U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 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

57–215 PDF 2010

MONEY, GUNS, AND DRUGS: ARE U.S. INPUTS

FUELING VIOLENCE ON THE U.S.–MEXICO BORDER?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 12, 2009

Serial No. 111–54

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

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

JACKIE SPEIER, California

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

——— ———

——— ———

——— ———

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

RON STROMAN, Staff Director

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Deputy Staff Director

CARLA HULTBERG, Chief Clerk

LARRY BRADY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts, Chairman

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

ANDREW WRIGHT, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 12, 2009 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of:

Selee, Andrew, Ph.D., director, Woodrow Wilson Center Mexico Institute;

Michael A. Braun, managing partner, Spectre Group International,

LLC, and former Assistant Administrator/Chief of Operations, Drug

Enforcement Administration; Jonathan Paton, member, Arizona State

Senate; and Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst, Violence Policy Center,

and author, ‘‘Making a Killing: The Business of Guns in America’’ ......... 19

Braun, Michael A. ..................................................................................... 29

Diaz, Tom ................................................................................................... 40

Paton, Jonathan ........................................................................................ 38

Selee, Andrew ............................................................................................ 19

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Braun, Michael A., managing partner, Spectre Group International, LLC,

and former Assistant Administrator/Chief of Operations, Drug Enforcement Administration, prepared statement of ............................................. 31

Diaz, Tom, senior policy analyst, Violence Policy Center, and author,

‘‘Making a Killing: The Business of Guns in America’’, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 43

Selee, Andrew, Ph.D., director, Woodrow Wilson Center Mexico Institute,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 24

Tierney, Hon. John F., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Massachusetts, prepared statement of ................................................... 5

(1)

MONEY, GUNS, AND DRUGS: ARE U.S. INPUTS

FUELING VIOLENCE ON THE U.S.–MEXICO

BORDER?

THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN

AFFAIRS,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John F. Tierney (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Tierney, Lynch, Cuellar, Kucinich,

Flake, Burton, Mica, Duncan, McHenry, and Fortenberry.

Staff present: Elliot Gillerman, clerk; Alex McKnight, State Department fellow; Andy Wright, counsel; Dave Turk, staff director;

Jennifer Safavian, minority chief counsel for oversight and investigations; Frederick Hill, minority director of communications; Dan

Blankenburg, minority director of outreach and senior advisor;

Adam Fromm, minority chief clerk and Member liaison; Seamus

Kraft, minority deputy press secretary; Tom Alexander, minority

senior counsel; Mitchell Kominsky, minority counsel; Dr. Christopher Bright, minority senior professional staff member; and

Glenn Sanders, minority Defense fellow.

Mr. TIERNEY. Good morning. I want to thank all of our witnesses

for being here this morning and my colleague from Arizona as well,

other Members as they appear.

This subcommittee has recently held a number of hearings on

countries, chiefly Pakistan and Afghanistan, where terror runs

rampant and our national security interests are generally perceived

to be significant. Now I would like to paraphrase a brief introductory paragraph in a recent article printed in the Economist magazine. It says in recent months the people of a certain country have

become inured to carefully choreographed spectacles of horror.

Just before Christmas, the severed heads of eight soldiers were

found dumped in plastic bags near a shopping center in the capital

of a state. Last month another three were found in an icebox near

a border community. The country’s president states that, ‘‘Organized crime is out of control.’’ He has pitted 450,000 army troops

against the drug traffickers, but in 2008 more than 6,200 people

died in the country in drug related violence—more than twice the

number killed in 2007. More than 1,000 people have died so far in

2009. Troops and police have fought pitched battles against drug

2

gangsters armed with rocket launchers, grenades, machine guns,

and armor-piercing sniper rifles such as the Barrett .50.

The article does not describe Pakistan or Afghanistan. It is a

story about our neighbor to the south, Mexico, the world’s 12th

largest economy, the U.S.’ second biggest trading partner, and an

important oil supplier. The former Drug Czar General Barry

McCaffrey says the picture there is dangerous and a worsening situation that fundamentally threatens U.S. national security. Last

month Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, ‘‘Mexico right now has issues of violence that are a different degree and

level than we have seen before.’’ Some, most notably President

Calderon, dispute such a grim picture but few if any contest that

matters are certainly serious.

The Economist article notes that the drug industry is worth some

$320 billion a year, a figure I note some of our witnesses agree

with, and that the United States alone spends $40 billion each year

trying to eliminate the supply of drugs. Attorney General Medina

Mora is quoted in the article as noting that of 107,000 gun shops

in the United States, 12,000 are close to the Mexican border and

their sales are much higher than average. ‘‘Thousands of automatic

rifles are bought for export to Mexico, which is illegal.’’

Now, when they are talking about exporting rifles out there, they

are talking about weapons such as the one we see on the table

there. And they are firing ammunition, this is what we use when

we are fighting, our troops are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is what the gangsters and drug people are using when they

fight Mexican and U.S. police and national security people down

along the border. In addition, cash is moving from America to Mexico.

So today this Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs focuses on this increasingly urgent national security challenge, one that is not half way around the world but one that is

quite literally at our doorstep, the increasing violence along the

U.S.-Mexico border. And that violence is increasingly spilling over

onto U.S. soil.

The U.S. Justice Department called Mexican gangs the ‘‘biggest

organized crime threat to the United States,’’ noting that they operate in at least 230 U.S. cities and towns. Phoenix is now the U.S.

capital of kidnappings with more than 370 cases last year. The city

of El Paso, TX sits a stone’s throw away from Ciudad Juarez where

more than 1,550 people were killed in drug wars last year.

Border violence is receiving increased attention by the U.S. Government, including by a number of committees in this Congress. At

those hearings, I am sure the Merida Initiative will be discussed

along with other efforts by the United States to strengthen Mexican police and judicial institutions. I am sure questions will be

asked about what the United States can do to ensure that this violence does not spread from south to north. I am sure there will be

calls for our southern neighbors to get their house in order. But all

of this is just one part of the equation.

Today’s hearing asks the central question: Are there laws and activities on the American side of the border fueling this violence in

Mexico? According to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, FireVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:36 Aug 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\57215.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
3

arms, and Explosives, 90 percent of the guns confiscated in Mexican organized crime originated in the United States, 90 percent.

And we are not just talking handguns and hunting rifles. William Newell, special agent in charge of the ATF station in Arizona

noted, for example, ‘‘eighteen months ago we saw a spike in .50 caliber machine guns heading south.’’ According to those AFT statistics, more than 7,700 guns sold in America were traced to Mexico

in 2008, twice the 3,300 recorded the previous year and more than

triple the 2,100 traced the year before that.

And how do Mexican cartels get the money to buy those guns?

The Woodrow Wilson Center put it this way: ‘‘Profits from drug

sales in the United States pump roughly $15 billion to $25 billion

every year into illicit activities in Mexico.’’ In short, U.S. drug use

creates billions in illicit profits that are then used by Mexican cartels to buy U.S. guns. The profits and the guns, and drug precursors in some cases, find their way back across the border to Mexico

and fuel the increasing violence.

This is a vicious cycle that we simply must break. Our kids, our

schools, and our neighborhoods are quite literally at stake. And

U.S. national security and the stability of our southern neighbor

also hangs in the balance.

This subcommittee has conducted and will continue to conduct

extensive oversight into the volatile situation in South Asia. But

last month a Wall Street Journal article concluded: ‘‘Much as Pakistan is fighting for survival against Islamic radicals, Mexico is waging a do-or-die battle with the world’s most powerful drug cartels.

The parallels between Pakistan and Mexico are strong enough that

the United States military singled them out recently as the two

countries where there is a risk the government could suffer a swift

and catastrophic collapse.’’

Here are the words of our own U.S. military. They say: ‘‘In terms

of worst-case scenarios for the United States Joint Force, and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration

for a rapid and sudden collapse, Pakistan and Mexico. The Mexican

possibility may seem less likely but the government, its politicians,

police, and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault

and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major

impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico

into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.’’

As the Obama administration, the Congress, and the American

people increasingly pay attention to the violence in Mexico, my

hope is that we not only discuss the Merida Initiative and other efforts to help our southern neighbor, that we not only ask the Mexican Government to get its house in order, but that we also look inside our own borders. I hope that we look to our own drug consumption, to our own gun laws, and to our own anti-money laundering initiatives and ask what more we can do, what more we can

do on our side of the border.

My hope is that this hearing will result in some concrete recommendations for the U.S. Congress to consider. We will hear from

top experts who have examined and studied these issues. And we

greatly appreciate all of their presence here today.

4

U.S.-Mexico border violence can only be solved if we look at all

parts of the equation, if we examine everything that is fueling the

fire. Let us examine our gun laws. Let us explore ways to cut down

on U.S. drug consumption. Let us ask if we need more resources

to root out money laundering. The peace and well-being of both of

our countries and both of our peoples depends upon it. And with

that I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Flake, for his comments.

[The prepared statement of Hon. John F. Tierney follows:]

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a Representative of a

border state, this subject hits a little close to home. So I am glad

that we have called this hearing and I look forward to hearing the

witnesses.

In recent years, Mexican towns bordering the United States have

experienced exponential growth in violence. The fighting, chiefly

the result of drug cartels warring with each other and the Mexican

Government, has cost 7,000 Mexican lives this past year alone.

President Calderon is making a concerted effort to quell the violence. It does not appear, however, that the hostility will cease in

the near term. On the contrary, reports indicate that this violence

may be spreading.

Despite conflicting reports about how large these cartels actually

are and whether the violence has already spilled into the United

States, violence in Mexico is a serious issue that is ripe for this

subcommittee’s review. The purpose of this hearing is to examine

ways in which the United States is fueling the violence. In other

words, we are looking at ways, to explore ways, where we can be

blamed.

The witnesses will testify that America’s insatiable appetite for

drugs and accessibility with weapons are the source of the violence.

While I agree that cross-border sales of guns and drugs play a part,

I do not believe that stricter gun controls on Americans and public

service announcements will solve the problem. Indeed, we need to

open a discussion on a broader spectrum of ideas.

First, the United States must focus on enforcing good laws on the

books. In my home State of Arizona, it is illegal to directly or indirectly sell weapons to criminals, plain and simple. The same is true

under Federal law. Instead of punishing law-abiding Americans

with stricter controls, we need to punish those who break the law

today.

In fact, U.S. law enforcement has had tremendous success in this

regard. This Tuesday, a senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement official testified before another congressional committee. She

said that in the last 31⁄2 years, ICE has made a concerted effort to

focus on border security. In this period, the agency has made 4,830

arrests, and seized nearly 170,000 pounds of drugs, and captured

numerous weapons at or near the border. State operations are also

working.

Now, I believe that the enactment of comprehensive immigration

reform would also make it easier for the legitimate movement of

workers on a temporary basis as well as goods between the United

States and Mexico. This would free law enforcement officials to

focus their resources and to be more direct on the pressing crimes

that potentially endanger our citizens.

We must determine the extent to which U.S.-funded anti-drug

programs are succeeding in Mexico. To date, we have spent billions

on that effort.

