border. If you look at one of the NGOs 

that looked at the top 50 cities with the highest homicides per 

100,000, and if you look at it, you know, you have San Pedro 

Sula—this is from the year 2011 to 2014—number one is in Honduras, San Pedro Sula, Honduras. You had Acapulco, number 

three, 104 murders for 100,000. The number one was about 171 

murders per 100,000. 

Then you go on—sorry if there’s anybody—any of my colleagues—San Luis was number 19. And then you had Detroit, 

number 22. Then you had Juarez, who the numbers I’ve gone down 

was number 27. Then you had the Nuevo Laredo, number 34. Then 

you had Baltimore number 40, and then go all the way down to 

Cuernavaca in Mexico on that. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

So, again, I would ask you to look at some of these numbers because there’s always the reality and the perception. And being on 

the border, I’ll be the first one to say, Mr. Chairman, you know, 

there are problems like any other city, but it’s not the way some 

people paint it to be. 

Travel warnings, again, if we go based on travel warnings that 

I—we pulled out the travel warnings that the State Department 

has. Yes, I do see Mexico here, but I do see so many other countries 

where there’s travel warnings. And if we go on the basis of travel 

warning, Mr. Chairman, I think we probably have to close consulates. 

And there’s two and-a-half pages of countries that we probably 

have to include, including one of the ones that we’re dealing with 

this week or maybe I just saw a note that we might postpone the 

Israel issue. Even the West Bank and Gaza, there’s a travel warning there on that. So I can go on two and-a-half pages of countries 

if we happen to go on that. 

Why do we need consulates on that even in places like Mexico? 

Two reasons: One is the trade and the relations that we have, but 

the other one has to do with immigration itself first. 

Before I go on that, let me just talk about Mexico. Before we did 

plan Merida, and in 2008 we worked with Ambassador Garza, 

President Bush, Roberta Jacobson, which I’m hoping will become— 

will soon be the Ambassador of Mexico. Mr. Chairman, she’s a good 

lady to know. I think you might know her. She’ll be a great Ambassador to Mexico. 

We were giving Mexico $36 million a year, while we give certain countries like Israel $3.1 billion a year. And here is Mexico, which 

is one of our greatest trading partners. Mr. Chairman, I think you 

highlighted some of the numbers. But let me talk about Laredo 

where you and Blake—and I’m sorry I couldn’t be there. I was 

bringing my little girl up to Washington the day you were up here. 

But Laredo, for example, handles about 40 percent of all the 

trade between the U.S. and Mexico. Twelve thousand trailers a day 

that we have there. If you put the trucks, line them up, up and 

down the border, on the day basis, all the trucks Laredo on 1 day 

would go from Laredo to a little bit south of San Antonio. You put 

all the trucks on a monthly basis going through just Laredo, it will 

go from Laredo all the way to La Paz, Bolivia. 

And if you go on the number of trucks that pass Laredo on a 

year, they almost will wrap around the world twice. So it gives you 

the half trillion dollars that we have of trade every day. Shows you 

why Mexico is so important to us. 

And by the way, one more for the folks that want to push Mexico 

away, if an end port comes in from China, it has about a 4 percent 

American parts on it. If something comes in from Canada, our 

number one trading partner, will have about 25 percent parts. But 

if something comes in from Mexico, an import comes in from Mexico, it will have 40 percent American parts with it. So that shows 

the connection that we have with Mexico. 

Trade. Let me go into immigration, part of it. Robert, you and 

I spoke a lot—Mr. Harris, we spoke a lot about the unaccompanied 

kids that came in last year on that. We’ve seen the numbers gone 

down, Mr. Chairman. They’ve gone down. They’re about half. But, 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

again, we can add more Border Patrol—and I agree adding more 

Border Patrol. I want to see more men and women in blue, which 

are the customs officers. But if you look at something that has happened, I’ve always said that we can’t play defense on the 1 yard 

line, which is called the U.S. border. 

