U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

26–769 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. Hrg. 115–289 

BORDER SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

THE EFFECTS OF BORDER INSECURITY AND LAX IMMIGRATION 

ENFORCEMENT ON AMERICAN COMMUNITIES, MARCH 1, 2017 

IMPROVED BORDER SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY, APRIL 5, 2017 

BORDER INSECURITY: THE RISE OF MS–13 AND OTHER 

TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS, MAY 24, 2017 

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

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, California 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel 

DANIEL P. LIPS, Policy Director 

KYLE P. BROSNAN, Counsel 

JOSE ́ J. BAUTISTA, Senior Professional Staff Member 

COLLEEN E. BERNY, Professional Staff Member 

CHRISTOPHER S. BONESS, Professional Staff Member 

MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director 

J. JACKSON EATON IV, Minority Senior Counsel 

CAITLIN WARNER, Minority Counsel 

HANNAH M. BERNER, Minority Investigator 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

BONNI E. DINERSTEIN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Johnson ....................................................................................... 1, 247, 457 

Senator McCaskill..................................................................................... 2, 249, 459 

Senator Heitkamp................................................................................... 15, 264, 482 

Senator McCain ................................................................................................ 259 

Senator Hoeven ................................................................................................. 262, 487 

Senator Peters .................................................................................................. 267 

Senator Hassan ............................................................................................. 269, 476 

Senator Daines.............................................................................................. 272, 484 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 275 

Senator Harris............................................................................................... 277, 479 

Senator Portman .............................................................................................. 281 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 284 

Senator Paul ..................................................................................................... 287 

Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 468 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Johnson ..................................................................................... 19, 295, 491 

Senator McCaskill................................................................................... 20, 296, 492 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2017 

WITNESSES 

Julie Nordman, Wentzville, Missouri ..................................................................... 4 

Hon. Eric J. Severson, Sheriff, Waukesha County, State of Wisconsin .............. 6 

Ryan Rectenwald, Chief Deputy of Special Operations, Grant County Sheriff’s 

Office, State of Washington ................................................................................. 8 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Nordman, Julie: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Rectenwald, Ryan: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 117 

Severson, Hon. Eric J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 27 

APPENDIX 

Charts submitted by Senator Johnson ................................................................... 128 

Immigration Panel Transcript submitted by Senator Harris .............................. 130 

Statement submitted for the Record from: 

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles .............................. 210 

Michael C. Koval, Chief of Police, Madison Police Department, Madison, 

Wisconsin ....................................................................................................... 211 

Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force .................................................... 218 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: 

Mr. Severson ..................................................................................................... 221 

Mr. Rectenwald ................................................................................................. 233 
Page

IV 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2017 

WITNESS 

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

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 251 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 301 

APPENDIX 

Chart submitted by Senator Johnson .................................................................... 313 

WSJ article submitted by Senator McCaskill ........................................................ 314 

Fentanyl Report submitted by Senator Portman .................................................. 317 

Heartland Alliance Statement submitted by Senator Heitkamp ......................... 334 

Senate Letter submitted by Senator Peters .......................................................... 337 

Corrections for the Record from Mr. Kelly ............................................................ 346 

Statement for the Record from Human Rights First ............................................ 356 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record from Mr. Kelly ................... 360 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2017 

WITNESSES 

Timothy D. Sini, Police Commissioner, Suffolk County Police Department, 

Suffolk County, New York ................................................................................... 460 

Scott M. Conley, Detective, Criminal Investigative Division, Chelsea Police 

Department, Chelsea, Massachusetts ................................................................ 463 

J. Thomas Manger, Chief of Police, Montgomery County Police Department, 

Montgomery County, Maryland, and President, Major Cities Chiefs Association ........................................................................................................................ 465 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Conley, Scott M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 463 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 515 

Manger, J. Thomas: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 465 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 522 

Sini, Timothy D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 460 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 496 

APPENDIX 

Report submitted for the Record by Senator Harris ............................................. 532 

Responses to questions for the Record: 

Mr. Sini ............................................................................................................. 646 

Mr. Conley ......................................................................................................... 648 

Mr. Manger ....................................................................................................... 661 
(1) 

1The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 19. 

THE EFFECTS OF BORDER INSECURITY AND 

LAX IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ON 

AMERICAN COMMUNITIES 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:59 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, McCaskill, Carper, Tester, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON1

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning. This hearing of the Senate 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) 

will come to order. 

This is actually a pretty simple hearing—not a whole lot of complexity to what I am trying to accomplish here. I am just trying to 

lay out, with some powerful stories, what happens when a nation 

does not secure its borders or enforce its immigration laws. 

We are going to be hearing some powerful testimonies. I want to 

thank all of the witnesses for appearing, for taking the time, and 

for your thoughtful testimonies. I want to particularly thank Julie 

Nordman, who I realize is going to be telling a story that is going 

to be very painful—very tragic for you to tell, but it is just one of 

many stories that we have heard around the country. We are all, 

obviously, familiar with Kate Steinle, but there are so many other 

names of individuals that have had their lives shattered because 

people are in this country illegally—and they commit crimes, they 

traffic drugs, and they traffic humans. 

President Trump, in his State of the Union (SOTU) address, 

asked a pretty simple question. He said: ‘‘To any in Congress who 

do not believe we should enforce our laws, I would ask you this 

question: What do you say to the American family that loses their 

jobs, their income, or a loved one because America refused to uphold its laws and defend its borders?’’ 

To me, the role of the Federal Government—the top priority is 

the defense of this Nation—defense of this homeland, the security 

of its borders and the security of its citizens. And, that is really all 

this hearing is about—is to lay out a reality through some powerful 
2 

1The prepared statement of Senator McCaskill appears in the Appendix on page 20. 

examples. And, again, we have Julie here. We have Sheriff Eric 

Severson from Waukesha County, Wisconsin, who will be laying 

out and talking about the problem of drug abuse, because our borders are so porous. In the 1980s, heroin cost $3,200 per gram. Deputy Rectenwald, we were talking yesterday. You think it is about $80 a gram. Ten 

doses per gram—that is $8 for a hit of heroin. It is a very affordable, destructive habit. And, that is because our borders are so porous. 

So, there is a lot of destruction occurring. We have a sheriff and 

a deputy sheriff here, describing those things. And, of course, Deputy Sheriff Rectenwald will be talking about another tragedy—another young mom, Jill Sundberg, who was murdered by five individuals—criminals that were in this country illegally. Again, we 

are going to allow these powerful stories to be told, so we understand the consequences of not enforcing our immigration laws and 

securing our borders. 

With that, I will turn it over to my Ranking Member, Senator 

McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL1

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, thank you 

for this hearing today. 

This morning we will hear from a constituent of mine named 

Julie Nordman, who, on the morning of March 8, 2016, was forced 

to run to the attic of her home in Montgomery County, Missouri, 

while her husband, Randy—a hero—desperate to save his wife and 

protect her, struggled with a stranger with a gun, downstairs, in 

the couple’s garage. The man who allegedly shot and killed 

Randy—and four other men the night before, in Kansas City, Kansas—never should have been in this country. According to the information I have, Pablo Antonio Serrano-Vitorino, who is set for 

trial in a capital murder case in Missouri, was deported in 2004, 

after serving a year in prison for a felony conviction in California. 

At some point, he illegally reentered the country. And, despite his 

prior felony, he managed to slip through the cracks during at least 

three run-ins with the Kansas police. 

I am told that, in one case in Coffey County, Kansas, Mr. 

Serrano was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI), but his 

fingerprints were never taken—so a match was never made with 

the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) immigration database. After again being arrested and charged with domestic assault 

in Wyandotte County, Mr. Serrano’s fingerprints were sent to DHS, 

but Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) did not take him 

into custody before he was released. Just 3 months later, when Mr. 

Serrano showed up at the Overland Park, Kansas Municipal Court 

to pay a traffic fine, his fingerprints were taken again. ICE was notified that they had an undocumented individual with a history of 

violent offenses within their grasp. ICE issued a detainer, requesting that Mr. Serrano be held until Federal authorities could get 

there, but, amazingly, the detainer was sent to the wrong place: It 

went to the Johnson County, Kansas Sheriff’s Office instead of the 
3 

Overland Park Municipal Court Building. How did that happen? I 

do not know. Why did ICE not pursue Mr. Serrano further? I do 

not know. 

What I do know is that, 6 months later, Mr. Serrano allegedly 

shot and killed five men in Kansas and Missouri, including Randy 

Nordman. And, it appears that, while the local authorities 

were doing their jobs, the Federal Government—specifically ICE— 

dropped the ball. 

Now, Mrs. Nordman, I know none of this is going to bring your 

husband back. And, I would never try to say that it would. Mr. 

Serrano should not have been in this country. Your husband should 

still be with you today. I want to know how this was allowed to 

happen. And, I am sure you have some of the very same questions. 

That is why I am so disappointed that someone with ICE could 

not be here, today. As you know, I invited Director Thomas Homan 

or—when I found out that he was not available—anyone in his organization to come and testify this morning. I would hope that he 

would be able to speak to some of the specifics of this case and the 

other cases we will be hearing about this morning. 

I have also asked for a copy of Mr. Serrano’s case file from ICE, 

but, at every turn, my staff and I have been met with resistance. 

The Agency told us that, due to privacy concerns, Mr. Serrano’s 

case files cannot be released. But, that flies directly in the face of 

the Trump administration’s new policy that says, and I quote, ‘‘The 

Department will no longer afford Privacy Act rights and protections 

to persons who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.’’ How can you, on one hand, have an Administration that 

says that privacy rights do not attach and also have someone in 

your Administration tell a U.S. Senate office that we are not allowed to look at a file that is critically important, in terms of us 

fixing these problems? If we want to stop future tragedies, we have 

to see that file, we have to understand the mistakes that were 

made, and we have to have our questions answered. 

One of the reasons I have devoted so much of my time here, in 

the Senate, to oversight is that I truly believe that, as legislators, 

we have an obligation to understand the problems before we try 

and pass new laws. Sometimes, passing new laws does more harm 

than good, if you do not really understand the underlying problem. 

What happened in this case was an absolute tragedy. But, was it 

caused by a failure in our immigration laws and policies? Or, was 

it instead the result of human beings failing to follow the rules, the 

policies, or the directives? 

Unfortunately, Immigration and Customs Enforcement are the 

only people capable of answering that question, and, to date, have 

refused to either provide the information to my office or to participate in today’s hearing. 

Mrs. Nordman, despite the resistance from ICE, I am going to do 

everything in my power to get you some answers. And, I appreciate 

you and your sister being here, today. I think Missouri should be 

very proud of your courage. I know that I am. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. 

We do have a vote that is going to be called at 10:30, so what 

I would like to do is, get to the witnesses—make sure we go 
4 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Nordman appears in the Appendix on page 24. 

through their entire testimony. We are going to be kind of canvassing staff for the people who want to come back—whether we 

want to recess or just continue this hearing, as we frequently do. 

With that, it is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses. So, if you will all rise and raise your right hand. Do you 

swear that the testimony you will give before this Committee will 

be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 

you, God? 

Ms. NORDMAN. I do. 

Mr. SEVERSON. I do. 

Mr. RECTENWALD. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Please be seated. 

Our first witness is Julie Nordman. Ms. Nordman is from 

Wentzville, Missouri. On March 8, 2016, as Senator McCaskill 

talked about, Julie’s husband, Randy Nordman, was murdered by 

an illegal immigrant who had previously been deported. 

Julie, you have our deepest sympathies for your loss. And, we 

thank you for being here, today. And, take your time. We realize 

this is not going to be an easy story to tell, so we will be more than 

understanding. But, again, thank you for appearing. 

TESTIMONY OF JULIE NORDMAN,1 WENTZVILLE, MISSOURI 

Ms. NORDMAN. Hello. My name is Julie Nordman, and I was 

asked to speak you today, following the tragic and preventable 

murder of my husband, Randy Nordman. Although this happened 

less than a year ago and the pain is still unbearable, this story 

starts nearly two decades ago. 

The man who murdered my husband, Pablo Serrano-Vitorino, 

first encountered law enforcement in 1998 in California. He was 

here illegally and was charged with making a threat with the intent to terrorize. He pled guilty to disturbing the peace and spent 

3 days in jail. He was allowed to remain in the United States, and 

between 1993 and 2003, he was arrested twice more for domestic 

violence. Then, in 2003, he pointed a rifle at the mother of his 

three children and threatened her life. Later that year, he was convicted on those felony charges and was sentenced to 2 years in prison. Following his release in 2004, he was deported for being in the 

United States illegally. 

No one knows when he returned to the United States—or how— 

but he did. And, in November 2014, he was arrested in Kansas for 

driving while intoxicated, driving without a license, and speeding. 

He pled guilty and, again, was allowed to remain in the United 

States. Then, less than a year later, in June 2015, he was arrested 

and charged with domestic battery. While being held in the county 

jail, the sheriff’s office notified Immigration and Customs Enforcement that he was in custody. ICE is required to respond within a 

4-hour deadline, yet they failed to do so. And, the sheriff was required to release him. He later pled guilty to the charge and received a fine. 

Only 2 months later, in August 2015, he was again arrested for 

driving without a license. While at the municipal courthouse, he 

was fingerprinted and ICE issued a detainer for his immigration 
5 

violation. However, because of their carelessness, ICE mistakenly 

sent the detainer paperwork to the incorrect location—and it never 

reached the proper authorities. 

That brings you to my story. In the 18 months before the senseless murder of my husband, this killer had been in custody on 

three occasions, yet Federal officials failed to detain or deport him. 

Had they just done their jobs and followed the laws, my husband 

would still be alive—and so would four other innocent victims he 

brutally murdered. 

On March 7, 2016, in Kansas City, Kansas, four men were found 

dead. Mike Capps, Jeremey Water, and brothers Clint and Austin 

Harter were Pablo’s neighbors. And, he murdered them, from what 

I have heard, over a parking spot. Authorities started a manhunt, 

but they did not find him until it was too late. 

On the early morning of March 8, 2016, my husband was getting 

ready for work. I was awoken from my sleep when I heard my husband shouting, ‘‘What are you doing?’’ And then, he called out for 

me, ‘‘Julie! Julie!’’ I looked out of the window into our garage and 

saw a man and my husband fighting over a rifle. I immediately 

grabbed my phone and called 911 as I ran to the attic. I was scared 

out of my mind, and I whispered to the 911 operator that we needed help. I asked them to hurry, and I prayed and prayed for Randy 

to be OK. I saw our dog at the top of the stairs and told 911 that 

I was worried that the dog was going to give my location away. I 

then remember asking the operator, if the gunman shot me, would 

it hurt? I tried to climb out of the attic window, but it was stuck. 

So, I stayed put. I also asked if I could go check on my husband, 

and they told me no. Then I heard a pop. I heard the gunman rustle through our things. And, we believe he was trying to find car 

keys so he could steal one of our vehicles and continue fleeing from 

law enforcement. 

I looked out of the attic window, and I saw a police car racing 

toward our house. But then, it raced past our house. I told the dispatcher that the officer needed to turn around. And, that is when 

I saw the killer run across my property and jump, face first, into 

a ditch. 

When the police arrived, I saw my husband on the kitchen floor, 

but I thought he was unconscious. The police then escorted me out 

of the house. And, I kept screaming, ‘‘Where is the ambulance?’’ 

But, they kept telling me that it was a secured area. Officers told 

me that they had located the man’s vehicle right off of the highway 

near our house, and then showed me a picture to identify him. 

After I identified him, that is when the ambulance personnel came 

over and told me that my husband had passed away—and I just 

lost it. 

They searched for him for 17 hours, using dogs and what seemed 

like hundreds of policemen and two helicopters, but no one could 

find him. We later found out that he was lying 800 feet from my 

house in the grass. He waited until it had gotten dark and then 

walked to a gas station where he tried to hijack someone else. 