But instead of limiting the discussion to gun control and treatment programs, we must have a broad discussion of ideas. To that

end, I have invited Arizona Senator Jonathan Paton to testify

today. He has come a long way, and I appreciate that, with short

notice. He is a seasoned legislator in Arizona and he is a life-long

resident of Arizona. He is thoroughly familiar with these matters

18

and a leader in promoting legislative solutions to the cross-border

issues. Thus, Senator Paton provides a unique perspective about

ways in which border States such as Arizona are tackling these important issues.

We can agree that despite our best efforts to fight cartel operations on both sides of the border, violence has gotten worse. That

said, serious dialog must take place between lawmakers and experts about real solutions that bolster security while protecting our

rights. Anything less is counterproductive. Sadly, this hearing appears to be more of a discussion about stricter gun controls on

Americans than it is about punishing those who break the law.

In these discussions today, we need to take care to point out that

Mexico is not a failed state as national rhetoric might suggest. I

believe that such characterizations are unhelpful at a time when

our friends are going through tough times. President Calderon has

taken bold steps to rid his country of corruption. I applaud his efforts and wish him every success, and I think we all should.

And I thank the chairman for holding this hearing. It has a great

effect on my State of Arizona and also the security of the United

States. And I look forward to the witnesses.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you very much. This subcommittee will now

receive testimony from the panelists before us today.

As I mentioned in my remarks, there are other committees in

this Congress that are, of course, looking at this matter from another perspective. People are dealing with the Merida Agreement,

cooperation between the countries, and what other actions are

taken on the national security/law enforcement side.

This is a hearing on yet one more element and one view of something additionally that can be done in cooperation with Mexico.

And it will be followed, we presume, by a hearing with some of the

administration’s people on what is actually being done and planned

to be done by this administration.

We are going to receive testimony from three individuals whose

biographies I will read in brief right now, four individuals, I should

say.

Dr. Andrew Selee. Dr. Selee is the director of the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute, which recently published a January

2009 report, ‘‘The United States and Mexico: Toward a Strategic

Partnership.’’ Dr. Selee is an adjunct professor of government at

Johns Hopkins University and previously taught at George Washington University. He serves on the board of the U.S.-Mexico Fulbright Commission and on the Independent Task Force on Immigration of the Council on Foreign Relations. And I am happy to

note that he has also worked as a professional staff member here

in the U.S. House of Representatives previously.

Mr. Michael A. Braun is the managing partner at Spectre Group

International and is a former Drug Enforcement Agency Chief of

Operations and Assistant Administrator. As such, he was responsible for leading the worldwide drug enforcement operations of the

Agency’s 227 domestic and 86 foreign offices. In June 2003, Mr.

Braun was detailed to the Department of Defense and served on

special assignment in Iraq as the chief of staff of the Interim Ministry of Interior. Mr. Braun has also served from 1971 to 1973 as

an infantryman in the U.S. Marine Corps.

19

Mr. Jonathan Paton is a member of the Arizona State Senate. He

founded a political consulting firm in Tucson called Paton and Associates and has worked with numerous clients in State and local

races as well as on initiative campaigns. He also volunteered for

active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from September

2006 until February 2007.

Mr. Tom Diaz is a senior policy analyst for the Violence Policy

Center and is author of ‘‘Making a Killing: The Business of Guns

in America.’’ His new book ‘‘No Boundaries: Transnational Latino

Gangs and American Law Enforcement’’ will be released later this

year. Mr. Diaz has a distinguished past including having consulted

with the Justice Department and having also worked in the House

of Representatives as counsel to the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice.

I want to thank all of you for making yourselves available today.

Mr. Paton, thank you for your travels at the last minute and for

sharing your substantial expertise.

It is the practice of this subcommittee to swear in all the witnesses. So at this time I ask you to please rise, raise your right

hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. The record will please indicate that all

of the witnesses answered in the affirmative. All of your written

statements, which have been introduced and read by the Members

already, will be put on the record in their entirety.

So I welcome you to give whatever oral remarks you want to

give. We try to limit it within 5 minutes, if possible. We don’t have

a trap door to make you disappear if it doesn’t happen that way.

But we do like to keep it as close to 5 minutes as possible so Members will have an opportunity to engage and ask questions and get

more information in that respect.

So if we can, Dr. Andrew Selee, we appreciate your comments.

STATEMENTS OF ANDREW SELEE, PH.D., DIRECTOR, WOODROW WILSON CENTER MEXICO INSTITUTE; MICHAEL A.

BRAUN, MANAGING PARTNER, SPECTRE GROUP INTERNATIONAL, LLC, AND FORMER ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR/

CHIEF OF OPERATIONS, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; JONATHAN PATON, MEMBER, ARIZONA STATE SENATE; AND TOM DIAZ, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, VIOLENCE

POLICY CENTER, AND AUTHOR, MAKING A KILLING: THE

BUSINESS OF GUNS IN AMERICA

STATEMENT OF ANDREW SELEE

Dr. SELEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee. And thank you also for choosing a

subject that is both timely and an approach that I think is very

constructive. And let me also, if I can, recognize the ranking member as someone who has taken a courageous stand on a number of

issues including immigration, which you referenced in your remarks as well.

The issue of organized crime tied to drug trafficking in Mexico

is timely. We have seen in the past year over 6,000 deaths tied to

drug trafficking in Mexico. This is something that grabs headlines.

20

It is something that is raising concerns on both sides of the border.

Granted, much of the killing is going on in three cities in Mexico.

A majority of killings are going on and a majority of the killings

are taking place among people involved in drug gangs.

But the deeper issue that is going on is the presence of organized

crime undermining rule of law in Mexico. And that is something

that is very hard for a democratic society to tolerate. It is something that is of great concern to Mexicans. The Mexican Government has accurately defined this as the country’s greatest threat,

and they have taken a valiant stance against organized crime while

also trying to strengthen police and judicial institutions in Mexico.

And I would argue that is probably the longest term challenge in

Mexico, is creating judicial institutions and police forces that will

really have credibility with citizens.

This issue is particularly constructive the way that it has been

designed by this committee and by the chairman because Mexico

matters to the United States. And this issue, particularly, in Mexico matters to the United States not just because Mexico is our

neighbor, which we have talked about.

There is no question when something happens of this magnitude

in a neighboring country, clearly it is important. We have a 2,000

mile border together. It is not merely important because Mexico is

a strategic partner in the hemisphere, which they are. It is our second largest market for exports. It is a partner in a number of endeavors that we have around the world. But it matters also because this is an issue where we are deeply implicated, in which we

are both deeply involved.

Organized crime does not know boundaries. Drug trafficking is

an issue that is bi-national and, indeed, multi-national. Drug trafficking organizations in Mexico are nurtured by the appetite for

narcotics on this side of the border, as the chairman has noted.

U.S. drug sales account for as much as $10 billion to $25 billion

each year that is sent back to Mexico to fuel violence and to support the cartels. Some of these proceeds are additionally used to

buy weapons for drug trafficking organizations, usually in U.S. gun

shows and gun shops.

And so when we see the violence across the border and its deeper

consequences for democracy and rule of law in Mexico, one of the

things we need to recognize is that our country houses those who

knowingly and many times unknowingly finance and equip organized crime organizations that are behind it. And that means we

also hold the key to at least part of the solution for this problem.

Clearly much of the work needs to be done in Mexico, but clearly

we are implicated as well. And there is much we can do to be supportive, and that we should be doing.

Fortunately, law enforcement cooperation between the governments of the United States and Mexico has increased significantly

in recent years. We are now able to track and apprehend some of

the worst criminals involved in the drug trade as they move from

one country to another, and to share timely intelligence that helps

disrupt the operations of drug trafficking organizations.

This was not necessarily true 10 years ago. There is a degree of

cooperation that I think we would not have been talking about if

we had this discussion 10 years ago. The approval by Congress of

21

the Merida Initiative last year has further deepened this cooperation by strengthening contacts and building trust between the governments to address this common threat together.

However, the most important efforts that the U.S. Government

could take to undermine the reach and violence of these drug trafficking organizations need to be taken on this side of the border.

And I want to underscore that. Though there is much we can do—

the Merida Initiative is important; there is much we can do to help

Mexico—the ways we can be most helpful are things we can do

here that we will be talking about on this panel. There are three

sets of actions that we could pursue more energetically that would

be especially vital to undermining the cartels. And they are all

things that we are doing now, but that we could be doing slightly

differently and much more energetically.

All of these actions are in our national security interests because

they will help stabilize the situation in Mexico and prevent any

spillover into the United States. But they are also good domestic

policy because they would make our communities in the United

States safer and more secure.

And I want to make reference to three things that come out of

this report. The chairman has already referenced it, ‘‘The United

States and Mexico: Toward a Strategic Partnership.’’ We put it together with 100 specialists from the United States and Mexico over

the past year. And so these ideas as much belong to other people

as to me, but I will try and represent them here, the three points.

First, we can do a lot more to reduce the consumption of drugs

in the United States. Demand for narcotics in this country is what

drives the drug trade elsewhere in the hemisphere, including Mexico. There is no magic bullet to do this. I mean, as much as we can

say this, there is not a single strategy that is effective in doing this

alone.

And I also do not claim to be an expert on prevention and treatment of addictions. Other people know this better than I do. However, even a cursory look at recent Federal expenditures on narcotics show that we have increasingly emphasized supply reduction/

interdiction while scaling down our commitment to lowering the

consumption in the United States.

Available research suggests that investing in the treatment of

drug addictions may actually be the most cost-effective way to

drive down the profits that drug trafficking organizations get from

their business by reducing the potential market. I think it is positive to hear that the new director-designate of ONDCP is also

thinking along these lines, also talking about things like alternative sentencing for first time nonviolent offenders. These are the

kinds of things that should be on the table for discussion.

And although many drug prevention programs have marginal effects on usage—which, to be honest, a lot of the things that have

been tried in the past to keep people out of drugs have not always

worked as well as they should—there is a lot that we can learn

from very successful campaigns recently against tobacco use, which

have been very effective. And it suggests that this is a good time

to take that knowledge and invest it actively in prevention once

again.

22

We cannot eliminate drug use or addictions. But it is worth making a concerted effort to drive down demand, not only for public

health reasons, which would be enough, of course, but also because

it hurts the bottom line of criminal organizations.

Second, we can do much more to disrupt the $10 billion to $25

billion that flow from drug sales in U.S. cities back to drug trafficking organizations in Mexico and fuel the violence that we are seeing. The Treasury and Justice Departments have done a great job

of making it difficult to launder money in financial institutions.

However, the drug trafficking organizations have now turned to

shipments of bulk cash, which have become the preferred way of

getting their profits back across the border. Currently, no single

agency is fully tasked with following the money trail in the way the

agencies are tasked with pursuing the drugs themselves. CBP,

ICE, DEA, FBI, Treasury, and local law enforcement are all part

of this effort currently but are all primarily tasked with other responsibilities.

It is worth noting that it is both impractical and undesirable to

try to stop this flow only at the border, something the ranking

member will appreciate. Massive sweeps of cars exiting the United

States for Mexico would disrupt the economic linkages between the

border cities and probably yield few gains since much of the cash

is divided up and taken across the border in small amounts.

The real challenge is developing intelligence capabilities to detect

the flow of money as it is transported from one point to another

in the United States as cash or when it enters financial institutions

as money transfers, foreign exchange purchases, and bank deposits.

We are much better at the second than at the first. There are recent experiences in pursuing terrorist financing that may be useful

models for similar efforts to pursue the finances of drug traffickers.