We spend about $18 billion for border security across the Nation. 

If we just play a little different defense on the 20-yard line—and 

last year the appropriations, we added—I think we worked with 

you all—we added about $80 million to help Mexico secure the 

southern border with Guatemala. 

We always talk about southern border, but we ought to look at 

the southern border with Mexico. If you look at it, from October 

2014 to April 2015, Mexico apprehended over 92,000 Central American migrants, 20,000 more than we do in the U.S., 70,000. So if 

we would have—if Mexico would allow those 92,000, Border Patrol 

would have been dealing with those folks a lot more. 

So Mr. Chairman, I do understand that we have issues in Mexico. There’s no ifs. But we need to work with them. Construction 

costs, I agree; I think they’re a little high. We can work on that. 

Closing the consulates, bad mistake. Danger pay, Mr. Chairman, I 

want to work with you because I think we need to talk about. 

There are certain parts of Mexico where I think they deserve danger pay. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for allowing me to be back 

in my former committee. 

And to all the witnesses, thank you so much for all of—for all 

the good work that you do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

I’ll now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. I’ve been in another hearing so I hope I 

don’t repeat some questions. 

First of all, I want to point out that overall, you know, we’re kind 

of highlighting Mexico here. And just reviewing the murder rates 

around the country, Mexico was far from the most violent country 

in the world, right? I mean, you have countries like Jamaica or El 

Salvador that are maybe twice the murder rate or Honduras which 

is four times the murder rate of Mexico. 

But Mexico does have a high murder rate. I think it’s about four 

times—over four times the American rate. Five times—I say four 

times the American rate. I wonder if some of you could maybe comment on the differences in some cities compared to other cities and 

whether you think it is right now particularly dangerous in these 

cities with the higher rates themselves. 

Mr. STARR. Sir, I think the Embassy in Mexico City and the different types of agencies that are represented there closely follow 

where we have rising narcotrafficking drug violence. And I think 

that’s what fuels a lot of the murder rates. 

As we said earlier, you know, 25 million Americans visit Mexico 

every single year. Very few of those people have any type of problem there. You know, tourism is a very big business. We’re acutely 

aware that certain places where the drug cartels, either one is trying to take over another or there’s a split in the organization, and 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 

that’s what happened in Matamoros over the last year essentially, 

the violence can certainly spike. 

I think we do try to differentiate between those places where the 

violence is going up and make sure that that’s reflected in our 

warnings and tell people that. I think we try to be accurate about 

what the real threats are to Americans there and give them the 

general idea. But it is not a level of violence that is all over Mexico. 

It is in different cities and primarily where the drug traffickers are 

contesting territory. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Do we have a facility in Acapulco? 

Mr. STARR. We have a consular agency there, right? Not a consulate. We have a consular agent there. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. That’s an example of one, just pulling it up, that 

looks to be a very, very dangerous city. But could you let me know, 

I mean, is that like some American cities where overall it’s dangerous but there are a lot of areas that are okay? I mean, because 

that is one, just pulling it up, that is just, you know, I think the 

murder rate is like three times that in Milwaukee where I’m near, 

and that’s not a very well run city. 

But you do feel that—I mean, do you feel our people are safe in 

a city like that? If you stick in the right areas, or is it—— 

Ms. SAARNIO. Sir, we provide guidance in our travel advisories by 

state and even by city, and there is specific guidance for Acapulco. 

I’m not sure over there what it is right now. Typically, we advise 

people, you know, stay off the streets at night in these dangerous 

places. Stay closer to home. If we know of a particular type of violence that’s going to occur, we’ll issue a warning. 

So I think, you know—we think it’s manageable, but we do have 

to monitor the situations, and we have to monitor the risk and take 

measures to mitigate against those risks when they happen. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Just by point of reference, of all the Americans 

working in Mexico right now who work for the American Government, how many work there overall and how many have been victims, say, of some sort of crime in the last year? 