However, because my husband had removed the clip from his gun, 

the killer’s only remaining bullet was used on my husband, Randy. 

My husband was a hero for not only saving my life, but also saving 

all of the other people this man would have attacked. Authorities 
6 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Severson appears in the Appendix on page 27. 

quickly apprehended the man near the gas station, and he is now 

in custody awaiting trial for the death of my husband. 

Following the incident, I was never contacted by ICE or anyone 

else from the government to express their remorse. However, I read 

in the paper that ICE said that they would monitor Randy’s case 

and place a detainer on the man. They also said that they ‘‘would 

remain focused on smart, effective immigration enforcement that 

prioritizes threats to national security, public safety, and border security.’’ I find that their statement could not be further from the 

truth. Their actions were not smart. In 2015, they sent his detainer 

paperwork to the wrong place. Their actions were not effective. In 

2015, they also failed to respond to the immigration query. They 

did not properly prioritize the threat. After this man was arrested, 

on numerous occasions, for violent crimes, he went on to kill five 

completely innocent men. 

Not only has ICE failed us, but our borders have failed us. They 

are, obviously, wide open, as the man was able to enter—not once, 

but twice—without being detected. But, I suppose, if your policy is 

to let them go even after you arrest them for committing violent 

crimes, why even secure the border at all? 

If the ICE authorities had just done their jobs, Andrew Harter 

would still be alive. Clint Harter would still be a husband and 

would have seen his second child being born. Mike Capps would 

still be alive. Jeremey Water would still be alive. And, most importantly to me, my husband, Randy, would still be here. Instead, 

every day that I am at our house, I am reminded of this tragic 

event. I wish you could bring my husband back, but we all know 

that cannot happen. What you can do is, make sure that this does 

not happen to another innocent family in the future. 

And, also, before I go, I would like to publicly thank the Missouri 

State Highway Patrol (MSHP) and the nearby county officers for 

catching and arresting this monster. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Julie. I am sure I speak for everybody in this room when we offer our sincere condolences. I will 

guarantee you that this Committee will provide oversight and we 

will get the answers that you deserve. But, again, thank you for 

testifying. 

Our next witness is Sheriff Eric Severson. Sheriff Severson is the 

sheriff of Waukesha County, Wisconsin. Sheriff Severson was elected to his current position in 2014 and has 13 years of experience 

as a law enforcement officer (LEO). Sheriff Severson. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ERIC J. SEVERSON,1

SHERIFF, WAUKESHA COUNTY, STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Mr. SEVERSON. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill, 

and distinguished Members of the Committee, it is my honor to address you today on behalf of the citizens of Waukesha County and 

the State of Wisconsin. 

As Senator Johnson indicated, my name is Eric Severson. I am 

the Sheriff of Waukesha County. Waukesha County is a mix of 

rural and suburban communities located west of and adjacent to 
7 

Milwaukee County. And, I have served my community as a law enforcement officer for over 32 years. 

To provide context for my testimony, I have included a brief biography. I would highlight that I currently serve on the Board of Directors of the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) and I serve on 

the Board of Directors of the Wisconsin High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). 

The greatest impact on the safety of our community, as it relates 

to border insecurity, is the ease of bringing controlled substances 

into our community by way of the Mexican-American border. 

The lion’s share of the controlled substances consumed in southeast Wisconsin is sourced from south of the border. Heroin and opiate pharmaceuticals have been the chief drug threat in Wisconsin 

for years. Heroin consumed in my community was transported 

through the Southern Border in its entirety. Today, Mexican drug 

cartels are growing poppy plants to manufacture locally produced 

heroin, making Mexico a source country for heroin for the United 

States. 

Methamphetamine (meth) is an emerging drug threat in Wisconsin—and 95 percent of methamphetamine in Wisconsin comes 

from Mexico. 

The drug public health crisis is not limited to border communities or major cities, alone. In the last 10 years, my county has 

lost 387 of our citizens due to controlled substance overdose deaths. 

Last year, alone, we experienced over 35 drug-related deaths. Onethird of that total involved heroin. Fentanyl, an adulterant often 

added to heroin, has increased the lethality of heroin. And, we now 

see fentanyl as yet another illicit drug entering the United States 

through the Southern Border. 

On a local level, we are doing all that we can to protect our citizens. And, last year, my deputies administered Narcan (naloxone) 

21 times—but only saving 17 lives. 

Along with the drug trafficking business, comes violence. Robberies, home invasions, burglaries, and thefts are all the byproduct 

of drug users seeking the resources to fuel their addictions. 

Our community’s drug enforcement officers must face the dangerous realities of the drug trade in Wisconsin. One example of this 

is the growing use of mobile drug crews. These dealers sell heroin 

from stolen vehicles that are often car-jacked at gunpoint and will 

evade apprehension by recklessly eluding police by ramming 

squads and even citizen-owned vehicles in an effort to escape apprehension. These dangerous drug dealers are frequently well 

armed and use countersurveillance techniques, which add to the 

danger to law enforcement and the community. 

The thrust of my testimony has been on border security as it relates to drug trafficking. This is because my fellow sheriffs, police 

chiefs, and I see this as the greatest border-related threat to our 

communities in Wisconsin. My testimony would be incomplete, 

however, if I failed to acknowledge the criminal threat posed by 

foreign nationals that are in our country in violation of our immigration statutes. Candidly, I see criminal offenses by foreign nationals as relatively infrequent occurrences within the confines of 

my county’s border. It would be incorrect—and, in fact, dan-
8 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Rectenwald appears in the Appendix on page 117. 

gerous—to conclude, however, that these events do not occur in 

Wisconsin. 

Some specific examples include a Drug Trafficking Organization 

(DTO) involving at least 2 undocumented Mexican nationals, where 

15 kilograms of cocaine was seized. Another DTO, containing several undocumented Mexican nationals, was attempting to illegally 

sell firearms to undercover agents. This DTO also had human-trafficking ties. 

A recent 25-kilogram seizure of methamphetamine resulted in 

the arrest of several undocumented Mexican nationals in southeast 

Wisconsin. The actors, in this case, were purporting the methamphetamine to be cocaine in hopes of expanding the organization’s methamphetamine market and aiding in its distribution. 

Many other examples exist. 

I have included a copy of the National Sheriffs’ Association position paper on comprehensive immigration reform. I respectfully ask 

that you to consider all recommendations. In particular, I would 

hope that a strong focus is placed on providing appropriations to 

adequately secure the border—which would include providing sufficient law enforcement presence, in the form of U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) officers—and sufficiently supporting the 

highly effective HIDTA programs and the Edward Byrne Memorial 

Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) programs that currently help communities that are not located near the border. 

It is truly my honor to be here, today. And, I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Sheriff Severson. 

Our next witness is Deputy Sheriff Ryan Rectenwald. He is the 

Chief Deputy of Special Operations for the Grant County Sheriff’s 

Office in Washington State. Mr. Rectenwald is an Army veteran 

with over 25 years of public safety experience. Chief Deputy 

Rectenwald. 

TESTIMONY OF RYAN RECTENWALD,1 CHIEF DEPUTY OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS, GRANT COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, 

STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. RECTENWALD. Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member 

McCaskill, thank you for the invitation to come and speak with you 

today. I am here to talk about a horrific murder, which took place 

in our rural community of Grant County, Washington—an incident 

that, to this day, remains the most dreadful scene I have encountered in my nearly 20-year law enforcement career. 

We received a call around noon, just 3 days before Christmas in 

2016. A woman was out walking her dog near the Columbia River, 

in a picturesque recreational area, which is popular with tourists 

and rock climbers and is endeared by residents. She said that she 

had found a dead body. 

What I saw when I arrived at the crime scene can only be described as straight out of a horror movie. The body was lying face 

down in the snow. Detectives found 13 bullet casings. Eleven of 

those bullets found their mark, striking the victim in the back of 

her head, her neck, and her shoulder area. 
9 

A box from a case of beer had a message written in Spanish and 

was secured to the victim’s back with a kitchen knife—signed ‘‘Gulf 

Cartel.’’ The victim was later identified as Jill Marie Sundberg, age 

31, the mother of four young children. We later learned that she 

was kidnapped by five men after an argument at a party. She was 

forced into this vehicle with those 5 men, driven 10 miles to this 

remote location, and was executed. The fear and brutality that this 

woman faced during that 10-mile drive and in the moments prior 

to her death will forever haunt case investigators. 

During the investigation, we developed a list of persons of interest who lived in the same trailer park where Jill occasionally lived. 

With the help of Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as 

the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), we were able to pick up and 

interview three of those five men. All five were later arrested on 

murder, kidnapping, and other charges. What is important to know 

is that all five men were determined to be in this country illegally—and one had two prior felony convictions. 

The fact that these suspects were here illegally is not my point. 

It is that the shooter was still in the United States after being convicted of crimes and previously deported. So, how did this happen? 

It turns out, the alleged shooter had been previously deported in 

May 2007, after his first felony conviction. He then illegally reentered our country. And, in June 2013, he was arrested on new felony charges in Grant County. He served out his sentence, and, in 

January 2014, he was released to ICE again. But, prior to his deportation hearing, he was allowed to post an $8,000 cash bail. He 

never returned for this hearing. No failure-to-appear warrants 

were ever issued. He was then later rearrested in September 2015, 

in our county, on new domestic violence charges. 

That is not how legal residents are treated when we miss court 

dates. You and I would have had warrants issued for our arrest. 

Meanwhile, after the shooter returned to our community, local 

law enforcement had opportunities to bring him back into custody 

during unrelated contacts, but, due to the fact that no Federal warrants were ever issued, he was never arrested. 

I was asked to provide insight on policies that Congress and the 

Administration should be considering to stem the unlawful movement of people, illegal drugs, and other contraband into this country. Can we start with just some basic principles? 

It makes sense that, after being convicted of a felony, you should 

not be allowed to bail out on your immigration hearing. If you abscond, warrants should be issued for your arrest—and ICE and 

local law enforcement should be able to pick you up. 

Now, I realize that this may present administrative and budgetary concerns, but we need easier access to the bad guys. This is 

not about illegal immigrants who reside in our communities peacefully alongside us. 

Allowing us these tools would help us to distinguish between the 

truly law-abiding and those whose purpose is to harm through violence or drug distribution via enabling policies and practices. This, 

certainly, is not justice. 

Although I can empathize with the discussion about ripping families apart, when it comes to immigration enforcement, I can assure 
10 

you, the Sundberg family has been ripped apart, because of the 

lack of enforcement of current immigration laws. 

Lastly, I would like to publicly commend the hard work our men 

and women put into this complex investigation. We live by an unwritten code that dictates that they will never stop, they will never 

quit, and they will always work for the ones who no longer can 

speak for themselves. Their efforts have truly made our community 

a far safer place to live. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Deputy Rectenwald. 

Julie, I am going to start with you, but I am not going to ask 

for an answer right away. But, I just want you thinking about this 

until the very end. I do want to know what information you want. 

What have you not been told from ICE? What can we get for you? 

So, just kind of think about that. And, I am going to start with 

Deputy Rectenwald. 

You have been in law enforcement for how long? 

Mr. RECTENWALD. Over 25 years, now. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Have you seen a change in—you said that 

legal residents would not be treated the way that we treated the 

illegal immigrants—or illegal aliens. Have you seen a shift over 

those 20 years, in terms of how we handle this? 

Mr. RECTENWALD. I have. Early in my career, I was a corrections 

officer (CO) for the same county—for the Grant County Sheriff’s 

Office. And, ICE regularly came into our facility and regularly 

picked up people on immigration holds—ICE detainers. For example, I was a detective in 2008, when there was a rape in our county. I was the investigator, and I knew the location of the supposed 

suspect. And, I asked ICE if we could work together and try to pick 

this individual up—not only to help my investigation, but to get 

someone, who was previously deported on felony drug charges, out 

of our county. And, in 2008, they said that they could not help me. 

So, my investigation took longer—a lot longer than it should 

have. And, while this investigation was going on, I finally made an 

arrest, after we had a positive deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) hit 

from the crime lab. I picked the suspect up and arrested him. 

While the suspect was awaiting trial, my female victim died in a 

car crash, and charges were dropped. 

So, to answer your question, all we want is for some simple principles and simple things, to be able to help us during our investigations. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I think the thrust of my question is, if policies have changed, in terms of how you handle legal residents 

versus illegal aliens, was that a law change—something imposed 

on you? Were these just administrative guidelines—Executive Orders (EOs)? In other words, do we have to legislate something here 

to correct this problem? Or, is this something that can be done just 

through executive action or policy change? 

Mr. RECTENWALD. I think the current laws in place should be effective. They are not. There are some in law enforcement careers 

that are afraid of a lawsuit—they are afraid of the challenges that 

present. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Sheriff Severson, I made a swing through 

Wisconsin early in 2016. We called it a ‘‘national security listening 
11 

session.’’ And, every public safety official—whether it was local, 

State, or Federal—when I asked, ‘‘What is the biggest problem you 

are dealing with, as a law enforcement official?’’—without exception, the answer was unanimous. They said, ‘‘Drug abuse.’’ Is that 

how you would answer that question as well? 

Mr. SEVERSON. Yes, it is. And, more striking is that, in recent 

years, it has become focused on heroin and opiates. For the first 

time in the history of HIDTA, about 3 years ago, we had 100-percent conformity, where all law enforcement agencies were reporting 

heroin as the chief drug threat in their community. And, given the 

number of deaths that we have experienced—again, in my county, 

in the last 10 years, 387 families have lost their husbands, children, wives and daughters. So, it is clearly a major threat for us. 

Chairman JOHNSON. There has been a debate about sanctuary 

cities, but also about sanctuary jurisdictions. And, Deputy, you alluded to this. Because of some civil lawsuits, sheriffs that I have 

talked to in Wisconsin, who want to help enforce immigration laws, 

feel constrained, because they may be subject to a lawsuit. Can either one of you comment on that, before I go to Julie? 

Mr. RECTENWALD. Well, thankfully, I work for a very good sheriff, Sheriff Tom Jones. And, his number one priority is the protection and safety of our citizens. So, he has given us the backing— 

and we work very well with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Marshals Service. And, there are no qualms 

with allowing them into our jail or our facilities—allowing ICE 

agents into our jails or our facilities to allow them to make our 

community safer. 

Chairman JOHNSON. He is not concerned about civil liabilities. 

Sheriff Severson, is that something that you have heard from your 

fellow chiefs and sheriffs? 

Mr. SEVERSON. Yes, it is. We are concerned about civil liability. 

We are concerned about some of—and I am not an attorney, Senator, but we are concerned about some litigation that sheriffs have 

faced, whereby there are questions as to whether or not the detention—or the detainers—contain sufficient probable cause for us to 

detain folks, solely on the basis of those detainers. And, the frustration that chiefs and sheriffs in Wisconsin are feeling is that 

there does not seem to be any movement to clarify how ICE is 

going to solve the problem of giving us the sufficient probable 

cause, so that we can make those detentions without fear of litigation. And, for the most part, we are communicative with ICE. And, 

we are trying to share information as best we can. And, we are limiting our detentions to very short periods of time, to give them an 

opportunity to resolve their legal issues. But, one of the frustrations that we have experienced is that ICE will not take responsibility for developing clear, defendable probable cause for those detentions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, if you are really facing a civil lawsuit, that may be outside of their jurisdiction. We may have to actually change the law to make sure that we provide those types of 

liability protections, correct? 

Mr. SEVERSON. I would agree with that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, Julie, we are so sorry for your loss. 

And, we want to do everything we can to provide you the informa-
12 

tion. Giving you some time, are there some specific questions you 

have that you want answered? 