And third and finally, we can do much more to limit the flow of

high caliber weapons from the United States to Mexico. And you

will hear from Tom Diaz on this much more eloquently than I can

say it. But most of the high caliber weapons, probably more than

90 percent, that are used by drug trafficking organizations are purchased in the United States and exported illegally to Mexico.

The first thing that is vital to do is to increase the number of

ATF inspectors at the border and to strengthen cooperation with

other law enforcement agencies which often have relevant intelligence on this. The current prosecution by Arizona’s attorney general of a gun dealer who is knowingly selling arms to drug trafficking organizations is a powerful precedent, but it is only a first step.

It shows the State of Arizona is taking this very seriously, but

clearly this is something that needs a range of agencies to be supporting the AFT and local law enforcement.

The Obama administration could also limit criminals’ access to

inexpensive assault weapons by restricting importation to the

United States of some of the high caliber guns currently favored by

traffickers, which has driven down their price in the market. There

is much we can do to limit the access that criminals’ now have to

high powered weapons without violating the spirit of the second

amendment or harming legitimate interests of American hunters

and gun enthusiasts.

23

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. Mr. Selee, I am going to stop you there

only because I know the rest is just a windup.

Dr. SELEE. Yes, exactly.

Mr. TIERNEY. And I hope you are aware that I appreciate that.

Dr. SELEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Selee follows:]

24

25

26

27

28

29

Mr. TIERNEY. And thank you for your comments.

We are going to go, if we can, to Mr. Braun. And you are recognized, sir.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. BRAUN

Mr. BRAUN. Good morning Chairman Tierney, Ranking Member

Flake, other distinguished Members and staff. It is an honor for me

to be here this morning.

Although I entered the private sector on November 1st, I spent

34 years in law enforcement, the last four of which were as the

Chief of Operations with DEA. As you know, DEA, ICE, FBI have

a lot of folks that are serving, a lot of employees that are serving

in Mexico, working shoulder to shoulder with our counterparts.

And I lost a lot of sleep over the last 3 or 4 years as the violence

began to unfold and escalate throughout Mexico. And I appreciate

your interest in this subject. What I hope to do today is answer

three questions: What is really going on in Mexico? What is causing it and what is behind it? And then finally, and I think most

importantly, can Mexico win?

What is going on? There is a real drug war playing out in Mexico. You mentioned some of the numbers earlier. They are appalling—over 6,000 homicides this past year. 530 law enforcement officers, Mexican law enforcement officers, were murdered in the line

of duty in Mexico last year. 493 of those were drug related homicides. For God’s sakes, over 200 beheadings, many of those with

messages attached—messages, notes scribbled on paper stuffed in

the mouths of those victims or carved in the foreheads—basically

warning police that they needed to show more respect to the traffickers.

But what is really behind it? The cartels responsible in Mexico

for this violence were finally swept up in the perfect storm beginning about 4 years ago. They began, which is not untypical, it has

happened many times in the past, but there were some turf wars

that flared up in various regions throughout the country as they

began fighting and vying for lucrative plazas or lanes across our

southwest border.

About 2 years ago, shortly after President Calderon took office,

he initiated his campaign to break the backs of the cartels. I believe that not long after he took office, or possibly even before, he

and his advisors, security advisors, determined very quickly that if

they didn’t take on the cartels in a meaningful way, they were

going to lose control of the country, that the country was literally

spiraling out of control.

So that added even more pressure to the traffickers. They are

fighting amongst themselves. Now they have the government on

their backs and the government is relentless taking the fight to

them in a large way with over 45,000 military troops

supplementing the ranks of Federal law enforcement, local and

State law enforcement. It is a real fight going on.

About 5 years ago, DEA initiated what we refer to as the Financial Attack Strategy. We began reverse engineering every one of

our cases. We did well for many years following the drugs, but we

mandated that agents reverse engineer every one of their cases and

begin following the money to tremendous benefits. In 2007, I don’t

30

have the 2008 figures for you, but in 2007 the DEA seized about

$500 million in cash that was destined for the southwest border.

Of over $900 million cash seized globally that year, much of it was

tied to Mexican drug trafficking organizations, adding more pressure on these cartels.

Another strategy that was employed almost simultaneously was

the Drug Flow Attack Strategy, working very closely with Admiral

Jim Stavridis at SOUTHCOM, Vice Admiral Joe Nimmich at

JIATF/South. We started attacking the soft underbelly of the transportation infrastructure within these organizations and brought

every possible piece of equipment to bear against these groups as

they moved their drugs north. Consequently, enormous amounts of

drugs have been seized over the last 3 years behind that strategy.

So when you add that revenue denied in, now we are up to somewhere between $3.5 billion to $4 billion that we are denying these

guys.

All of this has caused the Mexican cartels to incur a great deal

of debt with the Colombian cartels that are providing all of the cocaine to them that they are now responsible for trafficking into the

United States. And the Colombian cartels basically over the past

year have denied time and time again drugs on consignment. They

are now demanding money. The bottom line is the cartels in Mexico

have never experienced this level of persistent, sustained pressure.

It is well into its 4th year now and really, in a meaningful way,

the last 2 years.

So the question is can Mexico win? There is no doubt Mexico can

win. And I use Colombia as an example thanks to you and your colleagues through sufficient funding to Colombia. You know, Colombia just a few years ago was facing the same levels of violence in

that country that Mexico is facing today. With funding from the

United States and expert advisors that are working with our Colombian counterparts, they have turned the tide. If you look at

what has happened to Colombia in the last 3 years, their numbers

of all their indexed violent crimes have plummeted: their

kidnappings for ransom, their homicides, their home invasions,

their armed robberies. It is a success story.

There is still a great deal of drugs flowing out of Colombia. Quite

frankly, it hasn’t slowed down one single bit. But the truth of the

matter is, in Colombia, the government now has solid control of

that country. And I am convinced that the Mexicans can experience

the same thing if they don’t throw in the towel, if they hang in and

continue to fight.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Braun follows:]

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Braun. Senator Paton.

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN PATON

Mr. PATON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I want to thank you for inviting me today and a special

thanks to Congressman Flake for having me come here today.

Besides being in the State Senate, I am also the chairman of the

Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee. I represent the Tucson sector, which is considered to be the most trafficked portion of the border with Mexico. I represent that I–19 corridor in east Tucson,

Green Valley, and Sierra Vista.

When Congress began sending us more Border Patrol agents and

customs officers to Arizona, it helped slow some of the illegal immigration activity. But unwittingly, however, it also created a backlog

of Federal immigration cases. Those immigration cases quadrupled.

And what that means is that ATF, which has been diligently investigating gun related crimes which are already on the books such as

straw purchases and gun smuggling into Mexico, has been unable

to bring many of those cases forward.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office is swamped with misdemeanor immigration cases. And there are not enough prosecutors, judges,

agents, and jails to handle what is coming before them already.

How can we expect them to handle new laws? The bottom line is,

in the words of a Federal agent that I spoke to this past week in

Arizona, the U.S. Federal court system in Arizona is crumbling.

And new laws will hasten that process, not help it.

The solution? Give us more agents, more prosecutors, more jail

cells, public defenders. In short, give us the infrastructure to handle the problem. The laws on the books can be investigated and

prosecuted. We can go after gun related crimes now that are seriously impacting Mexico’s gun problem. Besides the fact that the actions being taken by gun smugglers are already illegal, many of the

weapons themselves are illegal as well.

I wasn’t able to bring my own prop today because I couldn’t

make it through the airport with it. But had I done so, I would

have brought grenades that were produced in South Korea; I would

have brought AK–47s; I would have brought M–16s. These are

weapons, ammunitions that are already illegal in the United States

that are being smuggled into Mexico from outside of Mexico.

Mexico’s gun problem is primarily a Mexican border security

problem. Let me describe to you the process to get into the United

States from Mexico. You go through a long line at the port of entry

in Nogales. You wait in that line. Finally a customs official meets

you. He talks to you, looks at your car, looks at the sides of the

vehicle, etc. Finally, you get through. You go all the way through

that checkpoint and 20 miles up the road at I–19 you have to go

through another border checkpoint with the Border Patrol.

In order to get into Mexico, I go down to Nogales, I park at a

McDonald’s, and I walk through a turnstile. Essentially, we have

an entire border security infrastructure on our side of the border

and they have the same technology that you would use to get in

to see your local movie at your movie theater. Mexico needs to have

their own similar infrastructure that mirrors the United States as

much as possible.

39

And the reason I bring this up is that the smuggling problem in

the United States, our people smuggling problem, is their gun

smuggling problem. The same people that are bringing people and

drugs into the United States are the same ones that are bringing

cash and guns into Mexico. This ultimately means that we need to

focus on our own border security problems not only to guard

against those entering the United States illegally, but to interdict

those going into Mexico. As long as traffickers can move freely into

the United States, they can easily go back into Mexico as well.

To show how interrelated this problem is, I just want to refer to

the auto theft problem in Arizona as a perfect example. Auto theft

in Arizona is one of the biggest per capita crimes for auto theft in

the United States. We are finding that a lot of these cars were

going south of the border into Mexico, so much so that the attorney

general in Sonora called our attorney general and said, you know,

we’ve got all these cars littering our roadsides that are abandoned

from the United States, from your State. We’d like to get records

on them to repatriate them back to the United States.

And the reason why is that the Mexicans would steal the cars

in the United States, they would use them to haul drugs or haul

cash and guns into Mexico. They didn’t do this because they liked

the American cars. They used them simply as transport for their

own smuggling operations back into Mexico, whereupon they would

simply leave them there.

If you want to know what we can do, we can increase the license

plate readers on I–19 that go into Mexico, as an example. When

they did that, they found that a lot of these cars were stolen. They

were able to stop them at the border and when they looked at the

cars, they found money and they found guns inside those cars. The

other thing we can do is look at comprehensive immigration reform

as has been advocated by Congressman Flake, which will allow us

to focus on the real problem at hand, which is the smugglers and

not the people that are trying to find gainful employment in the

United States.

I sit on the Counsel of State Governments Border Legislative

Conference and I recently returned from Tampico, Tamaulipas

Mexico last weekend. The Mexican Government is undergoing a

complete and total transformation of their judicial system. They

are going from their present system into an adversarial system of

justice like we have in the United States with a prosecution and

a defense. And this means that they will be following the rules of

evidence and criminal procedure.

And as they do that, they will need corresponding crime labs,

ballistics tests, etc., that we use in the United States. The United

States is uniquely situated to train emerging leaders in Mexico’s

nascent justice system on forensic science. These efforts will pay off

not only in terms of giving the Mexicans the ability to go after gun

traffickers in their own country, but more importantly, it will give

us access to those data bases and intelligence of who these people

are that we can use.

Criminal cartels do not respect borders. They simply use these

borders as a sanctuary from one government over the other. And

they game that system in order to continue their trade. I want to

close by telling you this story. I recently had a chance to visit a

40

drop house in Phoenix. And you will notice that it is a drop house

in the neighborhood simply because it is the only place on the block

that has razor wire around the perimeter of the fence. Having visited one, I would have to say that it is the modern, land-borne

equivalent to a slave ship. Forty people are shackled in a room big

enough to be a child’s bed chamber. They sit naked on the floor so

they can’t run away. The room next door is a room used to torture

and rape Mexican citizens to extort more money from them.