Ms. SAARNIO. We have 2,800 employees, that includes our locallyengaged staff as well, and the mission in Mexico. I don’t have a 

number for how many have been involved in crimes, but it’s minimal. I don’t know that we have those at hand right now. 

Mr. STARR. I think since 2010, we’ve had two Americans that 

were killed. 

Ms. SAARNIO. Since 1985. 

Mr. STARR. Right. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Since 1985—— 

Ms. SAARNIO. Two Americans have been killed. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Since when? 

Ms. SAARNIO. Since 1985. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. So two Americans have been killed out of 

a little under 3—when we have 3,000 employees. We’ve had about 

two murders in the last 30 years is what you’re saying? 

Ms. SAARNIO. That’s right. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Thank you. 

I yield the rest of my time. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank the gentleman. 

Few kind of tie-up questions and then we’ll be done here. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

Ambassador Moser, in Mexico City, the last number we had is 

that we were planning in the new embassy—and I recognize that 

it’s behind schedule—we were planning on 1,335 desks. The costs 

had gone from the original estimate of $577 million to $943 million. 

Any adjustments in those, or are those still the numbers that 

you’re working with? 

Mr. MOSER. Sir, those are correct, but I will note that the origi- nal figure, the $550 million figure that we initially reported to Congress did not include the site acquisition cost. And that’s the reason. So the real difference is about 700 versus 900, and that does 

reflect the 40 percent growth in staffing. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And it’s real dollars. You know, every time 

we spend dollars here we’re pulling money out of American people’s 

pockets to give it to somebody else. And so the concern is you have 

a $200 million growth there. You were looking at roughly just shy 

of $250 million for the building, the construction of Matamoros and 

the Nuevo Laredo facilities. That’s a huge amount of dollars going 

out the door, when you consider that Matamoros is looking at 103 

desks and Nuevo Laredo is 88 desks. And we’re going to spend a 

quarter of a billion dollars. 

Mr. MOSER. Sir, if I could just make one comment on that. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Sure. 

Mr. MOSER. I too am very, very concerned about the cost of these 

facilities, and we are always focused on the cost. But it is true that 

it does take more money per capita or per desk to build a smaller 

facility than it does a large one. Because as I’ve said, the first point 

of all of this is your requirements. What do you have to do. And 

it’s easier to expand a building and make it bigger to get a per-desk 

charge than it is. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. In Monterrey—well, let me jump in here. 

Same country, right. In Monterrey, $179 million for 199 desks, but 

Matamoros, which is 103 desks, is $191 million. 

Mr. MOSER. Well, as I said, it depends on the requirements for 

the various locations. And a smaller number of—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Do you make any situation where the cost 

has gone down? 

Mr. MOSER. Yes, sir. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Okay. What is it? 

Mr. MOSER. Well, there are places where it’s surprisingly inexpensive in—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Yeah, but where is the place where the cost 

estimate went down, came in under budget or even on budget? 

Mr. MOSER. I’ll have to get back to you. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Yeah, exactly. Because we looked at this. 

The reason that we are going to continue to focus on this is every 

single thing we’ve done since the time I was elected, since the 

President took place—took office, the same time, every one of these 

facilities has gone up in costs. Every one of them. And they’re not 

even close. We didn’t come up with those estimates. The State Department came up with those statements. And now we’re seeing 

this double-digits percentage growth by the billions of dollars. I 

mean, by the billions. 

Let me keep going because we are trying to wrap this up. In 

Nuevo Laredo, when I went and visited the site, beautiful site, I 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

can understand the location, the proximity to Laredo, Texas, I get 

it. And I do believe that they need a new facility. The one they’re 

in currently is old. I understand that. But on that site there were 

living quarters that were a potential living quarters for the consulate general. 

The recommendation for the people on the ground who are working there was to keep that facility. And yet, OBO said, ‘‘No, we’re 

not going to keep that facility,’’ and they destroyed it. I have questions on follow-up as to why was it destroyed? Why didn’t it meet 

the specifications? And number two is, have you figured out and 

determined where the consulate general is actually going to live in 

Nuevo Laredo? 