Ms. NORDMAN. I just want to know why. And, I just want to 

make sure this does not happen to somebody else. I want the laws 

strengthened or changed—more security. That is all I have to say. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Well, again, we do appreciate you coming here. We know how hard it is to tell this story, especially when 

it is so recent and so raw. We will continue to stay in contact with 

you and to provide you with those types of answers—and strengthen our laws, so we can try and prevent these types of tragedies in 

the future. Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Both the Chairman and I have reached out 

to ICE with a list of questions. And, I will make sure that you have 

a copy of the letter that I have sent them. I think it is unfortunate 

that they are not here, today, to apologize to you—at a minimum. 

It would have been nice to have somebody from ICE at this table 

to look at you and say, ‘‘I am sorry,’’ and to acknowledge the failures of that Agency. I wish they were—here and they were doing 

that. 

Let me make sure I understand this liability issue, because I 

want to make sure that law enforcement is protected here. The liability you are worried about is, if you are detaining someone for 

ICE—if you are holding them past a certain amount of time, like 

if you bring somebody in for questioning on something, and you 

have to release them, because you cannot charge them—but there 

is an ICE hold on them—you are worried about holding them 

longer than you, typically, would hold them? Explain to me where 

the liability part comes in. That is what I want to make sure I am 

clear on, so we can try to get it fixed. 

Mr. SEVERSON. The challenge of working with ICE, under these 

detainers, exists when we have no other underlying criminal offense that we can hold an individual on. So, in other words, if we 

make an arrest in Waukesha County and we have probable cause 

to detain them for a particular charge, and we also have immigration status issues, and we notify ICE of that—if they say, ‘‘Well, 

we would like you to detain that person for our purposes,’’ that is 

not going to be an issue as long as they come to our jail and take 

care of their business before we are forced to release the individual 

on local charges. 

Where it becomes a challenge is when we have exhausted the 

reasoning—the rationale for detaining an individual on our local 

charges or other precedent charges and ICE would like us to detain 

them solely on the basis of their detainer. And, there have been 

several lawsuits that are working their way through appeals that 

have suggested that local law enforcement does not have the authority to detain an individual based solely on the ICE detainer. 

And, again, I am not an attorney, but the argument, generally, is 

that the ICE detainer is not sufficient due process, in and of itself. 

Senator MCCASKILL. That is the argument that is being made? 

Mr. SEVERSON. That is the argument that is being made. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, we will track that down, follow those 

cases, and figure out exactly what the facts are and see what we 

can do to be helpful in that—especially if this is a priority deportation based on criminal activity. I am assuming both of you would 
13 

agree that that should be the priority for our resources—going after 

people who have committed crimes in this country. Correct, Sheriff, 

Deputy? 

Mr. SEVERSON. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. You both agree with that? 

Mr. RECTENWALD. Yes, I would agree. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Great. I was struck, Deputy, by your 

testimony about ICE and the no failure-to-appear warrant. What I 

was even more struck by is, this was a convicted felon that was 

given an $8,000 cash bail. I find that wildly inappropriate. Have 

either of you ever seen instances where they are giving someone 

with a prior felony conviction, who is in this country illegally—who 

was deported once and came back to this country—they are letting 

them walk out of the door for eight grand? Do you have any knowledge as to whether or not that is common? 

Mr. RECTENWALD. This was news to me. And, I was very shocked 

and surprised and, actually, appalled. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes. That should not be the case—a cash 

bail, in those circumstances. I think that is a situation where detaining someone is appropriate, particularly, for prioritizing the 

criminals. We need to be putting the necessary resources into detaining the criminals—maybe, not the children that are showing up 

unaccompanied on our border that are saying, ‘‘Please help me,’’ 

who are 4 years old and 5 years old. But, certainly, for someone 

who has committed a felony in this country and who is here illegally, we ought to prioritize those resources and never let them get 

bail and hold them until the hearing. That is where I think we 

should be shifting these resources. 

Let me ask you this, too: In 2008, it is interesting to me that you 

are saying that, in calendar year 2008, ICE would not assist you— 

when you had converging interests in a suspect, they said that they 

could not assist you. Did they give you a reason why they would 

not assist you? 

Mr. RECTENWALD. They did not give me a reason, other than 

they just were not able to pick that individual up—knowing that 

he had been previously deported on felony drug charges—he had a 

felony drug conviction. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes. So, they did not say whether it was resources or it was just their policy not to? 

Mr. RECTENWALD. It may have been a policy or something back 

then. And, that is my point, that—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. It would be nice to be able to ask them that 

question. I do not understand, for the life of me, how anybody with 

ICE would not want to prioritize someone who had been previously 

deported for a felony drug conviction. That is very hard to understand. 

What about—have you seen ICE work effectively with you when 

you have converging interests, in terms of a criminal suspect and 

someone who is illegally in this country—either one of you? Have 

you seen them do a good job? 

Mr. SEVERSON. In the case of Wisconsin, I am happy to report 

that we do not have a lot of issues of illegally present foreign nationals who are committing a lot of criminal activity in my county. 

That being said, for the most part, we are very blessed, because we 
14 

have a local ICE office in Milwaukee, which is very close to us, and 

we have a good working relationship. But, I will also report to you 

that sheriffs throughout the Nation do not necessarily have that 

immediate access to ICE officials. So, resourcing can become a challenge. The time it takes to respond to a detainer can be a challenge—beyond the obvious policy questions on whether or not there 

is an aggressive and vigorous effort on the part of ICE to work cooperatively to deal with these problems. 

Senator MCCASKILL. It seems to me that, if we are going to 

prioritize, which we should—I mean, that is one thing the President is doing—is continuing the policy that has been in place—that 

we should be prioritizing illegal immigrants who are committing 

crimes—that a working relationship with law enforcement in this 

country would be step one, making sure you are on the same page, 

that you have a communication, and that you have a working relationship. And, certainly, I will be working hard on that. 

In that regard, do you plan, Sheriff, to try to apply and be part 

of the 287(g) agreements? Have you made a decision in that regard? 

Mr. SEVERSON. At this time, I do not have the resources to participate with that, nor is our community structure such that—I do 

not know that that is, necessarily, a high priority for us, right now. 

Again, I am fortunate enough to report to you today that it is—instances of criminal activity by illegally present immigrants—beyond their status—is relatively uncommon in my county. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Right. 

Mr. SEVERSON. And, generally, in Wisconsin, it is less common 

than in some other communities. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Right. And, what about you, Deputy? Do 

you know if your sheriff is interested in participating in 287(g) 

agreements, which are the agreements that would, essentially, perform the legal function of deputizing local law enforcement to perform immigration functions—immigration enforcement functions? 

Mr. RECTENWALD. I have not had that conversation with my 

sheriff, so I do not know what his stance is. 

Senator MCCASKILL. At the height of the program, we only had 

72 agencies participating—and I do not know how many thousands 

there are. As a former prosecutor, I know that, just in my jurisdiction, there were a lot of police jurisdictions, and, certainly, if you 

multiply that across the country—I am not sure that is the key to 

the kingdom. I think ICE doing a better job and developing a working relationship with the law enforcement that is out there—better 

communication is, probably, where we need to be focusing our attention. 

Thank you both for being here. Please thank all of your departments for the work they do. And, once again, Julie, I could not be 

more proud of you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. 

So, the vote has been called. The time will expire at about 10:50 

a.m. They will hold the vote open until 11:00 a.m., so let us go on 

to Senator Heitkamp. Then, we will talk to other Senators, in 

terms of how they want to proceed with the hearing. Senator 

Heitkamp. 
15 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, thank you, 

Ranking Member. 

Julie, Senator Kamala Harris, who was here, from California, 

Claire, and myself have all been prosecutors, we all ran large agencies, and we have all sat across the table from victims. And, I remember their faces. And, we are not going to forget yours—and we 

are not going to forget your story and we are going to get to the 

bottom of this. And so, I just want you to know that it is hard to 

do what you just did. And, we are really proud of you, but it makes 

a difference, because it unites us all in this tragedy to try and fix 

what is wrong. So, thank you so much for coming. 

I want to turn my attention to local law enforcement grants. I 

am very concerned that—I ran the Byrne Grant Program. I was, 

probably, one of the first States that had a HIDTA program in the 

Great Plains—ran the drug task forces out of my office, in collaboration with local law enforcement. I was the State Attorney General (AG). And so, one of the things that I am deeply concerned 

about is that we have Operation Stonegarden, which deals with onthe-border jurisdictions. We have cut that program. We have cut 

the Byrne Grant Program to the point where we cannot get those 

resources. It is harder and harder to find Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) money. It is harder and harder to find 

HIDTA money. And, we have a growing national crisis with drugs. 

And, the fact that people are pouring across the border—they are 

pouring across—the criminal element is pouring across the border, 

because there is a market for what they are selling here. And, they 

are competing for territory. We know what is going on. 

So, can either one of you tell me what you would do if we plussed 

up the Byrne Grant Program the way it was before—or even 

more—if we plussed up the COPS Program and if we extended Operation Stonegarden, to recognize that a lot of the problems off of 

the border actually come to the interior? What could we do with additional resources? And, how would you approach that? And, I 

guess, we will start with you, Sheriff. 

Mr. SEVERSON. Thank you. I agree that those programs have suffered over the last few years. Again, by way of background, I did 

run one of the largest metropolitan drug enforcement agencies 

within the State of Wisconsin, so I am very familiar with Byrne. 

I have been on the Board of Directors of HIDTA for almost 20 

years. And, I am here to tell you that HIDTA, in my opinion, is 

a great success story. HIDTA is one of the real flagship Federal 

programs, in part, because it did not create an Agency. It created 

a cooperative nature and—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. Collaboration. 

Mr. SEVERSON [continuing]. Collaboration. And so, that has been 

exceptionally effective in Milwaukee. It started in Milwaukee. And, 

now, we are actually multi-state, so that is a great thing. So, anything that we can do to support HIDTA funding is going to really 

do a lot to get boots on the ground in the local communities, particularly, in the non-border areas. 

One of the things that concerns me is that we focus our attention 

in the community and ignore what is happening at the border. It 

makes no sense to me to have somebody working at home plate so 
16 

hard and nobody working around the diamond, trying to help us 

control the influx of controlled substances. If we can seize large 

quantities at the border, that is going to, in my opinion, have more 

impact on the local communities. And so, we need to do both. And 

so, to me, the border security issue, in my conversations with border sheriffs and other members of the National Sheriffs’ Association—we are just at our wits’ end that we are having to continue 

to sit and look at the border and watch this continue. And so, anything that we can do to increase staffing at the border, increase the 

use of technology, and create infrastructure that will allow us to 

patrol the border, is going to be important. 

Locally, we are getting to the point where local law enforcement 

agencies do not have the resources anymore to participate in cooperative drug enforcement efforts. And, that is, in part, because of 

the reduction of Byrne Grant Programs. When I started in drug enforcement, we were getting three times or four times what we are 

getting now. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I mean, I think it is clear—and the ability to 

collaborate, with those resources, is so critical. 

Mr. SEVERSON. It is. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I will tell you that we spent a lot of time 

talking about the open border in rural areas—and that absolutely 

needs to be addressed. But, it is DHS’s position that most of the 

contraband—especially heroin and methamphetamines—are actually coming through the ports of entry (POEs). And so, we need to 

do everything we can to plus-up the resources, plus-up the inspections, and find out, cross-border, how we can really attack this 

problem—whether it is detecting tunnels or whether it is, in fact, 

making sure that we have the resources at the border. But, I am 

concerned that, with the lack of Federal resources, it takes that 

great collaboration and pulls it apart. And, people say, ‘‘I am not 

going there. I have other things to do. This is your job.’’ And, I am 

not saying that we are doing that, but I do see that the cohesiveness that I saw in the 1990s on these programs has really fallen 

apart, because of the lack of resources. 

Deputy Sheriff, you mentioned—I do not have it in my paperwork—I am sure it is in your testimony—the Sheriffs’ Association’s 

recommendations. We will be very interested in reading those and 

understanding. I spent a fair amount of time with the sheriffs 

down at the border. I know their level of frustration. But, from 

your perspective, what can we do that is going to get you the resources that you need to tackle this problem? 

Mr. RECTENWALD. Just a little background about myself. I am 

the commander of our Interagency Narcotics Enforcement Team 

(INET), so we are a little different, as in we do have the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) office that is located in Spokane, 

Washington and we also have the DEA office that is located in 

Yakima. And, we are somewhere in the middle, on an island. 

Senator HEITKAMP. So, no DEA is assigned to your region? 

Mr. RECTENWALD. Correct. 

Senator HEITKAMP. OK. 

Mr. RECTENWALD. So, we are kind of on an island, and we are 

a collaborative of smaller agencies. We are a county of 93,000 peo-
17 

ple. That does not mean that we do not have a huge drug problem, 

which we do. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Absolutely. 

Mr. RECTENWALD. As I previously stated, the price of heroin is 

between $80 and $100 a gram—and the price of methamphetamine 

is even cheaper. It is $60 a gram. And, it is not uncommon for us 

to make seizures of 10 to 15 pounds of heroin and—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. In your county? 

Mr. RECTENWALD. In our county. And, methamphetamine. I 

think we do have cartel action, and they are very well embedded 

in our State. And, having that money and having those funds to 

be able to support an Interagency Narcotics Enforcement Team, 

which is supported by funds—and it is allowing these smaller counties, who otherwise could not afford to have a detective assigned to 

the unit—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. I just have one more question. I am curious 

about whether you are in proximity of any reservation or Indian 

country, and whether that has created issues for your county. 

Mr. RECTENWALD. We are close to the Yakima Nation, but, no, 

that really does not—other than—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. I raise this because, in North Dakota, we see 

a lot of trafficking on and off of the reservation. And, the jurisdictional issues that we have, trying to tackle that, are absolutely horrible—and we need Federal help. We need DEA, we need the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and we need any kind of Federal assistance that we can get, to have a cop on the beat on the 

Indian reservation, because, if you are the bad guy and you think 

there is no cop on the beat, where are you going to go? 

And so, we will work very actively to try and figure out the relationship between you, ICE, and the Federal authorities, but also to 

get us back where we need to be—in the 1990s and even beyond— 

that, given the crisis that we are confronting—to recognize the important role that you all play as boots on the ground to help us 

keep our communities safe. And, thank you again, Julie. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the indulgence and the extra time. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Heitkamp. 

It is difficult to deal with these votes. We have two of them, so 

I think what we will do here is just thank the witnesses for your 

testimonies and for coming in. Gentlemen, thank you for your service. Julie, again, our sincere condolences. You have the commitment of this Committee that we will do everything we can to work 

with you to get you the answers—but also work with the new Administration to secure our borders and to start enforcing immigration laws, so we can try and prevent these types of tragedies from 

happening again. Your testimony was powerful. Thank you for 

coming. It will make a difference. 

With that, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days until 

March 16th, at 5 p.m., for the submission of statements and questions for the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:52 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(19) 

A P P E N D I X 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 

(247) 

1The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 295. 

IMPROVING BORDER SECURITY AND PUBLIC 

SAFETY 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:29 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, McCain, Portman, Paul, Lankford, 

Hoeven, Daines, McCaskill, Carper, Tester, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. This hearing will come to order. 

I would like to welcome the Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security, General Kelly. We appreciate you coming and 

taking the time and your thoughtful testimony. We are looking forward to your oral testimony and your answers to what should be 

a number of pretty interesting questions. 

For the Members of this Committee, it should come as no surprise that the security of our border has been a top priority of this 

Committee. In November 2015, after about 13 hearings and 3 

roundtables, we did publish a report, ‘‘The State of America’s Border Security,’’ which, by the way, we have a bunch of copies, so any 

new Members or older Members who did not get a copy, I would 

be happy to give you one. 