This is not a drop house problem, however, it is not a drug problem and it is not a gun problem. It a fundamentally a border security problem. Both America and Mexico must secure the southern

border. And to do that, we need to enforce our existing gun and immigration laws. We need to provide a workable guest worker program. We need to give our law enforcement the resources to effectively prosecute existing gun laws. Finally, we need to help Mexico

develop a criminal justice system that follows the rule of law.

Thank you very much.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Diaz.

STATEMENT OF TOM DIAZ

Mr. DIAZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other members of the

committee for allowing me to present the views of the Violence Policy Center, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group working to reduce the effects of gun violence in America. The hearing today

posed the question, Money, Guns, and Drugs: Are U.S. Inputs Fueling Violence on the U.S.-Mexico Border? And I think the testimony

of the witnesses who preceded me indicate that the short answer

to that question is yes.

Firearms from the U.S. civilian gun market are fueling violence

on both sides of our border with Mexico. If one wanted to design

a system to pour military-style guns into criminal hands, it would

be hard to find a better one than the U.S. civilian gun market. The

only better way would be openly selling guns to criminals from the

loading docks of manufacturers and importers.

The U.S. gun market doesn’t just make gun trafficking in military-style weapons to drug cartels and their criminal associates, including criminal street gangs in the United States, it doesn’t just

make trafficking in military-style weapons to them easy. It practically compels that traffic. Lax regulation of the U.S. gun market

and the gun industry’s ruthless design choices fit like gloves on the

bloody hands of the drug lords and their criminal gang associates.

The results are beyond debate. In February 2008, ATF Assistant

Director William J. Hoover told another subcommittee, the Western

Hemisphere Subcommittee in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and I am quoting excerpts from his testimony, ‘‘Mexican drug

trafficking organizations have aggressively turned to the U.S. as a

source of firearms. The weapons sought by drug trafficking organizations have become increasingly higher quality and more powerful. These include the Barrett .50 caliber rifle, the Colt AR–15 assault rifle, the AK–47 assault rifle and its variants, and the FN

5.57 caliber millimeter pistols known better in Mexico as the ‘mata

policia’ or the ‘cop killer’.’’

41

It is not a coincidence that gun smugglers come to the United

States for these military-style weapons. Guns like these are so easily available in such quantity that today they actually define the

civilian gun market in America.

I would like to talk a little bit about regulation. The gun lobby

and its advocates often say that the gun industry is heavily regulated. In fact, the gun industry in the United States is lightly regulated. The most important Federal burdens on the gun industry are

exercises in mere paper oversight, pro forma licensing, and rare inspections.

Most States do not regulate dealers at all. The few that do rarely

conduct regular inspections. In fact, ATF rarely conducts regular

inspections. Gun sales themselves are subject only to the cursory

background check under the Federal Brady Law. And that is only

required when the sale is made through a federally licensed gun

dealer. We know, however, that 40 percent of all gun transfers in

the United States, 40 percent, are made through what is known as

the informal market. That is not through a federally licensed dealers, over the back fence, through the newspaper.

The major weakness of the U.S. effort against gun trafficking is

its total reliance on after the fact law enforcement action. If, as

some claim, traffickers indeed use a stream of ants to move guns

to Mexico, it would seem to be more effective to make it more difficult for the ants to get the guns in the first place. That means

looking upstream. And if we are going to have a broad discussion

of ideas, that is an idea we suggest. Look upstream to the gun industry to find ways to keep guns out of the hands of traffickers and

their agents before they break the law.

Now I have made reference to the military-style designs that

today define the gun industry, the American civilian gun industry.

The U.S. gun industry has been in serious economic trouble for decades. We at the Violence Policy Center have written about that at

length and I wrote the book, ‘‘Making a Killing,’’ about it. As the

gun business publication, ‘‘Shooting Industry,’’ which is an industry

publication put it, ‘‘More and more guns are being purchased by

fewer and fewer consumers. In short, the markets are stagnant.’’

The industry’s principal way to jolt its weak markets has been

to heavily push increasingly lethal gun designs to hook jaded gun

buyers into coming back again to purchase something that is essentially utilitarian and never wears out. Because of these design and

marketing decisions, the gun industry today is defined by militarystyle weaponry. Another industry publication, The New Firearms

Business, wrote recently, ‘‘The sole bright spot in the industry right

now is the tactical end of the market where AR and AK pattern

rifles and high tech designs are in incredibly high demand.’’

Now one effective thing that could be done today without legislation, without new gun laws would be for President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to direct the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to strictly enforce its existing statutory authority to exclude from importation all semi-automatic assault rifles as non-sporting weapons pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 925(d)(3). That

is a provision of the 1968 Gun Control Act. It has been on the book

for 40 years.

42

I might point out that President George Herbert Walker Bush

was the first president to use that provision to restrict the import

of certain types of assault weapons and that President Clinton expanded that approach during his term. The latter President Bush,

George W. Bush, under his administration, the ATF has apparently

weakened this to allow the import of firearms like the type on page

2 of my submitted statement: semi-automatic rifles and assault rifles seized in a gun smuggling case by ICE or from Romanian imports known as WASRs.

This strict approach would stop the flow of assault weapons from

countries like Romania. Many of those weapons move into criminal

hands in the United States—the same WASR-type gun has been

used to kill U.S. law enforcement in Miami and elsewhere—and

then across the border to Mexican cartels. This restriction could

also be applied to other dangerous non-sporting firearms such as

the FN 5.7 handgun, the 5.7 millimeter handgun specifically designed in Europe for use by counter-terror units against terrorists

wearing body armor, now freely marketed in the United States and

known in Mexico as a ‘‘mata policia’’ or the ‘‘cop killer.’’

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Diaz follows:]

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Diaz. Thanks to all of the witnesses for your testimony.

We are going to now engage in the question and answer period,

about 5 minutes per Member. And we will do as many rounds as

we can all tolerate and you have time for as witnesses.

On that, let me begin by asking about the money on this because

I think Mr. Braun mentioned follow the money. As a way that people generally think of this, $8 billion to $25 billion of bulk money

traveling, I suspect, throughout the United States first before it

then goes over to fuel this situation.

When many of us think of money laundering, we think of electronic wires and of a lot of work that Senator Kerry and others did

years ago about the banking system. And I hear what you are telling us today is that now, to counteract all of the advances made

there, they are just going back to cold cash and trying to bring that

over.

So I have a number of questions. One is are they doing that in

much the same way as people say they are carrying the guns over,

an army of ants a little bit at a time, or are they bringing it over

in huge truckloads? Mr. Braun.

Mr. BRAUN. It will be a bunch of smugglers here on both sides

of the border. There are Mexican money laundering or financial

cells that collect remittances from distribution cells all over the

United States. They oftentimes cache that money in places like Atlanta, Chicago, hubs where they pull that money into. They will repackage it, conceal it in vehicles, in vans, in automobiles.

Sometimes they won’t conceal it at all. Sometimes they will simply stuff duffel bags full of money and send it south toward the

border. Oftentimes, though, that money, once it reaches the southwest border of the United States in places like El Paso and Del Rio

and places in Arizona, all along the southwest border, oftentimes

it will be cached in homes, safe houses, for the final count before

it is moved across the border.

But as the Chief of Operations with DEA, just to kind of put this

into perfect perspective, every morning I started with an 8:30 command meeting in our command center and was briefed on what had

taken place during the previous 24 hours. There was never a week

in the 4-years that I served as Chief of Operations that I can remember when there were not a number of million dollar, multi-million dollar cash seizures throughout the United States. DEA, ICE,

and FBI just took down Operation Accelerator. You probably heard

about it a few weeks ago. Over $63 million, mostly in cash, was

seized in that investigation.

One thing that I would like to mention is that many of the seizures that are made are generated by judicial wiretaps that DEA

is conducting across the United States involving tremendous forms

of evidence gathering ability as well as intelligence gathering. But

Federal law enforcement is struggling with what I believe to be

some antiquated legislation and policies that deal with Federal law

enforcement’s ability to conduct judicial wiretaps. I am not talking

about the FBI FISA-type stuff. But with the ever-emerging technologies, the FBI, DEA, we are having a tough time keeping up

with all of this and staying up on the phones that we need to be

on.

58

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. We will explore that further when we

have the administration witnesses in as to what we might do with

regard to that. But Mr. Selee was suggesting about this upstream

activity that we had to improve the capabilities and intelligence on

matters on the law enforcement side.

But you also mentioned, Mr. Selee, that right now the Border Patrol, ICE, Drug Enforcement Agency, FBI, and Treasury all have

a piece of this action. Your recommendation was that somebody be

put in charge, somebody be tasked with actually coordinating all of

that. Who would you or Mr. Braun recommend be that person or

that agency? Is there a preference there or does it just matter

somebody do it?

Mr. BRAUN. I agree with Mr. Selee that we most definitely need

to continue to follow the cash. The problem, and we may not differ

because we whispered back and forth a few minutes ago and I

think I may have turned Mr. Selee around. I’m not sure.

But here is what interests me or what concerns me about putting

one agency in charge of conducting kind of the financial investigative aspect of global drug trafficking. We would never think of separating the FBI’s global war on terrorism responsibility. We would

never think for a minute of separating the financial aspect and taking that away from the FBI and having them only focus on terrorism. So why in God’s name would we consider doing that with respect to global drug trafficking?

Mr. TIERNEY. I guess I was misreading it there, because I didn’t

read it as a recommendation that it be separated and given to one

but only that one be put in charge of coordinating it.

Mr. BRAUN. Oh, OK.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Selee, did I read it wrong?

Dr. SELEE. No, no that was the point. And I think it is more a

question of coordination. I mean, clearly DEA is the lead in most

things that involve drug trafficking other than when you get into

money laundering where Treasury gets highly involved.

But the question is more of coordination. And this is the kind of

thing that lends itself very well, I think, to, first of all, incentives.

I mean, to what extent is the administration concerned about this

as a key element in sending that message to key agencies.

But second, what are the interagency mechanisms that allow intelligence to be shared? CBP knows a piece of this. I mean, there

clearly is a border, as Mr. Jonathan Paton has pointed out, there

clearly is a question of border security here. CBP clearly plays a

role there. ICE plays a role in this as well. DEA is perhaps the

lead. FBI quite often knows pieces of this as well. Part of the question is how do we get these agencies talking to each other about

this.

Mr. TIERNEY. Right, and who would you think, what agency do

you think would be the appropriate one to take the lead on that?

Dr. SELEE. I think it is a good question to ask the administration. My sense is that DEA is the lead on this, de facto, and they

probably should keep that. But I think that is a good question to

ask the administration.

Mr. TIERNEY. My time is expired. I yield 5 minutes to Mr. Flake.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlemen; I thank the witnesses.

59

Mr. Selee, you mentioned three things: consumption of drugs,

flow of money, and limit weapons coming into the United States to

be exported to Mexico. You mentioned them one, two, three. Is that

the order of importance you think they are in terms combating

what we are seeing there? Would you rank them for me, for us?

Dr. SELEE. Congressman, I would actually, I would personally

rank them that way. I am not sure if other colleagues who participated in our report would have the same ranking. And let me tell

you why I would rank them that way.