Mr. MOSER. Sir, there’s a very good line of inquiry. And let me 

explain that. That in that particular instance, we had a smallish 

site, somewhere around a little—I think a little bit less than 5 

acres. And in order for us to situate our building on the site and 

have all of the required setbacks and all the required security requirements that we would have to have, according to our overseas 

security standards, that we had to demolish the existing residence 

on the site. 

Now, where will that person go? We will obtain appropriate 

housing for the principal officer, and that’s what we do in countries 

all over the world. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Here’s the concern: The cost has grown; it’s 

under construction; the site has been—but this is a pretty—there 

are only 88 desks, okay. It’s a smaller facility. The consulate general and his facilities and his ability or her ability to conduct work 

on behalf of the United States is pivotal. And here we are, you 

know, into September 2015, and you all haven’t figured out where 

he’s going to live. It’s a pretty big, important question. 

So—— 

Mr. MOSER. Well, he does have a residence now, sir. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Yes, understood, on the old compound. But 

you have to travel, as I did, we had something like 30 armed 

guards escort us from the one facility to the next facility. You had 

to have the Mexican National Army lead us in a convoy with, you 

know, some rather large guns and whatnot ready to go at any moment. It’s a very dangerous situation. 

So I just don’t understand why we’re this far into it. Because there’s going to be a cost. And so when we look at $154 million, 

that doesn’t include the site acquisition or development or purchase 

of something for the consulate general, does it? 

Mr. MOSER. No, sir, it doesn’t. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Have you informed Congress that this 

number is shy of what it needs to be? 

Mr. MOSER. Sir, we usually find principal officers or fund principal officers’ residence out of our leasehold account, which is also 

appropriation from Congress. And we do have a dialogue with our 

appropriators about how much these individual residences cost. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Okay. It’s amazing that you get down there 

and see that there’s no plan and no—other than, ‘‘Hey, we’re going 

to continue to look at it.’’ To suggest that they took 10 years to try 

to find a facility to locate the Mexico City Embassy. I mean, that’s 

an embarrassment. Ten years? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 

Mr. MOSER. Sir, to find a big enough site where we can put a 

facility that really accomplishes the diplomatic goals, we are trying 

to—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. You bought a site that’s toxic. And by the 

Mexican Government it’s so toxic you can’t build there. And there 

are hundreds of people that are going to suffer and live in inadequate working quarters. 

Again, I want to try to wrap up here. When will the new danger 

pay—when will this new program be implemented? Has it been announced? 

Mr. MOSER. It has been announced, sir, but I’ll turn that over to 

my colleagues. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. When does that take place? 

Mr. STARR. The announcements went out to the post, I believe, 

last week. 

Congressman, I appreciate how much you’re concerned about the 

danger pay. I can have staff come up here and work with your staff 

and explain how we do this and how we grade these things, if that 

would be helpful. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. We’ll try it again. You and I tried it in a 

classified setting, and it didn’t go so well, did it? 

Mr. STARR. No, sir, we had our differences. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Yeah. And so this is not a new topic that 

I sprung on you here at this—you knew I was going to bring it up. 

Mr. STARR. I know that, sir. But I think if we could show you 

detailed how we actually look at each post, what the ratings are, 

what we do to go into it, and I think my staff working with your 

staff could give you—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I look forward to seeing that formula. For 

those men and women who work in Mexico, who have loved ones 

that are here in the United States and their husband or wife or 

sibling or whoever, daughter, whatever is working in Mexico, and 

their pay just got cut, you can look at the Obama administration, 

you could look at Secretary Kerry, and you could look to that organization, because it wasn’t us Republicans. Don’t tell us that it 

was—you were tight on budgets. 