We have learned an awful lot, and I would ask that my opening 

statement be entered in the record.1

Senator MCCASKILL. Without objection. 

Chairman JOHNSON What I would like to do is read some of the 

findings out of that opening statement as well as just some other 

things we have learned, just kind of bullet points. 

First and foremost, what we have learned during—now this is 

going to be our 23rd hearing on various aspects of border security. 

The first finding, our borders are not secure. 

Number two, and we mentioned this in yesterday’s hearing— 

America’s insatiable demand for drugs is one root cause, perhaps 

the root cause, preventing the achievement of a secure border. 

In order to secure our borders—we heard this yesterday in testimony on fencing and walls—agents need full situational awareness, 
248 

which includes the ability to see on the other side of the border. 

This can be achieved with appropriate fencing and technology. 

We had a hearing in November of last year. We had the former 

heads of U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) and Deputy Border Patrol, and 

they said that fencing works and we need more of it. 

We found out last week in a hearing from the front lines that 

hiring is a challenge, and personnel issues must be addressed, and 

we are working with the Secretary and his Deputy to try and address that really based off of Senator Heitkamp’s comments at the 

end of that one hearing when she said, ‘‘This is insane, this is 

crazy,’’ and there are some insane and crazy policies which we 

want to work with you to get those addressed and fixed right away 

so you can actually staff up and provide the manpower element of 

securing our border. 

Ports of entry must not be forgotten. The majority of drugs enter 

our country through our ports of entry, and that is something I 

would like to talk about. 

One difficult hearing to have was victims of an unsecured border, 

victims of not enforcing our immigration laws. The truth is tragedies have occurred as a result of our insecure borders, tragedies 

that could have been prevented. 

Going down another list, not in my opening statement, drug cartels and coyotes use minors to avoid prosecution. Unaccompanied 

children have been trafficked into sex trade and involuntary servitude. Drug cartels are as, if not more, brutal and depraved than 

the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). 

Aerostats, good technology, but as we found out on one of our 

trips down to the border, they are not real good in wind, and so 

in certain areas, they can only operate about 40 percent of the 

time. 

We had an incredibly interesting hearing—and this is something 

I am a big supporter of—to quadruple or quintuple the use of dogs 

because no technology can beat the nose of a dog. 

In Brooks County on one of our trips, we found out that 435 

deaths of people who crossed into the country illegally occurred just 

in the last 5 years. It is a very dangerous journey. We need to try 

to disincentivize people from making that dangerous journey. 

Drug use is not a victimless crime. It has given rise to the drug 

cartels. Those drug cartels traffic little girls. We were down in Guatemala, and we went to one of those shelters, Senator Heitkamp, 

Senator Carper, and Senator Peters. I think the average age was 

14. So, it is not a victimless crime. I think we all realize that. But, 

unfortunately, we need to understand the responsibility we bear 

because of our insatiable demand for drugs. 

That is just a list. I do not want to keep droning on here, but 

we have learned an awful lot in 22 hearings. I think we are going 

to learn a lot more today. And, as Senator McCaskill said in yesterday’s hearing, I do not think there is one United States Senator 

who does not believe we need a secure border. So let us start there, 

with that area of agreement. We share that goal. We want to secure our border. We want to keep the folks that we represent in 

our States, safe and secure. Now we have to figure out the details. 

Again, I want to welcome General Kelly, and I will also turn it 

over to Senator McCaskill. 
249 

1The prepared statement of Senator McCaskill appears in the Appendix on page 296. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL1

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Kelly, thank you so much for being here today. We are 

cognizant of the demands on your time, and part of our goal—and 

the Chairman and I agree on this—is trying to be careful about 

what we ask for and how much we ask for. But. we have to ask 

for stuff because our job is oversight. But, we are aware that you 

are being pulled a lot of different ways. That is why we look forward to you getting the full team in place so we can begin to have 

some of the people in charge in your operation come and answer 

some of these difficult policy and oversight questions. 

You and I have worked together on the Armed Services Committee. I am a fan of how you have served as a Marine and a general, and no one can question the sacrifices you have made for our 

Nation. Ever since your confirmation, I have considered you a voice 

of reason within the Administration. You have displayed throughout your career a willingness to speak truth to power, to say no 

rather than nodding, and have made your decisions based on the 

facts, not political expediency. 

Those characteristics are needed now more than ever. I am 

counting on you to speak truth to this Administration and to the 

President. But, I am also asking you to speak to us and the American people. Even though it may not seem like it, we are now 3 

months into the new Administration. I know that you want time 

to settle in, and you need help to do your job. We are pleased that 

we confirmed Elaine Duke yesterday. I think she will be a terrific 

addition to your Department. And, by the way, I secured her vote 

tally, the original. I was going to bring it this morning and I forgot, 

but I will make sure I get that to her so she can have it to frame 

for her office. 

We have two Executive Orders (EO) that ban travel from Muslim 

majority nations. The first was implemented without notice and 

caused chaos at our Nation’s airports. Both have come under immediate constitutional scrutiny by the courts. The Department has 

overhauled its interior enforcement, in the words of the White 

House, to ‘‘take the shackles off’’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Border Patrol. You have ordered the Department to ‘‘immediately begin planning, design, construction, and 

maintenance of a wall’’ along the border. Even though Missouri is 

not on the border, my State is directly affected by it. The drugs 

that get through the Mexican border have a huge impact on the 

opioid crisis that is gripping my State and the entire Nation. It is 

causing death and destruction to families all over the United 

States. 

I know you share my concern about drugs coming over the border, but I am deeply concerned that all of the rhetoric and all of 

the budget requests have focused on the border and not the ports 

of entry, that there is no plan to increase resources at the ports of 

entry, which we know, along with the mail, is the primary place 

that drugs are coming into our country. I certainly hope that we 

have a chance to address that today. 
250 

Away from the border, I am concerned about the Secret Service 

and the unprecedented challenge of protecting the President and 

his family at numerous locations: the White House, Trump Tower, 

and Mar-a-Lago, as well as the international travel by the President’s sons. In the meantime, the Secret Service is reviewing incidents that have threatened the physical security of the White 

House, including a case in March where a fence jumper was able 

to elude security and roam the grounds for 15 minutes. 

I am deeply concerned that the Secret Service is being stretched 

to its breaking point. And, just yesterday, I read news reports that 

the extreme vetting procedures that the President has ordered 

could force visa applicants from places like Australia and Japan 

and the United Kingdom (U.K.) to disclose not only all the information on their mobile phones, social media passwords, financial 

records, even to answer questions about their beliefs. 

I have to tell you, if my family was traveling to the United Kingdom and they told me that we would have to answer questions 

about my beliefs to get into the country, we would not go. And, I 

have a hard time imagining those countries would see us as their 

friends. I think this has a profound impact on our standing in the 

world, a profound impact on the nature of our alliances around the 

world, and a profound impact on our national security. And, I will 

ask questions about that today, as I indicated to you in our conversation yesterday, because I think we are doing things that in no 

way as a former prosecutor trips up the bad guys but changes our 

image forever in the eyes of the world, permanent and irreparable 

harm occurring. 

Secretary Kelly, we have been trying to ask questions about policies and problems like these to your Department, and there have 

been times it has been very difficult to get answers. I am willing 

to do a reset and check that off as you not having all hands on 

deck, but going forward, I hope that together the Chairman and I 

can work to make sure that we have witnesses from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) answer some of the questions 

that need to be answered. And, frankly, I think it works to the benefit of your Department because if you are not here explaining, 

then assumptions can be made that sometimes are unfair. So, 

going forward, I hope that we have a new beginning as it relates 

to not only getting questions answered but also having witnesses 

at hearings. 

I am glad you are here today. There are a lot of important issues 

before us, and I have a lot of questions. I hope we can count on 

you and your Department being willing to answer them going forward. Thank you very much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. I would 

point out that General Kelly has already made himself available 

for a secure briefing and now he is here already in early April. So 

I certainly appreciate his willingness to testify. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So do I. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Secretary Kelly, we do have a tradition in 

this Committee to swear in witnesses, so if you will please rise and 

raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will 

give before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and 

nothing but the truth, so help you, God? 
251 

1The prepared statement of Secretary Kelly appears in the Appendix on page 301. 

Secretary KELLY. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Please be seated. 

Secretary John F. Kelly, General Kelly, was confirmed to be the 

fifth Secretary of Homeland Security on January 20, 2017. He previously served as United States Marine Corps (USMC) General and 

commander of the United States Southern Command 

(USSOUTHCOM). Less than a year after retiring from the Marine 

Corps, Secretary Kelly once again answered the call to serve the 

Nation and the American people by leading the Department of 

Homeland Security. 

General, we thank you for your service, past, present, and future, 

and we look forward to your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN F. KELLY,1

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary KELLY. Well, thank you, Chairman, and certainly 

Ranking Member McCaskill, all of the Members of the Committee. 

It is really an honor to be here. I will make myself available anytime by phone, by drop-in. 

Just recently, I met just yesterday with the entire Hispanic Caucus on the House side, a week prior to that with the entire Democratic Caucus on the House side. I have met with the Democratic 

Caucus on this side last week, and I think I am scheduled to speak 

with the Republicans. So, any time, any place, happy to do it. Just 

need a little notice. 

Since unexpectfully taking on this assignment nearly 3 months 

ago, I have learned two very important lessons vis-a-vis the Department of Homeland Security and the defense of the homeland. 

The first is that the men and women of my Department are incredibly talented and devoted public servants who serve the Nation in 

very special ways. In particular are those who uphold the laws this 

institution, Congress, passes by way of the democratic process. It 

goes without saying the United States Coast Guard (USCG), supremely effective in their lane, one of the five military services of 

our country, they just happen to be lucky enough to be in the Department of Homeland Security. 

Then there are the incredibly dedicated Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, who have taken on the task of enforcing, 

again, the laws you have passed, and they do that in the interior 

of our country. They do it humanely, professionally, and always according to the law. 

The ICE team also includes the amazingly effective investigators 

of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), who are second to none 

in their investigative effectiveness. 

Then there are the professionals of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), who, among many other functions, are the first and last 

line of defense, depending on how you look at it, doing the essential 

and often dangerous work of defending the borders. They are out 

there day and night, 24/7, suffering the heat of an Arizona summer 

or the deadly cold of a Montana winter. 

Third, another group, the Secret Service, as you mentioned, Senator McCaskill, I want to highlight them, both the agents as well 
252 

as the uniformed force. They routinely work, and are overworked, 

to protect not only U.S. Government officials but foreign dignitaries 

as well. They are amazing public servants dedicated to taking a 

bullet and giving their life for people that they do not even know. 

Then there is the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 

who ensure the security of, among other things, the traveling public, aviation traveling public. TSA enjoys little credit as the work 

they have been ordered to do and complete by the laws of this Nation bring them in direct contact with a public that has little tolerance for minor inconveniences. Again, all of this required by the 

law. This same public forgets that the alternative to what the TSA 

does at our airports is possibly dying in a fireball falling from 

30,000 feet. They are heroes. They do their effectively, and they 

work very hard at improving their performance. 

The second lesson I have come to realize is what homeland security means. We must no longer think about the defense of the Nation in terms of defense and nondefensive initiatives and funding. 

In the world in which we live and the relentless and accumulating 

threats directed against our Nation and our way of life, we must 

adjust our thinking to think about security and non-security, which 

requires an increased melding of the thinking of the Departments 

of Defense (DOD) and Homeland Security. Secretary Mattis and his 

superb team fight the away game. They do it effectively every day. 

The equally superb men and women of Homeland Security that I 

am in charge of fight the home game. The defense of the homeland 

starts with allies and partners willing to fight the fight in places 

like Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan while standing ready in Europe, 

Asia, and South Asia. 

Closer to home and winning the home game, it is all about increasing the partnership with willing and reliable friends like Colombia, Mexico, Canada, indeed, all of the nations of this hemisphere and around the globe. 

Securing a nation’s border is the primary responsibility of any 

sovereign nation. To those of us who serve the Nation as part of 

DHS, this is nonnegotiable and sacred. Yet for a decade, the Federal Government, in spite of passing one law after another to do 

just that, has not lived up to its promise to the American people. 

President Trump in the early days of his Administration issued Executive Orders and focused interest on this very issue and tasked 

me to accomplish it. Various Executive Orders have been put out 

there, some of them effectively, some of them not so effectively, but 

all of them worth adhering to once the courts finish with their rulings. 

But, what has happened in the last 90 days or so, we have seen 

an absolutely amazing drop in the number of migrants coming out 

of Central America that are taking that terribly dangerous route 

from Central America into the United States. In particular, we 

have seen a dramatic reduction in the number of families and the 

number of children that are in that pipeline. It will not last. It will 

not last unless we do something, again, to secure the border. 

The wall or physical barrier, something to secure our border, you 

all know that we are looking at that. In fact, I think the proposals 

closed out yesterday. What it will look like, how tall it will be, how 

thick it will be, what color it will be is yet to be determined. All 
253 

we know is that physical barriers do work if they are put in the 

right places. And, of course, I have already pulsed the men and 

women that work the border, CBP. They know exactly where they 

want the wall, and they know exactly how long the wall should be 

in their sector. 

They are also quick to point out that if they cannot have a wall 

from sea to shining sea, at least give them the wall, the physical 

barrier, the technology, that will do the job for them in the locations where they have identified to me, and we will do that. 

Before I would conclude, I would like to highlight to the Committee and the American people to a relentless threat that thankfully we have stayed probably two or three steps ahead of over the 

years. I talk of those who would do us harm primarily operating 

out of the Middle East, and they are unyielding in their attempt 

to destroy commercial passenger aircraft in flight. 

In response to this threat, DHS personnel, primarily from TSA 

and CBP, are deployed in the thousands overseas, working with 

airports, air carriers, and intelligence and law enforcement partners to deny the terrorists’ attempt to kill the innocent in the 

largest numbers possible to make some sick statement. As I say, 

we—the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security 

Agency (NSA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Office of the 

Director of National Intelligence (DNI), DOD, Department of Interior (DOI), Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Transportation (DOT), and DHS, and all of our international partners—have 

been successful thus far. 

I recently made several decisions that added additional baggage 

protocols at a number of foreign airports that fly flights directly to 

the United States. This decision was not—and I repeat not—about 

the Muslim religion, anyone’s skin color, or ethnicity, but to impact 

the bottom line of foreign air carriers to the benefit of U.S. air carriers. My decisions were based entirely on saving lives and protecting the homeland. If we cannot get our arms around the current threat, you can expect additional protocol adjustments in the 

very near future. 

I will end by saying I thank you so very much for the support 

you gave Elaine Duke, the fact that she is now confirmed, and with 

any kind of luck, I will return to my building after this meeting 

or after this Committee, swear her in, and put a very heavy pack 

on her back, fill it up with a lot of rocks, and make the Department 

of Homeland Security better than it already is. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, I stand by for 

questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. She ought to be looking forward to that. 

Secretary Kelly, let me start. You talked about the study on the 

border barriers. Can you just tell me in a little more detail the status of that as well as any surprises in terms of the initial results 

of that? 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, sir. We know that a physical barrier 

works. The parts of the border that have physical barrier now, 

roughly 650 miles, built some years ago, in those sectors it works. 

There are other places along the border—and, again, the professionals in CBP, if you walk the terrain—and I know some of you 

have—will tell your boss, if you can give me 27 more miles here, 
254 

16 more miles here, I do not really care about the other 140 miles 

I am responsible for, but I need something that works and to deflect the flow of people, primarily bad actors, and people, not all of 

whom are bad actors, people who are coming to the United States 

for various reasons, to primarily deflect them away from the cities. 

The idea with the coyotes and the traffickers, to get them as close 

to a city, cross over as close to a city as possible, get them into the 

city where they disappear. So, if you can deflect them away from 

the city, then it is easier to pick them up and return them, whether 

they are Mexican or whatever. And, it is actually safer in many 

ways. 