Consumption, from what we know from academic studies, reducing consumption is probably the most cost-effective way of reducing

the overall market, disrupting the activities of drug cartels. We

have the greatest bang for the buck. So I would start there as a

key area. That said, nothing that we do, whether it is prevention

programs or treatment programs, is going to reduce the market

more than a percentage. I have heard people talk about 10 percent;

I have heard 25 percent. But clearly it is not a solution in and of

itself.

Second, I think interrupting the money flow is perhaps the most

global, we are talking about cartels. Let us just put this in perspective—$15 billion to $25 billion. And no one knows the exact

amount. But these are numbers we put together sort of talking to

a number of agencies, $10 billion to $25 billion. The Mexican Government’s budget for security, for organized crime, is about $3.9

billion a year. About $7 billion if you look at the global budget for

law enforcement at the Federal level in Mexico. This is a huge

number.

So disrupting that, and again, you are never going to disrupt

more than a percentage of the money flow. But beginning to disrupt that is a key element of at least leveling the playing field

here.

And the third is the arms. And I agree there is a border, Mexico

can do much more on their side with the arms. But in the same

way that we have always expected Mexico to step up with drug

traffickers that are trying to get drugs into this country on their

side of the border, I think they have a legitimate right to look at

us and say, you know, we should be doing our part on our side to

make sure those arms are not getting exported. Clearly they have

a responsibility at the border but we should do our part as well.

And we don’t want them turning around and saying, hey, the drugs

are your problem. You are letting them, they are getting by the

border.

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. Mr. Paton, I appreciate your testimony.

What I mentioned in my opening statement was that there are a

lot of other things that we need to consider. And you raised some

of those in terms of numbers or the burdens that are already there

in terms of what our U.S. attorneys have to deal with. I will ask

you kind of the same question that I asked Mr. Selee. Those items

that you listed—ensuring that we enforce our laws in terms of

those entering Mexico, burdens on U.S. attorneys, and the other

issues—how would you rank them for us? I mean, it is our responsibility to allocate money and resources because, as we all know

and Arizona is painfully aware, the border, most of the issues dealVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:36 Aug 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\57215.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
60

ing with the border are Federal issues. And so what can we do

here? What is most important in your view?

Mr. PATON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Flake, I think that

really the biggest thing that we can do as I said before, my No. 1

ranking, I guess, would be that we should focus on the infrastructure that goes along with the border interdictions. And I mean the

prosecutors, the judges, the defense attorneys, that entire infrastructure that was left out when we added more Border Patrol

agents. We have existing laws. We have straw purchase laws. It is

illegal to export guns that are illegal in Mexico into Mexico. We

have those things put in place. We simply don’t have the ability to

prosecute and jail those offenders because of all these other things.

That would be the first thing.

I would also want to say that locally, because we have been waiting for the Federal Government to act, we have been trying to take

matters into our own hands. And we have found that the Department of Public Safety works quite well, our State level police work

quite well with ATF and other agencies. And the more that we empower them to do some of these things, that is another set of resources that we can utilize that won’t cost the Federal Government

really that much more. We are trying to do that already.

In our Senate Judiciary Committee, I am working with different

groups to try to help enforce some of these existing gun laws. And

I think that, first of all, is something we need to take care of before

we do anything else.

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. Mr. Diaz, you talked about the importance of new gun laws, I guess, or new classes of weapons to make

illegal. What about the argument that Mr. Paton puts forward that

we have difficulty with the resources and the funding and everything to enforce current laws on the books? Wouldn’t it be more difficult to outlaw another class of weapons? Would that help at all?

Mr. DIAZ. Thank you for the question, Mr. Flake.

First, with respect to enforcing existing laws, I think the record

demonstrates that is not enough. We are talking about a comprehensive solution. For example, the straw purchaser law, the

Federal law—and I know Mr. Paton believes or at least has said

publicly that maybe there should be also a State law which is a

new gun law in the State itself—the straw purchaser law even in

its best circumstances—if we said everybody obeyed the straw purchaser law just as if we would hope everybody would obey the laws

against consuming illegal drugs, let us assume that happened—

that still leaves a very broad range of venues where firearms can

be legally purchased without even worrying about straw purchasing.

That is the 40 percent, the informal market I talked about. That

is the gun show problem. That is the sales across the back fence

problem. That is the Internet advertising problem. And the Internet problem, some would say, well, in the case of an Internet sale

you have to go through a dealer. That is not necessarily true. In

a State as big as Texas, for example, you could do an in-trust State

sale consummated through the Internet. So I think, yes, we do

need a comprehensive approach.

The point I am trying to make today is that there is a reason

drug lords and terrorists want the specific kinds of firearms that

61

the ATF trace data says they want. There is a reason they want

them. The first reason is they do the job they want, which is killing

police officers and killing each other, to a large extent.

The second is they are readily available in the United States.

These semi-automatic assault weapons that come from Romania,

the WASRs and so forth, the SKSs, are cheap guns. It is ideal for

their traffic.

So if you are asking me, would I like to see those guns outlawed,

a new class of weapons outlawed, you bet I would. But what I am

suggesting today is there is a way to stop that traffic. The President could do it, the attorney general could do it, by asking ATF

to do what it has done in the past.

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Lynch, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you and the

ranking member focusing on this issue. It is one that has not in

recent times received proper attention. And I want to thank the

panelists as well. You have a great group here.

I have been Googling phrases like, ‘‘mayor assassinated in Mexico’’ or ‘‘police chief assassinated in Mexico.’’ The lawlessness in

Mexico, and I realize this hearing is to look at our side if the border as well, I can’t help but compare—I have spent a fair amount

of time in Iraq and Afghanistan, but especially Iraq—the lawlessness and chaos that was there from 2003 and coming forward,

there are some definite parallels here. And I know Mr. Braun you

have had experience there as well.

It would seem that at least as a threshold matter we need to

have a situation in Mexico where the rule of law, their legal system

allows the local population to have some confidence that with the

proper application of the law the bad guys can be taken off the

street. And I am not so sure, you know, just seeing the history

here, that exists.

And it would seem that at some point we have to have a buyin from the local communities there—the towns, villages, and cities—that they step up and cooperate like the population did in Iraq

in taking the bad guys off the street. They need to have that confidence. Do we have that on the Mexican side of the border in any

large degree?

Mr. BRAUN. Right now, I don’t believe we do have it. And I don’t

believe there is a community in Mexico right now where the citizens have confidence in their law enforcement and other security

personnel. I think that one of the most important things that needs

to be done with respect to the Merida Initiative, and the way that

I believe a great deal of that money should be spent, is to focus on

building strong, lasting professional judicial institutions, fully vetted. In a place like Mexico where corruption has permeated virtually every level of government, it is the only way that this can

be turned around.

So by fully vetted judicial paradigms, what I am talking about

is, look, you can have the best trained and best vetted cops that

money can buy. But as part of the judicial process, if one or more

prosecutors are corrupt, it all falls apart like a house of cards. And

if you have vetted and trained well your prosecutors but you have

corrupt judges, to take it another step, corrupt penal institutions,

62

it simply won’t work. So you literally have to start from scratch

and build a fully vetted judicial paradigm in Mexico.

I have talked to Attorney General Medina Mora many times

about this. He is in full agreement. He and Genaro Garcia Luna,

the head of public security who has the largest uniformed Federal

law enforcement agency, they are both in full agreement. They

have started on their agencies and their plan is to then take it to

local and State law enforcement agencies after they have cleaned

up, you know, after they have cleaned up their own houses.

Mr. DIAZ. Can I add a point of fact to that, please? There is existing through the State Department a very small but real program

to develop exactly what you are talking about. And it is operating

in Mexico. It operated in Colombia and I believe it actually operated in Sicily with the several different mafia factions. And it is

specifically to build community support for rule of law.

I don’t want to go on with the details. But this program does

exist. You can find it through AID; they would be happy to put you

in contact with specific people doing it. And it may be an area

where more support would make this program work better. Thank

you.

Mr. LYNCH. Yeah, it must be pretty nascent. I realize my time

has expired.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Lynch. Mr. Fortenberry,

you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I will yield to Mr. Mica.

Mr. TIERNEY. Then he will yield back to you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I appreciate your yielding, too.

I did have the opportunity to chair from 1998 to 2000 the Criminal Justice Drug Policy Committee which was eliminated during

the last Congress. Unfortunately, the other side of the aisle hasn’t

paid much attention to this issue. I think Mr. Kucinich was the

chair of the subcommittee. I guess it was Domestic, it got bounced

to Domestic Policy. Lack of attention by this committee is not acceptable. I appreciate the new Chair starting this. And this should

only be the beginning. We need to haul in Homeland Security, the

ICE people, the CIA, and FBI.

One of the last appointments in this administration is a Drug

Czar. And we need a Drug Czar appointed and confirmed. We need

a full court press because our neighbor to the south is about to lose

its sovereignty. When I went down there, I went under heavy police

guard as the chairman, met in Mexico City, and I gave a speech

to some of them. And I said you are losing your, you are going to

lose your damned country. I used that expression. It was behind

closed doors.

I was briefed by the CIA; I was briefed by the FBI and others

before I got there about the level of corruption from the cop on the

street to the president’s office. And you hit it on the head, Mr.

Braun. The place has been corrupt and they are paying for it. You

have to have, Mr. Diaz said, the rule of law.

And we have to provide our friends to the south, our neighbors—

we have millions of incredible Mexican Americans, I have some in

my family—who are just disgusted with what is going on, and it

is not just about guns, you know, and they have tried to do some

things, but we have to provide them the resources to do this.

63

Colombia lost control. We put Plan Colombia in and we gave

them the resources. We worked with Pastrana. He sang Kumbaya

and danced around. Uribe came in and was tough. They killed

thousands just like they are killing in Mexico. But we have to help

them regain control with a plan and a policy of that country. It is

totally out of control. It is a slaughterhouse and it is on our borders

and it is spilling into our cities.

So I am hoping this President, Congress—again I applaud you—

but I want another hearing. And I want those people in that are

going to run these programs and a plan to help the Mexicans regain control of that country.

And it is not just about guns. And I have been with the gun

route folks. I am telling you that the world is, Mexico’s borders are

a sieve and if they don’t get them from the United States—and it

is not that we don’t need enforcement and we shouldn’t have export

or transport of weapons laws—but we, you can’t just control it on

that.

Part of it is education of people in the United States. Cut down

the demand. The talk of legalization and the people, the biggest

trafficking is still marijuana. Isn’t that true, Mr. Braun?

Mr. BRAUN. Yes.

Mr. MICA. And the rest of it is transit. They don’t produce any

cocaine in Mexico that I know of. But there is an increase in heroin, Mexican. But that is U.S. market-based. So we have to have

a better education program to stop the demand. Everybody agrees

with that?

[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.]

Mr. MICA. Just ‘‘yes’’ for the record instead of a nod.

Dr. SELEE. Yes.

Mr. MICA. Well, Mexico is turning into a narco-state. And we

have to have in place zero tolerances. Let me give you an example

about enforcement. If they don’t do it in Mexico and we don’t do

it, tough enforcement of existing laws and, if we need it, other

laws, what happens? I dare you to go out here to First and C

Streets right near the Metro stop—I think it is First and C—and

jaywalk when Officer Thompson is there.

Have you ever seen Officer Thompson? He will write you a

damned ticket. He will hold you accountable. So nobody when he

is there violates the law. Rudy Giuliani, working with him, New

York City is still a safe venue because of zero tolerance.