Mr. STARR. This was not about cutting any benefits. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. They did get their—are you telling me 

that—— 

Mr. STARR. Matamoros went up. Matamoros went up. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Are there people working in Mexico who 

earn less than they did before? 

Mr. STARR. Yes, some. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. That’s my problem. 

Mr. STARR. But it’s based on the conditions on the ground, sir. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Yeah. Can they still—in Nuevo Laredo can 

they walk outside of the consulate? No, they can’t. 

Mr. STARR. No. They can be across the border and be in a WalMart and be in a Dairy Queen very quickly. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Really? 

Mr. STARR. Yes, sir. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Yeah, I can’t wait to play that video for 

those people working there. Shame on you for—— 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 

Mr. STARR. Sir, I’ve walked that ground. I’ve talked with those 

people. I look at our security every single day. There is nobody that 

is more concerned with the security of our people overseas than I 

am. Their allowances—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I don’t agree with you. 

Mr. STARR. I’m sorry, sir. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I have been there. I have talked to those 

people. 

Mr. STARR. Sir, I start every morning—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Don’t tell me that—don’t get on your high 

horse, because you just cut their pay. I didn’t do that; you did. 

Mr. STARR. Sir—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And when I went down there, I didn’t know 

that this was an issue. They brought it up. 

Mr. STARR. Sir—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And we sat them down in the room, and to 

think if it’s fair. It’s not safe. When I talk to the people who were 

there working in that facility, it’s so dangerous they can’t go outside. 

Mr. STARR. I start every single day looking at the threats to our 

people worldwide. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And you’re getting Mexico wrong. You’re 

getting Mexico wrong. 

Mr. STARR. No, sir, I’m not. And I’ll bring staff up and we’ll work 

with your staff. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Yeah, you can bring staff up all you want. 

I can tell you, I have been there. I have looked at those statistics. 

I have briefed with the people there. You cut their pay, and I think 

it’s wrong. And I think people on both sides of this aisle think it’s 

wrong. 

It was petty. It was not useful. It was not productive. It’s cut morale. It was unnecessary, and I think it should be changed. I really 

do. I really do. It’s not for a lack of appropriation. It’s the management of the State Department. That’s the question here. That’s the 

question. 

We’re going to continue to work on that. There are a lot of other 

issues. I do believe we have to engage in meaningful immigration 

reform. There has to be a legal, lawful way to get here. If you don’t 

fix legal immigration, you’re never, ever going to solve this problem. One of the issues we need to work on is the asylum reform. 

I actually have an asylum reform bill. 

In conclusion, I cannot thank the men and women of the—particularly the Border Patrol for all they do and the good, hard work 

that they do. I have been down there. It’s one of my joys to go out 

with them in the Ajo district. I’ve been out there with them as we 

chase people coming across the border. You sit there and just 

watch them all day long coming across, and these people apprehend them in a very professional manner. They work hard. It’s 

hard, very dangerous work. Can’t thank them enough for the good 

work that the people do in the Customs and Border Patrol. 

ERO has an exceptionally difficult mission. ICE is doing some 

very important work. There are good people doing work all across 

the border. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
53 

And my point, sir, is with those people working in the State Department, they too have a vital mission. And it’s just unacceptable 

to us. It’s just mind-boggling that there would knowingly and willingly cut their pay, telling them that it’s more safe when there are 

conditions there that are not conducive. To say that, oh, they can 

just go across the border so they can get to a Dairy Queen, yeah, 

that doesn’t cut it. That’s not acceptable. 

With that, I appreciate all of you for participating today. I think 

this was a good hearing. This hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(55) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 97598.001
57 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 97598.002
58 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 97598.003
59 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 97598.004
60 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 97598.005
61 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 97598.006
62 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 97598.007
63 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 97598.008
64 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 97598.009
65 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 97598.010
66 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 97598.011
67 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 97598.012
68 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 97598.013
69 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 97598.014
70 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 97598.015
71 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 97598.016
72 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 97598.017
73 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 97598.018
74 

Æ 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 97598.019