Last year, I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 4,500 neardeath individuals were saved by CBP primarily out in the desert, 

and, unfortunately, unknown specific numbers but some several 

hundred lost their lives in this attempt to get across the border. 

And, that is on our border. There is no telling how many—in addition to the rapes and the assaults and the abuse that they take in 

the network flowing up through Mexico, not done by the Mexicans 

but by the coyotes, the traffickers, there is no way to tell how many 

of those people lose their lives. But, the point is it is a very dangerous trip. 

The barriers work. Technology also works. But, all of it does not 

work at all unless you have men and women who are willing to patrol the border, develop relationships, which they do with their 

Mexican counterparts directly across the border. But, that is where 

we are right now. There is no way I could give the Committee an 

estimate of how much this will cost. I do not know what it will be 

made of. I do not know how high it will be. I do not know if it is 

going to have solar panels on the side and what one side is going 

to look like and how it is going to be painted. I have no idea. So, 

I cannot give you any type of an estimate. 

I will say this, that it is unlikely that we will build a wall or 

physical barrier from sea to shining sea, but it is very likely I am 

committed to putting it where the men and women say we should 

put it. 

Chairman JOHNSON. In your written testimony, the quote is you 

are going to ‘‘implement a full complement of solutions to meet border security requirements.’’ That is technology, that is manpower, 

that is going to be physical barriers. My assumption is you are 

going to target kind of a step-by-step basis and put walls and fencing in top priority areas where your border agents are telling you, 

correct? 

Secretary KELLY. Exactly right, Senator. 

Chairman JOHNSON. We had a hearing last week from the front 

lines with the heads of the unions from Border Patrol and the Office of Field Operations (OFO) and ICE. There were some real 

problems: The use of polygraphs, just way too high, rejection rate. 

Pay parity, Border Patrol saying once you go try and hire 10,000 

ICE agents, they are just going to steal them from Border Patrol 

because of the lack of parity. Just work schedules from OFO talking about how agents are working multiple days in a row, 16-hour 

shifts. 

So, can you just kind of address what you are finding out? We 

are going to try to do a very cooperative process with you, with the 
255 

White House, bipartisan—nonpartisan basis, really, and try to 

produce the oversight at the same time you are enacting the solutions. But, can you just kind of address those personnel issues? 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, Senator. This is going to be kind of a cinder block-size rock in Secretary Duke’s pack. One of the things my 

good friend Jeh Johnson started long before I obviously took this 

job was this unity-of-effort issue, to look at all of the Department 

that is still a fairly broken up and disparate organization, to look 

at all the Department, where it makes sense start to unify things, 

like acquisition, like pay. Even though it is my understanding that 

some of the pay problems in a couple of the unions—one of the 

unions, anyways, was actually negotiated that way by the union, 

it did not turn out so well, as I am informed. 

So, what we are going to do is turn that over to Elaine and look 

at all—the Secret Service falls into the same category, another kind 

of different pay scale, and there is a better way to do this. So, that 

unity of effort, we are going to really breathe some life into it. Jeh 

started it, a great thing. We are really going to finish it over the 

next year or so, or more, but find ways to do exactly what the Senator is suggesting, and that is, come up with better pay systems, 

better benefits. 

One of the things the CBP folks tend to migrate into ICE frequently is because they might be from, I do not know, the great 

State of Missouri, and they are working on the border in Arizona, 

and that is OK for a few years, but they want to maybe get back 

home. So, we will look at that, too, but that requires a lot of detail 

work, and I do not know what the exact number is in terms of a 

larger force, CBP particularly, well, ICE for that matter. And, for 

sure Secret Service needs to be bigger. For sure they need to be 

bigger. They are carrying a load that is almost crushing the individual agent, and we are going to fix that. 

But, to your point, sir, we will take on all of that and improve 

it, with your help. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK, yes, and we will want to work with you 

on that. I come from a manufacturing background, continuous shift 

operation. You need four shifts, and I would love to work with you 

and the agencies designing a proper shift that does not overburden 

the personnel. 

Just real quick, because you did raise this issue about the device 

searches. In fiscal year (FY) 2015, under the Obama Administration there were 8,500 devices searched, and they realized this is actually pretty effective. So, in 2016, they searched 23,877 devices. 

Can you just kind of talk about what—again, there is a big article, 

I think a lot of concern about that. Can you just allay some of those 

concerns and talk about really the effectiveness of why we should 

be doing this? 

Secretary KELLY. Roughly a million people a day come into the 

United States, either by land or by aviation, and of that million, 

one-half of 1 percent might have their devices looked at. Generally 

speaking, these would be foreigners anyways. In fact, in almost 

every case they would be foreigners. A large percentage would be 

foreigners. But, it is the normal process of coming into the country. 

And so, what do they look for? Frankly, a couple of examples I 

would give you. It is one of the ways they find these pedophiles. 
256 

And, the CBP people, in the course of interviewing travelers into 

the United States, will send people into secondary, for whatever 

reason—and there are a myriad of reasons they do this—will send 

people into secondary. Usually they are there for a short period of 

time. It might be to do—their passports look out of sync or something like that. Their stories do not match what the passport says. 

There is a myriad of reasons. 

But, some of those reasons revolve around men who are coming 

from certain parts of the globe that—what do they call it? ‘‘Sexual 

tourism,’’ I think, pedophiles anyway. So, that is one way we catch 

them. We go on, we look at their devices, and it is filled with child 

porn. That is one thing. 

Recently, we had—again, a couple of examples. We had an individual traveling here from a Middle Eastern country. During the 

process, the profiling, if you will, there was something not quite 

right about him matching up with what he was telling about his 

past, where he comes from, his passport. So, they put him in secondary. They looked, ran his contact numbers out of his telephone, 

and he was in contact with several—I will not go into it too deeply, 

but several well-known terrorists, traffickers, and organizers in the 

Middle East. They then looked at the pictures and saw a full display of gay men being thrown off of roofs and people being beheaded and all that. 

Now, we had no reason to hold him because he was not in any 

database, so we sent him back. That I think appeared shortly after 

that in the newspaper about how we were focusing on a Muslim 

male, and we did it because he was a Muslim and from the Arab 

part of the world. But, the point is there are reasons for it. 

But, to Senator McCaskill’s concerns, this is not routine. It is 

done in a very small number of cases. It will not be done routinely 

for people that are coming here from anywhere. It will not be done 

routinely from anywhere. But, if there is a reason to do it, we will, 

in fact, do it. But, whether it is France, Britain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Somalia, it will not be routinely done at the port of entry. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, General. Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. General, is the President OK with fencing 

instead of a wall? 

Secretary KELLY. The President has told me, ‘‘Kelly, go do it.’’ We 

need to protect the Southwest border in any way that that makes 

sense. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, he understands that—— 

Secretary KELLY. I have a lot of elbow room. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, he knows that we are not going to build 

a concrete wall, a 2,000-mile concrete wall? The President knows 

that, right? 

Secretary KELLY. The President knows that I am looking at 

every variation on the theme, and I have no doubt when I go back 

to him and say, ‘‘Boss, the wall makes sense here, high-tech fencing 

makes sense over here, technology makes sense over here,’’ I have 

no doubt that he will go tell me to do it. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And, can you provide to the Committee the 

request by the border chiefs for how many miles they are requesting of barrier? 

Secretary KELLY. Can I provide? Yes, ma’am. 
257 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes, I mean, you are going to ask every border chief for their sector, ‘‘How many miles do you need and 

where?’’ 

Secretary KELLY. Exactly right. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And, are you also going to ask them for 

their technology requests? 

Secretary KELLY. All of that will be part of—I mean, their input 

is absolute to what we are doing. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Right. Can we get those requests as soon as 

you receive them? 

Secretary KELLY. Absolutely. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Because I think it is really important. The 

sooner we stop this, ‘‘We are going to build a wall from sea to shining to sea and the Mexicans are going to pay for it’’—it is embarrassing. It is not going to happen. Everybody in Congress knows it 

is not going to happen. Every Republican knows it, every Democrat 

knows it. It appears the only person who will not say it out loud 

is the President of the United States, and it is embarrassing. I do 

not understand it. I mean, it makes no sense. And, frankly, the 

money we reprogrammed for the prototypes, the solicitation says no 

technology insertion is even a requirement of the prototype, and 

you know situational awareness is going to be key for these border 

chiefs. It does no good to build a big wall if they cannot see over 

it, because they are not able to respond to the ladder or to some 

kind of breach. 

And so, it is just frustrating to me. You get it. We all get it. But, 

the President is so stubborn and will not say to the American people, ‘‘We are going to use your money wisely, and we are going to 

protect the border in a way that makes sense. And, by the way, 

Mexico is not going to pay for it.’’ 

So, I urge you to speak truth to power in that regard. The sooner 

the President gets some credibility on this, I think the better off 

we all are, and I think it would make your job much easier. My 

two cents’ worth. 

And, by the way, you will get a lot of bipartisan support immediately for budget requests that are based on sound ideas about securing the border. I think the majority of the Senate—and I cannot 

speak to the House—is not going to sign a blank check for a wall 

that we know is never going to be built. So, the sooner we all get 

honest about this, I think the better off we are. 

On the extreme vetting, I get what you are saying that it will 

be applied to very few people. But, if it is the policy of our country 

to increase the questions asked for visa applications all over the 

world and to expose the 38 visa waiver countries to this possibility, 

it has a dramatic impact, and you have to understand, Secretary 

Kelly, that if they know we are going to look at their phones—I am 

talking about bad guys. I have had some experience with bad guys. 

If they know we are going to look at their phones and they know 

we are going to ask them questions about their ideology, they are 

going to get rid of their phones, and guess what they are going to 

do on ideology? They are going to lie. Are we going to use polygraphs? 

Secretary KELLY. We could not do that for all of the people that 

we currently put into secondary, no. But, your point is well taken 
258 

in terms of if we were doing these things routinely, but there are 

databases we look at that cause us to bring someone into secondary. Travel patterns—I would prefer not to go into it, but travel 

patterns tell us a lot about a person, and that would get someone 

to go into secondary. 

But, generally speaking, the average tourist coming into the 

United States is not going to have their—we are not going to ask 

them—they are not going to go into secondary. 

Senator MCCASKILL. But, we are going to tell them we might ask 

them about what they—I think the things that have been—was the 

article accurate that they are going to be asked how applicants 

view the treatment of women in society, whether they value the 

sanctity of human life, and who they view as a legitimate target 

in a military operation? Are we going to explain to all of our 

friends across the world that they could be questioned like that if 

they come into the United States? 

Secretary KELLY. I would not say those would be questions we 

would ask. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, this article is incorrect, that this is what 

is being considered? 

Secretary KELLY. Which article is it? 

Senator MCCASKILL. This was a Wall Street Journal article yesterday that said visitors to the United States could be forced to provide cell phone contacts, social media passwords, and answer questions about their ideology, according to Trump Administration officials. 

Secretary KELLY. those questions you have indicated are not 

questions that I think would be used in the secondary kind of questioning. Once again, I go back to very small numbers. It is effective 

to catch people. They are coming into the country, but they are not 

really here yet. So, if they do not want to cooperate, they can go 

back. 

Senator MCCASKILL. But are we not telling them what they need 

to do to get in? I mean, that is what is weird here. It seems to me 

we are signaling something that is very un-American to the rest of 

the world by announcing this policy. Every Ambassador in Washington read this article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, and 

every Ambassador in Washington called back to their country and 

said, ‘‘Listen to this. They are going to start asking people for their 

social media passwords and about their ideology in America.’’ That 

is incredibly damaging, and all the bad guys are going to like just 

lie. I do not get how we get anything out of it, except damage. 

Secretary KELLY. As I say, very small numbers, and we will go 

to those questions or request social media—and I am talking right 

now about at our airports and ports of entry. We will go in that 

direction when the professionals at the counter decide that there 

is a reason to go in that direction. But, the vast majority of people 

will not be questioned in that way. It is just like the vast majority 

of people that come in the country, foreigners, for that matter 

American citizens, we do not go into their luggage and inspect their 

luggage. It is the same kind of thing. We will do it when we think 

there is a reason to do it. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, as you can tell, my hair is on fire 

about this. I am really upset that America would be saying this to 
259 

the world. And, if this needs a classified briefing in terms of understanding better what the plans are and who would be pulled, and 

if somebody can explain to me how we get terrorists when they 

know all they got to do is lie to the questions, and buy a burner 

before they come to America? 

Secretary KELLY. I think you know, Senator, I mean, this is 

nothing new. We have been doing this, to the best of my knowledge, my staff tells me, for a number of years. 

Senator MCCASKILL. We have never announced that it is the policy of America that all foreign visitors to our country could be subjected to this kind of questioning and this kind of intrusion. 

Secretary KELLY. Questioning, again, I am not aware—the questions you recited are not questions that I am familiar with at all, 

and I do not—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. That is what I want to get to the bottom of. 

Secretary KELLY. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And, I will just tell you, Americans would 

never put up with this in other countries. If all of these countries 

sent a signal that if you come to our country—can you imagine a 

U.S. Senator saying, ‘‘Oh, yes, well, let us go to Japan, and they 

are going to take my phone for 3 days if they feel like it. And, they 

are going to ask for my social media passwords or I cannot go in.’’ 

Or, ‘‘They are going to ask me questions of my ideology.’’ I mean, 

can you imagine anybody in America wanting to go there? And, we 

do not want to send that signal. That is the essence of my questions, Secretary, and if you could follow up with us about how this 

is going to be applied and clarify it to the world that we welcome 

our friends to America, I think that would be very helpful. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. Again, I will 

just remind you, in fiscal year 2016, approximately 24,000 devices 

were searched, so this is not new. I think it is being somewhat 

blown out of proportion. 

Secretary KELLY. Mr. Chairman, if I could add to that, of the 

ones that were searched, a very small percentage are actually gone 

into forensically, if you will. It is essentially they turn it on, we 

would like to see the pictures. And, again, we find child pornography. We find really grisly photographs of terrorists acts. We are 

not sending these—we could if we want to, and in some small numbers we do, but we do not send them to a place to be forensically 

taken apart and—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. And, unfortunately, publicizing this does 

make it less effective. 

Senator Hoeven has graciously allowed the Chairman of Armed 

Services the slot ahead of him, so, Senator McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thanks, Senator Hoeven. 

You know what sets my hair on fire? The fact that we know that 

coming out of Raqqa are people that have been directed to come 

and get into the United States of America and commit acts of terror. Is that not true? 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. That sets my hair on fire. 

Secretary KELLY. That is absolutely true. 
260 

Senator MCCAIN. Does it set our hair on fire that there are now, 

we know, published reports, there are efforts at taking these devices and implanting explosives and committing acts of terror with 

this technology? Does that set your hair on fire? 

Secretary KELLY. It does, Senator. 

Senator MCCAIN. And, they are developing technology right now 

to put—one of the reasons why there has been some of the ban on 

what can be brought on an airliner sets my hair on fire right now. 

So, I am really worried about offending every Ambassador in 

Washington. That has always been one of my greatest concerns, is 

how they feel, and I certainly would not want to offend their feelings. But, the fact is that there are people being trained in Raqqa 

today that are leaving Raqqa and trying to get to the United States 

and use various devices to commit acts of terror in the United 

States of America. True? 

Secretary KELLY. It is true. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. So, maybe we ought to put a little 

perspective on this in our hysteria. 

Secretary KELLY. If I could add to it, Senator. 

Senator MCCAIN. Go ahead. 

Secretary KELLY. We know there are somewhat in the neighborhood of 10,000 European citizens who are in the fight, in the caliphate, Iraq and in Syria, and as that caliphate is being reduced, 

those individual fighters are being encouraged to return to Europe 

and do terrorist-type things. 