So we have to do everything we can to work with the Mexican

officials. They have taken some steps and I applaud them. They

put the military there. And these pigs that would slaughter the

military, I don’t know if you read this story about a month ago—

they killed seven of the military and then, they didn’t use a gun,

they used a knife to decapitate them, and then they put their

heads in plastic bags, clear plastic bags, and dumped them in a

mall to set an example for others who cooperated what they would

do—these are the lowest scum of the Earth. And they are killing,

they are letting the drugs that come in and kill our people on our

streets. So we have to have a plan.

Mr. Chairman, I request our side will send you a letter this

week——

64

Mr. TIERNEY. You were late. If you had been here at the beginning of the hearing, you would have heard that we have these

things already planned.

Mr. MICA. Again, we need to bring in whoever it takes—but we

don’t have any plan—to develop a plan and to follow through with

that plan. I haven’t seen the President’s budget and his items, but

we will work with him and work with whoever. I appreciate you

all coming in today. And I appreciate again the chairman beginning

the highlighting of this, taking this back under control. I don’t

think I remember one single hearing on this issue during the last

2 years. But it is time we get engaged. And again I applaud you

for doing that and will work with you. I yield back.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you very much.

Mr. Fortenberry, now you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this

hearing.

Gentlemen, thank you for appearing today. Should National

Guard troops be sent to the border?

Dr. SELEE. You know, I think the good thing that is happening

right now is the cooperation between the United States and Mexico. We are seeing for the first time a real scaling up of the kind

of dialog, and I think the hearing today is one of the examples, us

talking about our responsibilities on our side. The Mexican Government has in a way that we have never seen before picked up their

responsibilities and said, this is our issue, not because we want to

stop drugs coming to the United States but because it is a security

issue for us. Sending the National Guard to the border I think

sends the wrong message to Mexico. And I think it would be

seen——

Mr. FORTENBERRY. You said wrong, wrong message?

Dr. SELEE. The wrong message. I think it would be seen as moving against the cooperative spirit that we have right now. It would

probably reduce some of the very productive engagement we have.

One of the reasons, and this goes to something that Mr. Braun

just said, one of the reasons why you are not seeing the killings

going on in the U.S. side of the border is that Mexican cartels

knows that they have very little chance of being thrown in jail for

what happens on the Mexican side. The long term solution to this

is creating a judicial system and police forces, critically at a State

and local level, that are capable of making sure that the traffickers

have the same concerns on the Mexican side, that they are as careful as they are on this side about not getting on, not doing anything that calls the attention of the authorities.

But in the short term, we have a government in Mexico right

now which is trying to do the right thing, which is working very

closely with the U.S. Government. And I would say this cuts across

party lines in Mexico. I mean, this is something that Mexicans

have decided is a critical issue. This is President Calderon but it

is also a variety of parties. And anything that we do that is unilateral, seen as a unilateral step, is likely to undermine that.

And if I could just say something on general situation in Mexico—I spent a lot of time in Mexico—it is worth saying the country

is not exactly in flames. I mean, there are three cities that really

are in a very serious problem. Most places you are not worried

65

about being killed when you walk out on the street. That said, you

are worried about the fact that if something happens to you, you

don’t necessarily have police forces or a judicial system that is

going to back you up, that you trust.

And that for a democracy—and Mexico has, you know, 9 years

as a democracy—is a critical question. And the question of whether

this succeeds is a question of whether you build those institutions.

The Mexican Government is trying to do it. There is judicial reform. There is police reform. There are some real efforts here. But

it is the kind of thing we need to get involved in and do what we

can do on our side as well.

Mr. PATON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I would say yes and

no. We have had the National Guard on our border in Arizona. We

had some Guard units from Utah and elsewhere that were there.

They serve in an auxiliary capacity; they assisted the Border Patrol. And I think they were very effective in doing what they did.

I don’t think it is a good idea to have U.S. soldiers patrolling with

M–16s and the rest. We need them elsewhere. And as a soldier myself in the Army Reserve, I can tell you that many of those units

are already deployed somewhere else. But we can certainly use

them in an auxiliary capacity and we have done that effectively.

And I think that it has affected our State dramatically when those

Guard troops were pulled.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Maybe the question is a little too broad. And

going back to what you said, Mr. Selee, and combined with what

you are saying, Senator, there are three significant areas of difficulty as you pointed out. Backup capacity until some of the ideas

that you are discussing today, using the National Guard as backup

capacity until sufficient local resources, national resources are augmented to bring the trouble spots under control, is that, perhaps,

a better way to think through preventing an emergency-type crisis

that would spill over into the United States?

Mr. PATON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I would say that it

would be effective to have them in an auxiliary capacity. But the

other problem, like I have said before, is they are going to be catching people as they go through. They are going to be stopping shipments of drugs and the like as they go through. The problem is,

once again, that infrastructure that goes along with it of prosecuting, convicting, jailing the offenders.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. All right, well, let us move to that question

because that is the second part of my question. What are the common sense, simple initiatives—and, Mr. Braun, you can answer

both of these if you like—that can be implemented quickly and

would have the most impact that are not currently being implemented? You made reference to one, how we don’t scan license

plates to see if they are stolen vehicles or not. Now, that would be,

in my mind, at least a very simple thing to implement quickly and

be a part of a broader book, one chapter of a broad book of solutions.

Mr. PATON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I would say that in

that process, there has to be better coordination between those license plate readers and Customs officials at the border and the

Border Patrol officials. A lot of times, they are going down I–19,

they scan them but they don’t have enough lead time to let them

66

know to catch the bad guys as they go through. I think, though,

that is the right idea.

And I think if was tried massively, the whole point is that we

should be paying as much attention to people leaving the country

as we are paying attention to people entering the country. Because

they are largely the same people. And we, when we interdict them

leaving, we are also finding that they have, they pop up on our system for drug smuggling, other offenses, murders, rapes, etc. We can

catch them then. And a lot of them are skips. They have committed

crimes in the United States, and they are fleeing the country to

evade crime or prosecution.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, has my time expired?

Mr. TIERNEY. It has expired, but we are going to do another

round.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you.

Mr. TIERNEY. And it won’t be very long before we get to you

again.

Mr. Burton, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know how many

hearings I have been to in my political career about this issue. I

would imagine 100, 150.

Mr. TIERNEY. And yet you come again. This is wonderful. [Laughter.]

Mr. BURTON. Yes, I come again because, you know, because I

really would like to find an answer. And when you take an 18 or

19 year old kid and he is driving a brand new Corvette with a gold

dash and a wad of money in his hands that is maybe $10,000 or

$12,000 in a city in the United States and somebody arrests him

or knocks him off and there are 10 guys waiting to take his place,

it makes you wonder about how you deal with that problem. I

think, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, we will go down to the Mexican

border. I would love for you to have a hearing down there; I would

love to go with you down there and check some of the things that

are going on first hand.

But let me just ask a couple questions. Senator, you were talking

about the turnstile down there, how people could just walk across

the border coming from the United States. They could smuggle

stuff in, which is more difficult, and then they take the money and

just walk across the border. So it is very easy for them to continue

their business activities. Do you think that it would be wise for the

President to say, OK, we are going to send the National Guard

and/or the military? He could suspend, if he wanted to, to send the

military down there. I know that is a dangerous thing and most

Americans don’t want that to happen. But do you think that in certain parts of the Mexican-American border we ought to do that?

Mr. PATON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I would say that to

some extent, but as I said before, I think in more of an auxiliary

capacity to assist the Border Patrol that is already kind of familiar

with the area and the terrain. I think that would keep our soldiers

from getting into bad situations, that they might do things like

they would do in Iraq but they might not be able to do here in the

United States. I think that furthering, encouraging Mexico to do

something about their border security issue would assist us draVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:36 Aug 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\57215.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
67

matically. Because like I said, our people smuggling and drug

smuggling problems are their gun smuggling problem.

Mr. BURTON. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, over 70 percent of

the people in prison in the United States, according to law enforcement officials, are there for drug related crimes. It is costing

$35,000, $40,000, $50,000 a year to keep each one of those people

incarcerated. It is absolutely breaking many States because there

are so many people and they can’t keep track of them all, can’t

keep them incarcerated. They are letting them out because they

are overcrowded. And it is all drug-related crime.

And I would just submit to you, I think drugs are the scourge

of the Earth. I think that anybody that deals in drugs ought to be

put in jail permanently or killed. That’s how bad I think drugs are.

But as long as you can make the exorbitant amounts of profit, you

are going to be able to bribe police, you are going to be able to bribe

the public officials. You are going to be able to do all kinds of

things. And unless the United States and Mexico and other countries are willing to make a complete commitment like they have in

some other countries in the world and put these people away permanently, we are never going to solve the problem.

I have been in government at the State and local level since

1967. And as I said before, I have been to over 100 of these hearings. And every time, I hear the same thing, you know, what we

have to do. We have to put more money into law enforcement. We

have to have more help from our neighbors. We have to police the

Mexican-American border. And nothing ever changes except it gets

worse.

And so we in the United States have to come up with a plan that

is so onerous that we scare the hell out of the drug dealers. And

if we are not willing to do that, we are never going to solve the

problem. And I am talking about if they are arrested once, we give

them a penalty. And if they are arrested twice, they spend the rest

of their life in the slammer. And if they do something that involves

somebody’s life, we kill them. Now if we are not willing to do that,

I my opinion, we are never going to solve this problem and it is

going to continue to get worse. And until we really realize that,

until we really come to grips with this, the problem is just going

to get worse and worse and worse.

And any time we have a hearing, Mr. Chairman, and we listen

to our witnesses, I have had—when I was chairman of this committee—I had the highest law enforcement people in the United States

before this committee and asked them a number of questions, one

of which was this: If you took the profitability out of drugs, what

would happen? And they said, well, they wouldn’t sell them. They

said, you are not talking about legalizing them, are you? I said, no,

of course not. I want anybody dealing with drugs to be punished

to the full extent of the law and even more so.

But the point is as long as you can take something that costs

$100 and sell it for $10,000, you have a big problem because there

are more and more people that are going to jump into it and it is

very difficult to get rid of them. And so I would just like to say that

we in the United States have to make a complete commitment to

dealing with the drug problem, and I mean severe commitment:

putting people away, giving them the death penalty, life imprisonVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:36 Aug 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\57215.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
68

ment after a second offense not a third offense. And until we are

willing to do that, in my opinion, we are never going to solve the

problem.

And I hate to get emotional about this, Mr. Chairman, but when

I see people I know and their kids dying because of drugs and

going to jail because of drugs because somebody got them into it,

it becomes a personal thing. And we really have to make a very

committed effort to deal with the problem. And just doing what we

are doing right now will never solve it, in my opinion. But I do

hope we hold, have hearings down on the border.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. We will. And, you know, I am going to

ask a question that emanated from reading the Economist this

week. I don’t know if people read it or not, about taking the profit

out of it. And if you are still here, I would love to get your reaction

to that.