Now, in many cases, because of the nature of Europe and the 

borders and what-not, lack of borders, in many cases the countries 

where their citizens do not know that they have been out of the 

country fighting in Syria, to the point of visa waiver countries, so 

we are in a position now where someone who is in Raqqa today returns to—pick a country—and basically can get on—he is not in 

any database, and can get on an airplane and fly here under the 

Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and be in the United States, that does 

not keep me up at night too much, but it does keep me up. So, we 

are looking at visa waiver; we are looking at all kinds of ways to 

keep these people out. 

Senator MCCAIN. I want to make sure that we are not restricted 

from looking at anybody’s electronic device given the public information that we know of their attempts at trying to develop these 

capabilities in order to set off bombs. 

Also, by the way, I tell you what does set my hair on fire, and 

that is that we now have Phoenix, Arizona, as the major distribution point for Mexican-manufactured heroin coming into this country across the Sonoran border. Is that true? 

Secretary KELLY. It is true, Senator. 

Senator MCCAIN. And, it is killing people all over America, including some Governors in Northeastern and Midwestern States 

are saying it is an epidemic, particularly a group of Americans that 

I care about, and that is older white males. Is that right? 

Secretary KELLY. It is absolutely right. 

Senator MCCAIN. OK. So, we need to do one hell of a lot better 

job on this drug trafficking and human trafficking that is coming 

across our border. And, I am happy to tell you that I hear from my 
261 

friends on the Border Patrol who say their morale has gone up now 

that we have your kind of leadership. 

By the way, I am not sure you should have taken all that bullet 

for the travel ban, but that is a subject for another day. 

But, what are you going to do about—can you not interpret a 

wall the word ‘‘wall’’—as being drones, towers, fences, attempts at 

detecting—using technology to detect tunnels, to have really what 

is an electronic wall plus the personnel? Could that fit the definition of a wall and maybe stop this flood of Mexican-manufactured 

heroin that is flooding into this country and killing people at a very 

great rate, including the fentanyl which is particularly lethal? 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, sir. In my view, the wall is all of that. Just 

before you came in, we had this discussion. In my view, the wall 

is all of that. 

Senator MCCAIN. So if we interpret the law as that, I think most 

Americans would support it. 

Senator MCCASKILL. True. 

Senator MCCAIN. But, however, we have a problem with Mexico. 

Right now there is a lot of anti-American sentiment in Mexico. If 

the election were tomorrow in Mexico, you would probably get a 

left-wing, anti-American President of Mexico. That cannot be good 

for America. 

Secretary KELLY. It would not be good for America—or for Mexico. 

Senator MCCAIN. OK. Then, finally, would you just tell us a little 

bit about—and I thank the indulgence of my colleagues—what kind 

of cooperation are you getting from the Mexican authorities and 

what kind of cooperation are you not getting? 

Secretary KELLY. We are getting a huge amount of cooperation 

from the Mexicans. Senator, I go back to my time when I was in 

uniform at SOUTHCOM, very good relationships with the Mexicans, both on their Southern border where they stopped 160,000 illegal immigrants from Central America last year, all the way up 

to the Northern border. The relationship between the local authorities on our side of the border is pretty good with the local authorities on the other side. I count some of the—certainly, the head of 

the army and the navy as friends. I was down there about a month 

and a half ago, had a great meeting, all the way up through with 

the President. 

Senator MCCAIN. How serious is the corruption? 

Secretary KELLY. Corruption is very widespread, and much of 

that is due to the profits that come out of the drug use in the 

United States. There is no doubt it, corruption is widespread. They 

are trying to get after that. It is a dangerous place because of the 

corruption and the trafficking, most of it fueled by U.S. drug consumption. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, the heartbreaking one to me is the 

human trafficking, Mr. Secretary, and I wish all Americans were 

aware of how terrible this situation is, these young girls being 

transported up, hooked on drugs. It is so terrible, a lot of times we 

do not like to think about it. How high is that on your priority list? 

Secretary KELLY. Very high. In fact, the good news is for really 

the fifth month in a row, but certainly the second big month in a 

row, the movement of—the human trafficking of people in general 
262 

is down significantly, and to your point, young girls in particular 

in the family units down even more significantly. And, that is all 

as a result of what we have started to do on the border and, frankly, my working personally with the Central American Presidents, 

attorneys general (AG), religious leaders, and with our relationship 

with Mexico. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, the next time you do a travel ban, how 

about thinking it through? Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Hoeven. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HOEVEN 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Kelly, good to see you again. Thank you for being here. 

Secretary KELLY. Sure. 

Senator HOEVEN. And, thanks for the important work you are 

doing. In terms of the mix, we are talking about infrastructure, we 

are talking about technology, we are talking about people. How do 

you make sure you have the right mix as you put that together? 

Secretary KELLY. On the wall? 

Senator HOEVEN. Yes. 

Secretary KELLY. We really have to rely on the folks that work 

the border. The younger agents are down there doing the scut work 

every day, but some of the more senior agents, they know the border and their sector better than anyone, and they can tell us. And, 

we will do that study. 

Senator HOEVEN. I am a member of the Appropriations Committee for Homeland Security, and we are putting together your 

appropriation for fiscal year 2017, and then, of course, we will work 

on 2018. So, it is very important that we have the resources. When 

we talk about building a wall, as you have defined, that wall is not 

only a wall itself and fencing, but it is also technology and people. 

It is very important that we have that funding in your appropriation bill for fiscal year 2017, is it not, to secure the country? That 

would be an incredibly important priority for you, would it not? 

Secretary KELLY. It is, yes, sir. 

Senator HOEVEN. OK. Thank you. The second thing is metrics. 

What metrics are most important? You provide us with some 

metrics here. We appreciate that. It is encouraging. It shows that 

you are having success. Tell us, what are the most important 

metrics that we need to be cognizant of? And then, how do we use 

them to make sure that the American people understand what is 

going on on the border and, that we are getting to a more secure 

border? 

Secretary KELLY. I think certainly the metrics are people that do 

not cross into the United States illegally. Another metric would be 

the amount of—and it mostly comes through the ports of entry, 

which is another discussion that we can certainly have here, but 

the amount of drugs that come through. But, as I said so many 

times when I was in the United States Southern Command, once 

the drugs get to Mexico, Central America/Mexico, they are essentially in unless we do something about the border. 

Now, I think the Senator knows virtually all of the heroin consumed in the United States is produced in Mexico, from poppy to 

laboratory to packaging to in the United States. All of the cocaine 
263 

that we consume comes up the same way. Much of the methamphetamine comes up the same way. An awful lot of opiate pills 

that are counterfeit—the counterfeit pills come up through that, 

fentanyl largely through Mexico but now increasingly directly from 

China to the United States by the U.S. Mail. It is an unending 

struggle, but it really does go back to—and I was just at a meeting 

last week or early this week—last week now, with the President 

and a number of people to get after this drug consumption in the 

United States. One of the first conversations I had with then Candidate Trump was when he brought up to me the issue of securing 

the Southern border. I said, ‘‘Boss, Mr. Trump, there is no way we 

are going to do that unless we get after drug consumption in the 

United States.’’ And, I do not mean arresting more African American guys and throwing them in jail for dealing. I mean, no kidding, a comprehensive drug demand reduction. 

Mr. Trump has taken that on and has put together a task force, 

so from rehab to law enforcement to try to stop the production in 

Mexico, all of that adds up to we will have a much more secure border if we can stop the drug demand in the United States. And, we 

have never had—some States have, some communities have, several organizations have tried, but we have never had a comprehensive campaign against it. 

Senator HOEVEN. As we increasingly secure the Southern border, 

would that not put more pressure on the Northern border and 

other ports of entry? 

Secretary KELLY. On other ports of entry for sure. The beauty of 

the Northern border is Canada. I mean, they are committed, to say 

the least. They have very low rates of corruption. They have tremendous law enforcement, and our partnership with them just 

could not be stronger. So, that is the advantage, and I hope over 

time Mexico—and, again, the strains on the Mexican society, the 

violence, again corruption, we can hope that that gets better. They 

are trying. My relationship with senior—in fact, right after this I 

will meet again, for about the fourth or fifth time, with a good 

friend who is the foreign minister of Mexico. I just had the military 

leadership, which play a different role in their society than our senior military people do. My HSI people, my CBP people, my ICE 

people are in Mexico in large numbers, as is the FBI. The collaboration is very good, law enforcement. It is just not—— 

Senator HOEVEN. But, you would agree we need to do more on 

the Northern border as well, and what are those security measures? Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), for example? Sensors? 

What are the priorities on the Northern border for you? 

Secretary KELLY. Well, right now there is not nearly the same 

level of cross-border crime and what-not. We obviously need to 

watch it. One of the things the Canadians recently did was to allow 

visa travel—non-visa—Mexicans to travel to Canada without visas, 

and we are seeing a little bit of an increase in Mexicans coming 

illegally into the United States from the north. We are working 

with them. I am on the phone with my counterparts in places like 

Canada all the time. 

But, we obviously have to watch the threat. I mean, if we were 

successful in drying up the production of heroin in, say, Mexico, 

probably impossible—— 
264 

Senator HOEVEN. I am not talking just drugs. I am talking terrorism, I am talking any—as you continue to secure the Southern 

border, it is going to create pressure in other places, and that is 

why we want to make sure that we are taking the necessary steps 

on the Northern border as well. And, I would invite you to—at the 

Pembina border station, which is essentially Grand Forks, North 

Dakota, your border station there, they have responsibility for 900 

miles of border, all the way from the Great Lakes through most of 

Montana. And, we are using everything from Predators, the Grand 

Forks Air Force Base there has Global Hawk. In fact, we have a 

UAS test site, and the CBP station, they fly out of Grand Forks 

Air Force Base. And, I would invite you to come up and see the 

technology. You talk about cooperation with the Canadians and 

also use it as an opportunity to build on some of that cooperation 

with the Canadians, because you are talking 900 miles of border 

without a fence. We are going to have to continue to build those 

relations and that technology to do the job. And, I hope you would 

come see what we are doing there. 

Secretary KELLY. Absolutely. I will do that, Senator. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you. Appreciate it. 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, sir. 

Senator PORTMAN. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Hoeven. Senator Heitkamp. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you. I did not want to disappoint anyone, so I am going to raise the Northern border in the very beginning. 

Obviously, the law that was passed requires that you meet a 

June deadline for telling us what the threats are and how you are 

going to secure the Northern border. Can you tell me whether you 

are on target to meet that June deadline? 

Secretary KELLY. We are always on target. I was just up in Seattle and met with the local law enforcement folks. I have been on 

the phone a number of times on REAL ID with the Governor up 

there, so we have a little bit of a relationship. But, more importantly, I talked to my people that are responsible for that stretch 

from the Pacific inland for about 650 miles, something like that. 

They have, again, great relations with their counterparts on the 

other side of the border. The real strength is the databases. 

Senator HEITKAMP. So, we can expect a report in June which 

then we can react to in the next budgetary time period, correct? 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, Senator. Yes. 

Senator HEITKAMP. OK. I just want to remind you that 8 of the 

15 Senators actually represent the Northern border. 

Secretary KELLY. That has my attention, believe me. I love the 

Northern border. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I did not think it escaped your attention. 

And, obviously, we would love to host you. I am deeply concerned 

about personnel issues on the Northern border and hope that whatever you are looking at in that study includes securing enough personnel to do the job and to meet the challenges. 

I want to talk a little bit about Central America. It is a topic that 

I know you are well familiar with, and it was one of, I think, the 
265 

great opportunities that we had given your position in Southern 

Command and given the fact that you have so many great relationships. We continue to be challenged by the Northern Triangle countries. The rate of murder and mayhem is unparalleled throughout 

the world, which is really saying something. We are looking at the 

Alliance for Progress as a way to kind of build that soft power, not 

just look at border security but how can we, in fact, refugee in 

place. 

It is my understanding that you are convening a conference in 

Miami. One of the concerns that I have is who is going to all be 

at the table, because I think it is critically important that everyone 

be represented, whether it is NGO’s, whether it is immigration 

groups, whether it is advocacy groups, that we all understand that 

we have a role in securing—providing some security for those Central American countries. 

Can you tell me what the plan is and what you hope to accomplish in the Miami conference? 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, Senator. First, I would tell you that I am 

close to the Central Americans. In the short period of time I have 

been in the job, I have been down to Guatemala. The President of 

Honduras was just up in my office. He is someone that I have 

worked closely with before. I am going to Honduras soon. I have 

been to Mexico since I have been in this job and met Mr. Tillerson 

there, Secretary Tillerson there. So, I have met all three from the 

northern tier countries—Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. 

All three of their attorneys general came, and we had great discussions—again, friends. Mr. Videgaray is in and out of Washington 

quite frequently. I plan another trip to Mexico. So, that is where 

we are in terms of what we have been doing there. 

Now, when I briefed, when I had discussions with Mr. Trump, 

when he was still Mr. Trump, I talked to him about the issue, 

again, of drug use in the United States, drug trafficking, what that 

does to these countries. But, some of the things—and I will take 

a little credit—not much but a little credit for this. Some of the 

things, when I was still on active duty in Southern Command, 

some of the things we helped the northern tier countries implement 

have driven down. Now, the death rates are still horrific. 

Senator HEITKAMP. So, what do you hope to accomplish in Miami 

and who—— 

Secretary KELLY. It will be a 2-day conference. One day will be 

economic. We have certainly one of the real powers behind this is 

the Inter-American Development Bank. EU will be there, is my understanding, some European countries. Obviously, we will have— 

I am hoping to have the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of 

Treasury. I will be there; the Vice President, our Vice President, 

is coming down. There will be businessmen and—women. I believe 

all three of the Central American Presidents and their teams will 

be there for this. I have the Canadian—the Mexicans will co-host 

this. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Will you be reviewing the Alliance for 

Progress and whether that has been valuable and what changes we 

need to make as it relates to that commitment? 

Secretary KELLY. The Alliance for Prosperity—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. Prosperity, I mean. Excuse me. 
266 

1The letter referenced by Senator Heitkamp appears in the Appendix on page 334. 

Secretary KELLY. Prosperity, right. And, I could go into it if you 

want, but I would just say that I had a lot to do with organizing 

that with the three countries. They have put their own money 

against it. We, you, the Congress has put money against it. The 

real thrust of this event in Miami in mid-June, I think, will be outside investment as opposed to U.S. investment. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Right. 

Secretary KELLY. Although outside private investment. So, that 

is what we are trying to accomplish—that is what we will accomplish. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I think there are tons of folks who want to 

help out, in the NGO community especially, and I think that it 

takes me to the kind of next topic, which is why people are leaving 

Central America. And, I would say there has been a lot of confusion 

back and forth on what is going to happen to women coming to the 

border with children from Central American countries. 

Just a quick yes or no. There have been reports that you are considering separating children from their mothers at the border, and 

I want to know, yes or no, whether that is true. 

Secretary KELLY. Can I give you more than a yes or no? 

Senator HEITKAMP. You can just a little bit. 

Secretary KELLY. OK. Only if the situation at that point in time 

requires it. If the mother is sick or addicted to drugs or whatever. 

In the same way we would do it here in the United States, not routinely. 

Senator HEITKAMP. So if you thought that a child was endangered? 

Secretary KELLY. Sure. 

Senator HEITKAMP That is the only circumstance to which you 

would separate—— 

Secretary KELLY. I cannot imagine doing it otherwise. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yes, I just want to—I know a lot of people 

think that that might provide a deterrent, and we have a number 

of people within the Heartland Alliance program, and I would ask 

that this letter—and I know you get a lot of correspondence, obviously, sent to you—March 8th—but it is some comments from 

women who—I ask that this be put in the record.1

Chairman JOHNSON [Presiding.] Without objection. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I just want to read a couple of them because 

I think it is really important to understand what is driving people 

north. 