But at this point let me say, you know, it is sort of a red herring

here. Whenever we try to narrow down and focus on just a couple

of issues—this one being the money that is being brought over,

hard cash, the idea of maybe trying to lessen demand through education or whatever, or even deal with some of the high powered

weapons that are really giving them the power to force corruption

on people or to scare them into it—some people want to say, oh

geez, like we are just focusing just on that and there is a bigger

problem. We understand there is a bigger problem. There are other

committees dealing with other parts of it. And we will deal with

other parts of it. But we need a comprehensive approach. And the

things we are talking about today, I think, are significant. I guess

you do, too, or you wouldn’t be here talking about them. But I don’t

think we just dismiss it by saying oh, it isn’t guns or it isn’t money

or it isn’t lessening demand. It is those things as well as addressing the corruption, as well as the rule of law questions, and the infrastructure that Senator Paton I think rightfully brings up here.

And they are some things I hope our Judiciary and Appropriations

Committees listen to, and we will share that with them. It is also

controlling the border and enforcing existing law and also interdicting trans-shipments and things of that nature. But it also is the

things we are talking about today, including, you know, the high

powered weapons that are being used. The intimidation is a big

factor in getting the corruption. Would you agree, Mr. Braun?

[Witness responds in the affirmative.]

Mr. TIERNEY. And several of you have served over in Iraq or Afghanistan. This is what you get to go over there and fight terrorism, the extremists and things of that nature. This is what you get.

I don’t know the justification for having a civilian arms market

selling to civilians this kind of weaponry and that kind of a gun.

This isn’t for, you know, for civilians to fight a war. This is, what,

for hunting or for sport? Mr. Diaz, Mr. Paton, I mean, maybe Mr.

Paton you want to start because the first thing you were talking

about was, oh, we don’t need more laws, we don’t need to control.

Why don’t we need to keep this from the civilian market?

Mr. PATON. Mr. Chairman, in answer to that question, I guess

I would ask the same question about grenades and M–16s and AK–

47 and other things that are already illegal——

Mr. TIERNEY. As would I. Feel free to answer on.

69

Mr. PATON. And they are still, Mr. Chairman, they are still being

sold and bought in Mexico. Mexico has all of these laws that have

been talked about; they have done them no good. But they have 15

years——

Mr. TIERNEY. That is because 90 percent of them are coming

from this country.

Mr. PATON. Mr. Chairman, Mexico has a 15 year sentence for

possession of some of these weapons and they have not been able

to stop them. And I don’t understand how we can stop them as

well.

Mr. TIERNEY. But we have talked about the problems that they

are having with their law enforcement. We all admit that they

need to have enhanced law enforcement, that they have trouble

with the judiciary system, trouble with corruption, trouble with all

of that. We are talking about this country.

Why is it that it is so easy for them to come to this country and

buy something of this size and bring it back over there? Mr. Diaz,

why don’t you give it a shot?

Mr. DIAZ. I think it is an ideal subject to talk about this comprehensive problem. Mr. Paton brought up several times the question of what we would call military armament—stuff that is already illegal not only in Mexico but in the United States—fully

automatic machine guns, hand grenades, rocket launchers. Those

things are indeed showing up in Mexico. There was a big raid in

Raynosa back in, I guess, last November and yeah, there were grenade launchers, LAW rocket launchers, 278 grenades.

But here is where the integration comes to this: Seven Barrett

.50 caliber sniper rifles—fully legal in the United States—the Barrett sniper rifle, the gun that fired that kind of ammunition—and

the one on display out here is simply a knock off; it is an AR–50;

people said, oh, Ronnie Barrett has a great idea here, let us make

our own—that is a civilian weapon. It is very attractive to the gun

runners. The so-called mata policia, the Hearst-style handgun also

showed up in this raid. So the point is they want both. They want

the military weaponry and they want the civilian weaponry.

Now what ties them together? I would make the argument that

what allows criminals to exercise force, and here I am talking

about the gang problem in the United States, is firearms. Whether

it is a running gun battle that went for two blocks in the city of

Los Angeles with a drug gang, guns give the power of force to these

criminal organizations. Now we know that, from reports published

by the National Gang Intelligence Center, that one source of these

military-style weapons that are showing up in illegal traffic are

gang members in the military.

My point is that this is all a related problem. I understand it is

not only firearms, but firearms are the force leverage that we talk

about. They make gangs, the street gangs like MS–13—Mara

Salvatrucha—and 18th Street that are heavily integrated into

these drug organizations, they give them the power to control

neighborhoods in the United States. They give them the power to

control corridors. They give them the power to be the foot soldiers

for these people. So it is an integrated problem. It is not just military weaponry or civilian weaponry.

70

These .50 caliber rifles that do the job, in my opinion, they

should not be available for unfettered sale to civilians. Now, what

the Violence Policy Center has recommended is let us treat them

as the weapons of war that they are. Let us bring them under an

existing law, which is called the National Firearms Act, under

which machine guns, fully automatic weapons, hand grenades,

rocket launchers, and other weapons of war are regulated. It is a

stricter regimen. They are harder to buy.

It took me about 6 hours to legally buy that gun and register it

in the District of Columbia after I found it on the Internet to make

the point that in the Nation’s Capital, where there are so many

high profile targets, it could legally be purchased. Not only could

that gun be legally purchased, but armor-piercing and incendiary

ammunition for that gun could legally be purchased and shipped

through ordinary parcel post. Now the law in the District of Colombia has been changed and that gun has about a 3-year life span

before it has to be gotten rid of.

But the point is some civilian military-style weaponry, which has

become the focus of the American civilian gun market, now is every

bit as deadly, every bit as desirable, every bit as power-enhancing

as the military stuff. And it is a lot easier to get. Why wouldn’t you

come to the United States and go to a gun show and buy one of

these? You can go to any gun show in America, I guarantee you,

and see something like this on the table. And probably not being

sold by a dealer, which means you don’t have to worry about the

so-called straw buyer, you don’t have to worry about the background check. You walk out in the parking lot and say I like that,

I want five more of them.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Diaz. Mr. Flake.

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. Mr. Selee, I am sorry, Mr. Braun, you

mentioned that the Mexican Government can win this war on the

cartels. What kind of timeframe are we looking at here? You mentioned that it is kind of a perfect storm now with everything going

on that is causing the violence.

If the Calderon government had just said we are going to take

the position that the last government did and not confront these

cartels, would we be seeing this level of violence? How much is this

a result of the stepped up enforcement actions on the part of the

Mexican Government? And then, as far as a timeframe when do

you think this can be won? Or is it going to require more cooperation from us like we have in Colombia?

Mr. BRAUN. Congressman, look, it is going to take a lot more cooperation from us and help in the way of both funding and expert

advice, guidance, mentoring, and that kind of thing not only to

Mexican law enforcement personnel but their military forces as

well. You know, I wish I could answer the first question as to when

is this going to all end. If I could do that, our newly formed company could probably go from the red into the black very quickly.

But I honestly believe that it is going to get worse before it gets

better, just as it did in Colombia. But I believe wholeheartedly that

Mexico is already beginning to turn the tide. But, you know, they

have another probably year and a half, 2 years minimum that

there is going to be a lot of conflict going on. I don’t know if it is

71

going to be as bad as it currently is, but there is a lot to unfold

yet.

With that said, the second part of your question—had this gone

unchecked—I am telling you based on what I know and the high

level folks that I have talked to from Mexico, President Calderon,

after being advised by his security advisors and others, came to the

same decision that a lot of other high level folks in Mexico did. If

they didn’t take this on, Mexico was going to devolve into a narcostate before the next decade. And General McCaffrey’s report recently on his study came to that same conclusion.

So, you know, as hard as this is to grasp, as hard as it is to stomach, and as hard as it is for me to say, I believe what we are seeing

here with all of this carnage is really a product of the success of

the strategy. The cartels have never been pressed and never been

pressured like they have been over the past 2 years. And they will

ultimately fold if we help our Mexican counterparts. If we don’t

help them, there is a chance they could lose this. And if they lose

it, it is going to, you know, our mistake will cut deep into both

sides of the border, into our national security, into our economies,

into our cultures.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Paton, I was interested in your discussion of

going down to Mexico and looking at some of these cooperative

agreements that we have there. Is it your view that the Mexican

Government is anxious to cooperate with us and anxious to welcome our assistance in these areas? A lot of people are under the

mis-impression that we give foreign aid to Mexico. Our aid to Mexico is in the form of drug interdiction and cooperation and other

things. Is this working? Have they been cooperative enough with

us in that regard?

Mr. PATON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Flake, my visit with

the Mexican officials—and we are also trying to put on our own

field hearing of our Judiciary Committee, which has never been

tried before, but we want to actually hold a committee hearing in

Nogales, Sonora on this very issue—they are very interested in

working with us. I think they have been extremely courageous to

stand up and fight the cartels as they have. Some of them are obviously suffering from corruption and the problems that go on there.

But I think that rather than just looking at it as foreign aid, I

would say that whatever agreements we can use so that we can

train them in our own evidence collection techniques and the rest

will benefit us in intelligence gathering in the United States. Much

the same way, when I served in Iraq, we worked with the Iraqi

military and the Iraqi police, we gleaned that intelligence that we

were able to use in our own capacity. We could do that in Mexico.

So it would actually benefit us in the long run rather than just

benefit them.

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. It is too bad that Mr. Mica had to leave

because somebody just handed me a report. He was asking about

the Obama administration’s approach. Apparently, there was an

article in today’s paper where he was quoted as saying he expects

‘‘to have a comprehensive approach to dealing with issues of border

security that will involve supporting Calderon and his efforts in a

partnership, also making sure we are dealing with the flow of drug

72

money and guns south, because it is really a two-way situation

there.’’ So, we will certainly explore that more when we have our

own hearings on that. But that is an indication of the direction.

Let me just—that article that was in the Economist that I referenced in my opening remarks sort of goes beyond where Mr. Burton was and I want to bring it up a little bit—I am going to describe, give you a little book report on the premise and just get reactions on this. The premise makes much to do about the fact that

this is such a lucrative, illegal industry for people, that there are

$322 billion a year and that obviously people will fight to the death

to protect that kind of profit.

So the article says first that since the first international effort

to ban trade in narcotic drugs, which was in 1909, the article says

the effort has failed. It recounts the 1998 U.N. promise of a ‘‘drugfree world’’ or the promise of ‘‘eliminating or significantly reducing

the production’’ by 2008, that is the production of opium, cocaine,

and cannabis.

And it says that has failed. It says even if the claim that close

to half of all cocaine produced had been seized, the street price in

the United States does not seem to have risen. It claims that the

market is stabilized, but it means that more than 200 million people, 5 percent of the world population, still take illegal drugs. That

is about the same proportion as took illegal drugs a decade ago. It

says the United States spends $40 billion a year trying to eliminate

drugs. It says the United States arrests 1.5 million people per year

in drug related offenses and jails half a million of them.

The Economist claims that the struggle has been ‘‘illiberal’’—how

unusual for the Economist—‘‘murderous, and pointless.’’ It says the

prohibition strengthens the efforts of warlords. It said the street

price is more involved with the risk of getting drugs into Europe

and the United States and that even if the source is disrupted,

business adapts to a new location.

And then it talks about Afghanistan being a failed state and

drugs moving from there. I guess it references South America

where it might go from Peru to Bolivia to Colombia. Wherever you

push it at one point, it goes to another. And their fear is, of course,

that the drug gangs will team up with the terrorists and the money

will get together and be a problem. It says $320 billion a year in

the illegal drug industry results in weapons, terror, and corruption.

And then it talks about five different things: shifting the focus

to prevention and treatment; maintaining an effort to interdict and

go after traffickers; banning the sale to minors; decriminalizing,

regulating, and taxing to take the profit out of the illegal industry;

and then using those revenues and savings to guarantee treatment.

Can I just have the reaction from left to right of folks there? Dr.

Selee.

Dr. SELEE. Well, I think they have hit some of the major points.

There is de facto a bit of decriminalization going on in this country

in a number of States, actually. And, in fact, the Economist article

cites this. A number of States really don’t enforce particularly

small time use of some narcotics. I think it is worth studying and

seeing what the effect of that is on the overall market, if that is

being successful.

73

I don’t think there is a serious debate in this country right now

on legalization. We could debate philosophically whether we think

there should be or not. But we do have some experience with decriminalization, just simply states that have decided, and in fact,

Seattle—where our new director-designate of the ONDCP is coming

from—is one of the areas that has tried to decriminalize some

small time use. It is worth studying and seeing whether that is effective. I would certainly say the other elements, investing in treatment and so on, these are the ways to go. Investing in treatment,

investing in enforcing where the harm is greatest, that is the way

to go.

And if I could, Mr. Chairman, just say something very quickly on

a question you raised earlier and something about President

Obama’s statement yesterday. I think one of the key questions on

coordination on this, not on the money laundering piece but on the

broader question with Mexico, is this may be the kind of thing

where the NSC is particularly useful at taking a leadership role

and bringing together domestic policy and foreign policy networks

in the government. This may be the kind of issue which is high

enough level that you can only begin to get the kind of comprehensive approach you are talking about and that President Obama was

talking about if there is leadership from the White House saying,

let us pull together Homeland Security, let us pull together Justice

Department, State Department. Everyone has a piece of this larger—Defense Department—there are pieces of this that everyone is

doing and doing well. But unless we do it together in a more coordinated way, I don’t think we get to the right solution we want.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Selee. Mr. Braun.

Mr. BRAUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Listen, with respect to

just legalization, it is the old saying: We are doomed to repeat history if we don’t know it, if we are not aware of it. The worst period

in our Nation’s history with respect to drug abuse was that 30 to

40 year period after our Civil War—the ‘‘Soldier’s Disease.’’ You

could walk into any drug store in our country and you could buy

cocaine, morphine, heroin, or opium off the shelf because it was unregulated.

The hue and cry went out to your predecessors back in those

days that the Federal Government had to step in and do something

about it and regulate this stuff and somehow get some kind of a

control on it. Because it was ripping apart the fabric of our country,

one family after another. There has not been one country anywhere

in the world that has decriminalized drugs—even marijuana—that

didn’t eventually recriminalize drugs because workplace incidents

of injury skyrocketed.

Incidents of drugged driving and highway accidents and deaths

skyrocketed. School equivalency and efficiency tests plummeted. I

mean, I could go on and on. There is plenty of history that clearly

shows legalization will not work. You can’t tell that I am passionate about this.

Mr. TIERNEY. I trust you will be sending a letter to the Economist. [Laughter.]

Mr. BRAUN. Well, going back to the Economist—just one other

piece—the evidence is in. We are experiencing, I think we are now

into just beyond the 2-year mark of significant continued increases

74

in price of both cocaine and methamphetamine, they are still conducting studies on the heroin now in our country, and continued,

significant decreases in purity. A lot of that has to do with President Calderon and what is going on in Mexico. A lot of it has to

do with what is happening in Colombia and what has happened in

Colombia over the last several years. And there are some other dynamics that play here as well. But those are the facts. Thank you.

Mr. TIERNEY. Senator, go ahead.

Mr. PATON. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say in reference to

that, in my own State, I conducted extensive hearings on Child

Protective Services and the statistic that I was given from Child

Protective Services was this: 95 percent of their removals for children who were abused or neglected by their parents were methamphetamine-related. It is not a victimless crime.

And the bottom line is if they decriminalize that, you are going

to see more child abuse; you are going to see more problems with

those children. Six children in my district in a 1-year period of time

were killed by their parents. All six cases had one thing in common—methamphetamines. And in one of the cases, there was a little girl, her body was found in a storage facility in Tucson. Her

brother, they couldn’t find that body.

And the accused said in the interrogation, if you give me meth,

I will tell you where I put my son. That is the effect the drugs are

having. That isn’t the illegal buying or selling. That is just the

using, the effect that it has had in my district.

And I can tell you that we have a methamphetamine epidemic.

It used to be made in the United States, in Arizona. Now it is being

made in Mexico. And those precursor chemicals are being shipped

from China and elsewhere into Mexico and they are flooding our

State. And I can tell you that it is killing children in my own district.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Diaz.

Mr. DIAZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The thing I find most encouraging about this hearing is that, as Mr. Flake said, it is opening a broad discussion of ideas. There is a whole spectrum of things

you could talk about with drugs. Drug policy has been sort of the

third rail of what elected people all over the country are wanting

to talk about.

I think it is encouraging to see that might be a subject of discussion. It put me personally in mind of a man named Herman Kahn

who wrote a book called ‘‘On Thermonuclear War.’’ He is a famous

nuclear strategist and he wrote about something that was called

the white slave problem in Victorian England. And essentially

what it was, women were being kidnaped off the streets of London

and put into the prostitution traffic, just as we today have sex traffic. But nobody knew about it because in Victorian society you

couldn’t talk about it.

So he, in ‘‘On Thermonuclear War,’’ talked about thermonuclear

war and people said that was thinking about the unthinkable. So

he wrote his next book and titled it, ‘‘Thinking About the Unthinkable.’’ So I think it is great that committees like this are willing

to engage this question.

And there is a whole spectrum. It is not just legalization. But I

do know that drugs do drive the things that I know about. They

75

drive the criminal street gangs, who are the primary retail distributors. So something has to give here. The second thing I think

it is, as several of the speakers before me have pointed out, it is

a hydraulic system. Whether it is enforcement, we stop the movement of drugs through Florida and they end up moving through

Miami. The same thing with guns.

Maybe, and I hope that Senator Paton’s straw purchaser law will

be more effective in Arizona, but we have 50 States and lots of

other places. So it is a hydraulic system. And I like the fact that

you are willing to look at all those integrated together.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Diaz. Mr. Flake. Mr. Fortenberry.

Mr. FLAKE. I yield to Mr. Fortenberry.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thanks again, Mr. Chairman. I want to followup on the previous questions I had asked. Mr. Braun, you didn’t

get a chance to answer. The reason I raised the issue of National

Guard troops to the border is that it clearly has been raised elsewhere and may come to dominate this discussion in the coming

days or weeks. Again, an opinion on that, but going back to the second phase of the question, what are the simplest things that can

be done first and implemented easily that will have maximum impact?

We talked about this issue of—which seems to me to be quite

simple—one of technology monitoring traffic for stolen vehicles

going out of the country. That clearly would, at least in my view,

it would be easy to implement. But we have talked about a range

of things today including interdiction, law enforcement, increased

detention capacity, border control, social programs, and diplomatic

initiatives which have to be a part of this entire continuum. And

I agree with that. But again, Mr. Burton said, I have had 150 hearings on this similar problem, growing perhaps in intensity. What

are immediate steps that can be taken that perhaps are somewhat

simple but can be leveraged for maximum impact quickly?

Mr. BRAUN. Congressman Fortenberry, thanks for the opportunity to talk about the National Guard and our military. The National Guard, there is a role for the National Guard and, in fact,

the National Guard has supported DEA for many, many years.

They have provided us with additional intelligence analysts that

we needed along the border. They have intelligence analysts assigned to the El Paso intelligence center, just as our Department

of Defense does. They bring to bear some very high tech equipment

like seismic technology to locate and identify those tunnels that

pose such a real threat to our national security on the southwest

border. So they are engaged and they are involved. They have been

for a long time.

I would agree with Mr. Paton, though. Having National Guard

or our military in uniform, armed, on the front lines on our border,

I think poses some major issues. I believe you will probably all recall the very tragic incident outside of El Paso about 10 years ago

when a young Marine—who was on just simple observation, performing simple observation duty—confronted a young kid that was

actually, as I recall, a goat herder and who was armed with a .22

rifle. And the kid pointed it in the wrong direction and he paid for

it with his life. And that turned into, well, just a very tough thing

for both of our countries to manage and deal with, both the United

76

States and Mexico. So I am just saying that we have to be, you

know, vary cautious and prudent and judicious with how we use

our military folks.

Some short term solutions, I agree with you, I think technology

brings a lot to the table. The LPR, or the license plate readers,

DEA has worked very closely with CBP in Texas and I believe also

in Arizona, Mr. Paton and Mr. Flake, and with tremendous results.

What needs to be done, I believe the way they work best, obviously,

at the Border Patrol checkpoints that are 20 or 30 miles inland, before those vehicles make it to the POEs, they have time to flash

the plate using technology, make the inquiry, and then determine

if the vehicle or driver of the vehicle—not particularly the driver

of the vehicle but the registered owner of the vehicle—might be

suspect or has shown up suspect in some activity in the past. Those

things on pilot programs have—I am telling you what—it is good

stuff, good technology. And I believe we can make and need to

make much better use of it.

With respect to LPRs, though, I would simply say that you know,

as we have seen so many times in the past, you have DEA with

their interests; you have ICE with their interests; you have CBP

with their interests. Someone needs to be placed in charge of this

effort. If we are all out there buying these things, we ought to at

least be buying the ones that we can integrate together into one

system so that the information can then be quickly and very effectively shared. Mr. Selee and Mr. Paton have both brought up, you

know, that point earlier. Thank you.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Braun. Thank you, Mr.

Fortenberry. Mr. Flake.

Mr. FLAKE. I have to run to the floor, unfortunately, now and I

think we are about to end. But I just wanted to say in closing that

I appreciate, this has been a very illuminating hearing and I appreciate all of you for your testimony. And I will just end with one

thing I started with. I hope that we can—and this is only a Federal

issue, we have to do this in Arizona; we are in a bad way because

of the Federal Government’s failure to adequately secure the border—but one thing that would help would be to have comprehensive immigration reform and to have a meaningful temporary worker program where legal workers can come and go.

And when we have had other versions of that—we don’t want to

recreate the baser [phonetically] program, believe me—but when

you have a legal framework for people to come and go, then you

can free up the resources that we desperately need to build the infrastructure that Senator Paton talked about to adequately deal

with this issue.

So I hope that we can get off the dime on a number of issues

here at the Federal level to improve the situation. But this has

been a very good hearing. I thank the chairman for calling it.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Flake.

And again, thank all of you for your contribution here today. I

think we have an idea of some things we should pursue, from technology on the border to infrastructure investments that need to be

done, toward at least addressing the idea of what nature of guns

are going south and what we might to do lessen that—both in the

quality and kind of guns that are going down as well as the numVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:36 Aug 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\57215.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
77

bers—and the money, and, of course, the usage of the consumers

on this end.

So thank every one of you for your contribution. I leave you only

with one request that you needn’t comply with because I don’t have

any right to give you homework.

But one area that we didn’t get into was precursors, although we

mentioned it at a couple points. If any of you have information that

you think the committee should focus on or have their attention

drawn to about the role of precursors coming in, where do they

come from, where do they transit on the way through, is there a

role for the United States at all to be involved with trying to deal

with that issue, we would certainly appreciate it and we will share

it with the other Members on that. So again, thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Flake.

Meeting adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