‘‘My faith was in God when I made the decision to leave. I had 

never heard of asylum. All I knew was that the United States was 

a place where people could be protected and safe.’’ 

‘‘I came to the United States. I did not think about the policies. 

I was just considering that the United States is the thing that 

could protect us from violence where we were living.’’ 

I think you know almost better than anyone else who serves in 

this Administration how horrific the conditions are. And, I appreciate your answer, and no one could disagree that if a child is in 

danger and you believe that, that there should be separation and 
267 

that that would be a rare circumstance. Is that correct, General 

Kelly? 

Secretary KELLY. That is, yes. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Secretary. 

Secretary KELLY. That is a yes. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, it is good to see 

you, Secretary Kelly. It is good to have you here before the Committee. I appreciate your testimony and also wanted to thank you 

again publicly for coming to Detroit upon my invitation and spending some time with the Muslim American/Arab American community, Latino/Hispanic community, and, of course, we had a wonderful opportunity to see firsthand one of the busiest border crossings 

in North America there, from Detroit to Windsor into Canada, and 

I appreciate your interest and your involvement in that meeting. 

But as you know, Secretary Kelly, there has been an appreciable 

uptick in hate crimes and crimes against religious institutions 

across the country. Last month, Senator Portman and I led a letter 

that was signed by every single Member of the Senate asking your 

Department, the DOJ, and FBI to take action against the rise in 

hate crimes against Jewish community centers, mosques, and other 

religiously associated locations. And, as you are aware, it is rare 

to have a letter signed by all 100 of us. This is how serious we take 

it. 

It has been about 29 days since the letter has been written to 

you, the Attorney General, and the FBI, and I was just wondering 

when should we expect a response back to all my colleagues. 

Secretary KELLY. It should have been a long time ago. I will 

apologize, and I am on it. But, I will tell you this, that I have 

added our approach to this issue to add mosques and any religious 

building, church, whatever, that might be affected by this. 

We do have some capability within the Department to advise individuals that want to be advised about, say, security precautions. 

I think my staff told me yesterday virtually all of the Jewish centers, large groups, have taken that advice. We have teams that go 

out and travel. So, we are very—I do not know if any of the 

mosques have responded yet, but as I say, I add all religious communities to that, not just—I have told my people let us just not 

talk one religion, let us just not talk terrorism, for that matter. 

How about we talk about white supremacists and things like that? 

But, I apologize for not getting back, and I will get on that today. 

Senator PETERS. Well, I appreciate that, Secretary. And, I think 

it is obvious from your comments you do believe there is a legitimate fear of hate crimes. In our communities that they need to be 

concerned about. 

Secretary KELLY. I do. 

Senator PETERS And, given that, will you commit to continued 

support for programs that support vulnerable locations such as the 

nonprofit security grant program that your Department runs? 

Secretary KELLY. I will. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you. I appreciate that, Secretary. 
268 

As you know, Michigan has an extension of the REAL ID enforcement allowing Federal Agencies to accept driver’s licenses and 

identification cards from Michigan. It runs through October 10, of 

this year, in 2017. What is the current status of REAL ID implementation across the Nation? 

Secretary KELLY. As I know the Senator knows, the REAL ID 

law was passed by Congress in 2005, and the real first big deadline 

is this January coming, I think it is the 22nd, to where you will 

have to have an appropriate REAL ID, approved REAL ID, or if 

you do not have that, something like a passport, in order to fly domestically and internationally. 

The map—and I addressed most of the Governors of all of the 

States, I think 48 of the States, about 3 weeks ago, and for those 

that are not compliant—and there are right now I think five that 

for sure are not even really trying, and that is their call. I mean, 

I am not criticizing them, but they are not really trying for issues 

inside the State, and then there are another 18 or 19 States that 

are going in the direction but, again, are unsure if they could be 

compliant. So, when I talked to the Governors—and I would say 

the same thing here—I think the Governors have to kind of have 

a real serious conversation with their citizens, with their staffs 

first, and decide whether they can hit the mark in January; and 

if they cannot, to have a conversation with their citizens about you 

really need to consider getting a passport, as an example. A passport is for 10 years, $110 I think to get a passport, very easy to 

get. Because in January, if they do not have some compliant ID, 

they are not going to be able to get on an airplane, domestically 

or otherwise. 

This scared me to death, actually, because I thought that the 

people I was talking to in Washington, which is really a red State 

right now, probably not going to get there. And, by the way, the 

Governors, several Governors have asked me to send out some people from my staff to take a look at where they are, to do an appraisal of if they are going to make it, so then they can talk to 

their people. And, I have made that available to all the States. 

But, the point is when I was talking to these businessmen 

and—women in Seattle who were, very well informed people, they 

were all under the impression that their State-enhanced driver’s license was REAL ID compatible, which it is not. So, if people like 

that were unaware of the ID situation, I would say the vast majority of the good citizens of Washington State. So, the point is where 

it is right now, if you are not fully compliant, on the 22nd of January coming then you will have to have a form of ID like a military 

ID or a passport, passport card, in order to get on an airplane. 

That is where it is right now. 

Senator PETERS. Under Section 102 of the REAL ID Act, the 

DHS can waive laws to facilitate the construction of a border wall. 

This provision has been used previously to waive dozens of laws, 

including some environmental laws. What laws does DHS intend to 

waive to build this new wall along the Southern border? 

Secretary KELLY. First, obviously, do the nuts-and-bolts survey of 

where we are going to put wall, and at those points, as I understand it—and I would have to consult my lawyers, obviously, but 

places like the Indian reservation would be complicated. We are 
269 

1The correction to Mr. Kelly remarks appear in the Appendix on page 346. 

working with the Indian reservation in Arizona, 75 miles of the 

border. They already have some technology there. That would be 

a place that would be unwilling, unlikely to take on. There are 

some eminent domain issues. We will try to do as much as we can 

without those kind of issues coming to a head. Certainly, I am very 

aware of any critical habitat, particularly say in the Big Bend part 

of Texas. 

So, again, Senator, not going to build a wall where it does not 

make sense, but we will do something across the Southwest border. 

Senator PETERS. Well, I understand you are going to need some 

time to review some of these issues, and perhaps we can work 

closely with your office as that goes forward. But, I would just ask 

if you would be willing to commit to one item, and that would be 

not to waive Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) under the wall 

project so that we can have full transparency. 

Secretary KELLY. Can I get back to you?1 But, it sounds like a 

yes to me. 

Senator PETERS. Great. Appreciate that. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Hassan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. And, good morning, Secretary Kelly. It is nice to see you again. 

There is a specific program within ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations Division that focuses on bringing law enforcement 

scrutiny to the adjudications of visa applications. The program is 

called the ‘‘Visa Security Program (VSP).’’ Right now, in 30 United 

States diplomatic posts around the world, specially trained law enforcement teams are dispatched to provide recommendations to the 

State Department’s consular offices in order to help these diplomats make informed decisions about whether to grant a visa to 

a foreign national. 

Bringing law enforcement skills to the visa adjudication process 

makes a lot of sense, at least to me—I hope it does to you, 

too—and it should probably be, I think, implemented across the 

board for all diplomatic posts that issue visas. 

We are working on possible legislation on this topic, so I wanted 

to ask two questions. Would you support the expansion of visa security teams to more diplomatic posts? And, is the visa security 

team fully funded in the fiscal year 2018 budget request? 

Secretary KELLY. I will have to check on the funding issue, but 

I think anything we can do overseas to make better decisions about 

who might come to the United States for whatever reason is a good 

idea and should be reinforced, and we should be constantly looking 

at even better ways to do that. But, I will get back to you on the 

funding, if that is all right. 

Senator HASSAN. OK. That is fine. Thank you. 

I want now to move to a different topic. As you know as well as 

anyone, we have seen multiple incidents of violence at the public 

or non-sterile areas of our airports. In 2013, a TSA officer at Los 

Angeles International Airport was murdered at the TSA checkpoint 

by a disturbed individual, while earlier this year an active shooter 
270 

1The question from Senator Hassan appears in the Appendix on page 425. 

killed five people near the baggage claim at the Fort Lauderdale 

airport. 

Last spring, suicide explosions that occurred in the public areas 

at Brussels airport and Istanbul Ataturk airport killed 61 people. 

Yet, in the President’s initial budget release, the Federal support 

for securing the public portions of airports has been gutted. The 

budget cuts the Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response 

(VIPR) teams, the behavioral detection officer program is eliminated, and TSA grants to reimburse State and local law enforcement for their patrols at airports are also being slashed. 

So, amid this increasing threat to our airports, why is the Administration cutting these key counterterrorism measures? 

Secretary KELLY. The VIPR teams for sure are something that I 

am working very hard to save. 

Senator HASSAN. OK. 

Secretary KELLY. As far as the grants go—and this does not fall 

under this sanctuary city thing or anything like that. I think the 

expectation is that parking lots in areas outside the immediate, 

TSA security zones really belong to the State and local—the airports are great generators of revenues necessary for various States, 

and I think the thinking there is that the State and local folks 

need to—I am familiar with the Boston airport. I mean, there is 

more State police that kind of cycle around that airport, not to 

mention Boston police. 

So, I think the thinking is that for outside the security perimeter 

that is established by TSA, that would belong more to the local 

community. 

Senator HASSAN. Well, as a former Governor, I might suggest 

that we discuss that a little bit more, because I know how much 

additional work securing even the non-sterile areas are. And, it is 

a partnership to be sure, but I am very concerned. Money is not 

growing on trees in our State budgets, and so I think it is something we really need to look at, because the overall security climate 

at airports I think will really be compromised with those grants. 

So, I would look forward to discussing that with you more. 

I will submit for the record a question on foreign airport staff 

screening.1

But, I did want to talk a little bit about DHS and cyber defenses. 

In an effort to strengthen its cyber defense, the Department of Defense recently launched two programs to capitalize on the vast network of U.S. computer security researchers who may not want to 

work for the Federal Government, but still want to help secure our 

Nation from cyber threats. The first was a pilot program called 

‘‘Hack the Pentagon,’’ and it provided hackers across the country 

with legal authorization to spot vulnerabilities in DOD networks in 

return for cash payments. 

The second program was the establishment of a vulnerability disclosure policy which provides a legal avenue for these hackers to 

hunt for and report vulnerabilities in DOD networks without fear 

of prosecution. 
271 

I think these are really forward-thinking cyber programs that leverage an untapped resource in the United States. So, the question 

is: Has DHS considered implementing similar programs? 

Secretary KELLY. One of the things—I do not know if the Senator 

was here. One of the things now that I have a Deputy—this is a 

critically important issue. It goes without saying. 

Senator HASSAN. Right. 

Secretary KELLY. Now that I have a Deputy, this is another one 

of those things, the whole cyber enterprise within DHS. But, another thing we are already doing, and that is, just one of the reasons I was in Seattle recently, is reaching out—as is, I think, all 

of government—reaching out to the commercial sector, because the 

answers are just not—they are definitely not just in the Federal 

Government. 

Senator HASSAN. Right. 

Secretary KELLY. They are everywhere. So Elaine Duke, now 

that she is confirmed—and thank you for that—will take this on 

among a number of other things that she will focus on. I am with 

you on this. And, I was not aware of these programs, but I am now, 

and I could get back to you, come over and talk to you about it. 

Senator HASSAN. I think that would be great just because, again, 

we have a lot of people with talent, skill, and interest in serving 

their country who may not want to come work for the government, 

but we really need their skill and their insight. 

The last area I wanted to touch on, I know you referenced this 

morning the President’s commission on the opioid epidemic, and I 

was glad to see you were there at the listening session on opioids 

and substance misuse last week. And, you and I have spoken about 

the issue before, both in our one-on-one meeting and at your confirmation hearing, and we have agreed on the need to crack down 

on illegal opioids, while also dealing with the demand side of the 

problem through prevention, treatment, and recovery efforts. 

So, I am looking to find out more about the goals of the President’s new commission on combating drug addiction and the opioid 

crisis which he established by Executive Order last week. And, I 

want to ensure that the rhetoric here is met by real action that reflects the seriousness of this crisis. 

The news reporting on the commission has been a little scattered, so the first question for you is: Are you a member of the 

Commission? 

Secretary KELLY. I am. 

Senator HASSAN. OK. That is great to know. And, my understanding from the Executive Order is that the commission has 90 

days to make a report on interim recommendations. Do you know 

what the process will be to get to those recommendations? 

Secretary KELLY. I do not. It is in the staff realm, but let me just 

say this, to say the least, is a passion for me. And, my entire time 

in Southern Command, I talked about this, to the point of getting 

a fair amount of—getting cross-wise with a fair amount of people 

in the White House and other parts of our government. 

The beauty, I think, of this President was—I do not know if you 

were in the room when I made this comment before, but one of the 

first conversations I had with President-elect Trump was this issue 
272 

of drugs, drug demand, what it does to not only our own country 

but to certainly the hemisphere. 

Senator HASSAN. Sure. 

Secretary KELLY. And, the money it makes available for corruption and terrorism and things like that. He has taken this bit, 

and he is going to make this work, I believe. So, it is a comprehensive—everything from drug demand reduction to rehab to law enforcement to helping out the Central American republics, to working with Mexico on the heroin production. We have great partners 

down there. So, it is this very long 2,000-mile, if you will, process 

of trying to get at the drug demand. 

Senator HASSAN. Well, I appreciate that very much. I appreciate 

your presence on the commission. I look forward to working with 

you on it, and I would put a plug in for essential benefits in our 

health care so that people can get the treatment that they need. 

Thanks. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Hassan. 

By the way, I have seen cherry blossoms growing on trees here 

in Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, I have not seen money grow on 

trees here in Washington either. Senator Daines. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAINES 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Kelly, thank you for being here today. I kind of figured 

that when he put a four-star Marine in charge of homeland security, good things would start to happen. 

Secretary KELLY. Not everyone agrees with that. 

Senator DAINES. Yes, well, I do. 

I was struck yesterday—we were in the same room. In fact, at 

the same table there was a former Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, David Aguilar, here testifying. And, I 

asked him a question about reductions that we are seeing in apprehension rates of illegal Southwest border crossings. That February 

data point came out and saw a 40-percent reduction in February. 

When we typically see, because of seasonality, anywhere from a 10- 

to 20-percent increase, we saw a 40-percent decrease in February. 

David then followed up and said, ‘‘I believe we are going to revise 

those numbers as we have a little more time here,’’ because that 

release came out on March 8th, and now we are into April. He said, 

‘‘It looks like it is actually a 67-percent reduction in the month of 

March.’’ This is not a statistical anomaly. Something is going on. 

We talked about what that is in terms of the message that is coming from the Administration about enforcing the rule of law. So, I 

just want to congratulate you and the Administration on some 

early success. 

My question is: These are encouraging results. What substantive 

actions will you be taking in order to make sure that we can sustain these reductions that we are seeing early on in this Administration? 

Secretary KELLY. The first would be to gain control of our Southwest border. Much of what we are seeing here—and the second 

would be to work—I do not know if you were here when we were 

talking about this, the Central American issue of helping them, security and economically. Again, I have traveled there many times. 
273 

I call many of them friends. The people from Central America that 

are coming here are overwhelmingly nice people, simple for the 

most part, rural, not highly educated. That is just the nature of 

their societies. But, they come here for two reasons: one, lack of 

economic opportunity; and, two, levels of violence, particularly in 

the cities, that are astronomical, although to use Honduras as an 

example, in the 4 years that the current President is there, he has 

taken it from, I think, 91 per 100,000, which is what it was when 

I was in Miami on active duty, highest in the world; it is down I 

think to 59. That is still astronomical. Violence across our country 

is about 5 per 100,000 murders. So, it is still high, but the point 

is they are bringing it down. 

I was speaking separately with the President of Honduras in my 

office just last week. What he has done economically, he expects to 

grow his economy by 600,000 jobs in the next 5 years. This is phenomenal information or progress. 

Jimmy Morales from Guatemala, similar kind of efforts and similar kind of successes both in reducing the violence rates as well as 

economics. That is why I think this economic forum, if you will, in 

Miami in June will add to it. 

So, why are they not coming? They are not coming for the most 

part because they do not know what is going on. They have heard 

of the actions of the ICE agents internal to the United States, 

much of it terribly misreported by our press, but that said, it has 

added to the deterrent effect. 

What we are doing on the border, what we intend to do on the 

border, has added to that deterrent effect. These people are not 

wealthy people. Oftentimes, their entire life savings are given to 

the coyotes, the traffickers, to get one, two, or three of them into 

the United States. We know because of the focus we are putting 

on the traffickers now, when we catch them, actually prosecuting 

them, the traffickers now have raised their fares, their prices, two 

and three times. So, what used to be, say, $4,000 per individual to 

get into the United States from, say, Honduras is now $8,000, 

$10,000, and $12,000. Well, the people down in those parts of the 

world cannot afford that kind of money. They are already paying 

more than they could afford. 

So, all of that has added to the deterrent effect. My appeals personally through the press and to the Presidents and the attorneys 

general from those three countries, the Roman Catholic leadership, 

the Evangelical leadership—I met with the Los Angeles Roman 

Catholic Archbishop, spoke with the Archbishop in Houston, again, 

asked them to contact their counterparts, if you will, in those countries to ask, beg the people not to take that horribly dangerous trip 

to the United States because you will be sent back and you will not 

have the money, and you will probably, if you are a woman, have 

been assaulted—once, if you are lucky—or if you are a young man, 

you could be siphoned off into the cartel gang Mexican thing. So, 

that is why they are not coming. 

Senator DAINES. Yes, well, I think you are also demonstrating, 

in my opinion, the experience you are bringing from your Southern 

Command leadership; I think it is having already a significant impact on our country and protecting our Southern border. 

Secretary KELLY. Thank you for that. 
274 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, truly. Also, I appreciate your compassion as you are looking at the effect it is having on very poor 

people who are being taken advantage of as they are seeking to 

come into our country. 

I am from Montana. We think about our Northern border, but 

the Southern border and the methamphetamines that are now coming into Montana, and they are coming in from our Southern border, are having a huge impact on our State. Mitigating the flow of 

drugs long before they reach our border, as you are well aware 

from your time in command of SOUTHCOM, is very important. We 

discussed the concept at the confirmation hearing. What steps have 

you taken on the job to stymie the flow of drugs as well as violence 

into our country? 

Secretary KELLY. Great question. One of the things we know 

about the flow of hard drugs—marijuana comes in vast amounts, 

but it is also produced in the United States in vast amounts. But, 

methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine are the big killers, and 

along with that are opiates that are counterfeited, if you will, and, 

of course, not a lot of quality control. But, you do not know—the 

average person abusing opiates in the United States does not know 

that a lot of it is not produced by credible—they are produced in 

labs in Mexico or in other places. So, the point is most of that 

comes into the United States in 10-, 15-, 20-kilo loads via the ports 

of entry, in trucks and things like that. 

So, what have I done? We are now looking very hard at the ports 

of entry, which are not really part of the wall, if you will, effort. 

But, look at the ports of entry. If there is better technology out 

there, and I think there is, to look into vehicles without unloading 

the vehicle, particularly tractor-trailers, to get after it that way. 

But, I would tell you, methamphetamine, helping—working with 

the Mexicans, they are good partners in law enforcement. My folks, 

I am proud to say, Homeland Security Investigations, working with 

the Mexicans, led them—I will just put it that way—to two huge 

methamphetamine labs that were destroyed by the Mexican marines, I think in that case. Working with them and identifying the 

poppy fields in the south, the Pacific southwest of their country, 

and offering them perhaps help in how to eradicate those, much as 

we have done for so many years in Colombia with coca. That is 

what we are doing. 

But, the big issue really right now in drugs coming into the 

United States is the ports of entry, and a part of that as well is 

what goes south. We do not look at much going south out of our 

country. The Mexicans do not look at that very well either. I would 

like to extend the effort to look in vastly more vehicles going south 

because bulk money in unbelievable amounts travels south out of 

the United States into the rest of the hemisphere to get laundered, 

I mean billions and billions of dollars, and guns. If we point a finger at the Mexicans or people who produce—countries that produce 

drugs, if we point our finger at them about the production of drugs, 

they will point their finger right back and say, ‘‘What about guns?’’ 

So, we need to do better in the southward flow to go after the 

money and to go after the flow of guns. And, that will take some 

time, some money, some effort. 
275 

But, I think there is a next step, and a next step after that in 

technology. The stuff we have now is pretty good. I was up with 

Senator Peters looking at the busiest traffic point between Detroit 

and Canada. Technology that looks into trucks, tractor-trailers, is 

pretty good. But, I know there is better stuff out there, and we will 

just get after it. But, mostly the drugs come in, we believe, we 

know, comes in in relatively small amounts, 10 or 15 kilos at a 

time, in automobiles and those kind of conveyances. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Secretary Kelly. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Daines. 

I just want to remind everybody kind of watch the clock. We 

have great attendance. I appreciate it. I want to make sure everybody gets a chance to ask questions. Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thank you so much. 

General Kelly, great to see you. How are you holding up? You 

have a lot on you? You have had a lot of tough jobs before? 

Secretary KELLY. I have been in this job for 15 years, but it 

is—no, 3 months seems like 15 years. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I am sure it does. 

Secretary KELLY. This is the most enjoyable thing I will do this 

week. 

Senator CARPER. Well, for us, too. [Laughter.] 

We say this often, we say it from our hearts: Thank you for taking this on. Thank you for being a voice of reason. Thank you for 

being just a great patriot. 

We have been talking a bit about—I will just follow up on a 

number of the questions that deal with the border, border strategy, 

and that sort of thing. I think the message I hear from both sides, 

on this side and hearing from you as well, is we need an all-of-theabove strategy on the border. It is not just a wall, it is not just 

fencing. Those are important in appropriate certain places. But, it 

is comprehensive immigration reform that includes a guest worker 

program that sort of takes away the need for people to come up 

here and get stuck up here on this side of the border, but they can 

go back and forth and do good work for our country and go back 

to their own. 

You referenced the Alliance for Prosperity. I am delighted to hear 

the economic summit that you are planning for being held in May. 

Do you have the dates yet on that? 

Secretary KELLY. It is going to be now in June, and that 

was based on our Vice President’s desire to attend—either the 

12th—I think it will be the 12th. It might be a little later. It will 

be in Miami just because that is a great place to bring Latin Americans because of the language and all of this kind of thing. They 

are very familiar with the city, so that is the place to do it. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Well, I am glad you are doing it. I think 

that is a smart move. 

One of the things that we need to do is we need to, in order to 

incent the private sector and other countries and other organizations to help out in the work that needs to be done in Central 

America so that it actually has some economic hope and opportunity and do a better job combating crime and violence. We set the 
276 

example. Our funding for Alliance for Prosperity is, I think, very 

important for that. My hope is that you can continue to support it, 

and I think you know it makes sense. 

Secretary KELLY. Absolutely. 

Senator CARPER. I like to say for the folks down in Central America, you can do it, we can help. They have to do the heavy lifting, 

but we can help, and I think we are doing that. 

Border security, the force multipliers, there are just a ton of 

them. Innovation, we talked about the innovation of technology, 

but it is not just drones and fixed-wing aircraft. It is not just helos. 

But, it is those aircraft but with the right kind of surveillance technology, the Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation Radar (VADER) 

system, that kind of thing that is actually so much more helpful. 

I mentioned yesterday in my comments, 23 years in the Navy, 

naval flight officer (NFO), P–3 aircraft, mission commander, we did 

a lot of anti-submarine warfare, a lot of stuff off the coast of Vietnam and Cambodia. We also did search and rescue. And, we did 

search and rescue with binoculars out of a P–3 aircraft at 500, 

1,000, 2000 feet. Good luck. It is hard to find anything. And so, the 

VADER systems makes all the sense in the world. 

But, part of the force multipliers is observation towers. They can 

be fixed, as you know. They can be mobile. They have to have the 

right surveillance systems. Part of it can be horses. Some of us 

have been down—the Chairman and I have been down, I think 

with Claire, maybe with Heidi, to see the horses do their work and 

help be a force multiplier. 

There are motion detectors. There is intelligence, better intelligence. How are we doing on the intelligence in terms of the intelligence we are sharing with the folks in Mexico and further south? 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, sir, the law enforcement intelligence, information sharing is very good. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Part of the force multipliers are boats and 

ramps so we can get the boats in the water, all kinds of stuff. In 

some places it makes sense, other places it does not, but it is an 

all-of-the-above approach. 

I want to ask you to talk a little bit about leadership and the 

management, the ability to manage this organization. Senator 

Johnson and I and, before that, Tom Coburn and I and Members 

of this Committee worked very closely with Jeh Johnson and with 

Ali Mayorkas to try to make sure that the Department had terrific 

leadership teams, a confirmed senior leadership team, and I think 

many of them are gone now, as you know. We had an election. But, 

we want to be helpful. Elaine Duke was confirmed yesterday. We 

want to be helpful in bringing the rest of your leadership team in. 

You will have to tell us who you want, give us a chance to vet 

them, so we look forward to hearing about that. 

The other thing on leadership I have found—and we have talked 

about this before—it would be nice to have—instead of all of the 

Department spread over a half acre throughout the greater Washington metropolitan area and Virginia and so forth, it would be 

nice to have people consolidated in a more close-knit area. That 

could be St. Elizabeths. I think it should be. I was not always a 

fan of the St. Elizabeths project, but I have come to believe that 
277 

it is the smart thing to do, fiscally smart thing to do. Your 

thoughts, please? 

Secretary KELLY. If I could comment on the leadership. 

Senator CARPER. Please. 

Secretary KELLY. I would tell you, you are right, Elaine and myself are really the only two political types, and it almost—I do not 

know what that—I cannot quite get my arms around the fact that 

I am a political appointee because of my life before this. 

Senator CARPER. When you look up a dictionary for political appointee, your picture is not there. 

Secretary KELLY. Thank you. But, we have tremendous career 

professionals, so the function of the Department has not from when 

Jeh left and all the rest of the political appointees left, stopped at 

all. We have tremendous long-serving public servants that are running the Department now, and as time goes on, of course, political 

appointees will theoretically be confirmed by the Senate and will 

take their places. And then, they will learn their jobs underneath 

those tremendous public servants. 

Senator CARPER. That is a good point. 

Secretary KELLY. On the consolidation, I do not think—two 

things. DHS I do not think will ever be a functioning, cohesive organization to the degree that it should be and could be unless it 

does consolidate somewhere in more or less the same building or 

on the same campus. The first issue. 

And, the second issue is—and as long as the Department answers to as many—— 

Senator CARPER. Committees and Subcommittees? 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, I mean, Jim Mattis has four committees 

that he has to concern himself with, and a number of subcommittees. And, that was my life before. This is a very different beast, 

but I do not think it will ever be, as I say, as cohesive as it could 

be so long as we have—I think it is 119-plus committees and subcommittees that still have jurisdiction from the olden days from 

when the Department was formed. It is not impossible to function, 

but it will not be the same so long as there are so many disparate 

committees to answer to and that generates, frankly—— 

Senator CARPER. Does St. Elizabeths make sense? 

Secretary KELLY. It does make sense, yes. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Good. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you so much. 

Secretary KELLY. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS 

Senator HARRIS. Secretary Kelly, I was heartened to hear your 

response to Senator Heitkamp’s question about the separation of 

children from their parents. I understood you to say that only if the 

life of the child is in danger would there be a separation. Is that 

correct? 

Secretary KELLY. Depending on what is going on on the ground, 

but that generally would be my approach. 

Senator HARRIS. And, are you willing then to issue a statement 

to your staff that that is your approach and that that is your policy? 
278 

Secretary KELLY. My staff knows already that they will not separate anyone unless I am informed and get my permission. 

Senator HARRIS. Have you issued a directive to that—— 

Secretary KELLY. They know that. 

Senator HARRIS. That is not my question, sir. Have you issued 

a directive? 

Secretary KELLY. My response is they know that, so, yes, I have 

through the leadership told them that if that is going to happen, 

it will only be me—— 

Senator HARRIS. With all due respect, sir, are you willing to issue 

a directive to your staff that that is your policy? 

Secretary KELLY. I have already done that. 

Senator HARRIS. You have issued a directive? 

Secretary KELLY. Through my leadership. 

Senator HARRIS. I would like a copy of that then. Is that in writing? 

Secretary KELLY. It is verbal. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. Are you willing to issue a written directive 

to your staff that that is the policy of the Department? 

Secretary KELLY. I do not need to—— 

Senator HARRIS. You run an organization of 230,000 people. Is 

that correct? 

Secretary KELLY. Right at 230. 

Senator HARRIS. And, why are you reluctant then to issue a directive to your staff if that is, in fact, your policy? 

Secretary KELLY. I am not reluctant. I have already given the 

verbal—it only really applies to—— 

Senator HARRIS. So are you unwilling, sir, to issue a written directive that it is the policy of the Department to not separate children from their mothers unless the life of the child is in danger? 

Secretary KELLY. I do not need to do that. I have done it verbally. 

Senator HARRIS. So is your answer no? 

Secretary KELLY. My answer is I do not need to do that. 

Senator HARRIS. You do not need to do it. 

Sir, are you aware that Sean Spicer said that with the new Administration that now, finally, the President wanted to take the 

shackles off individuals in this agency? Are you familiar with that? 

Secretary KELLY. No. 

Senator HARRIS. Are you familiar with Brandon Judd, who testified before our Committee in response to a question from Senator 

Daines, said that now we can ‘‘take the handcuffs off of us and put 

the handcuffs on the criminals’’? Are you aware of that? 

Secretary KELLY. No. Was that a recent hearing? 

Senator HARRIS. Yes, it was. Are you aware that David Lapan, 

your spokesperson, said yesterday to the Washington Post that immigration agents may arrest crime victims and witnesses at courthouses? 

Secretary KELLY. Yes. 

Senator HARRIS. And, are you willing to exempt victims and witnesses who do not have serious criminal backgrounds from that 

policy? 

Secretary KELLY. Every case is different, and as the agents do 

their work, of course, the people that are taken into custody are 
279 

put into a legal justice system. So, that is where the decision would 

be made to deport, export, whatever. 

Senator HARRIS. Are you willing to initiate a policy that says 

that if that person was a victim or a witness to a crime who is at 

a courthouse in any county in the United States, appearing as a 

victim or a witness to a crime, that if they do not have a serious 

criminal background, that they would be exempt from a policy of 

picking them up at that courthouse? 

Secretary KELLY. No. 

Senator HARRIS. And, are you aware that local law enforcement 

has a concern because this has created a chilling effect among victims and witnesses to crime and has resulted in their reluctance 

to show up to actually testify about crimes committed in their community? 

Secretary KELLY. I have heard some number of law enforcement 

people say that. But, I also hear the opposite view. 

Senator HARRIS. During your confirmation hearing before this 

Committee on January 10th, you committed to doing a top-to-bottom assessment of DHS. Is that correct? 

Secretary KELLY. I did. 

Senator HARRIS. And, have you finished this assessment? 

Secretary KELLY. No. 

Senator HARRIS. When do you plan to finish it? 

Secretary KELLY. I do not know. 

Senator HARRIS. You do not have a goal for finishing it? 

Secretary KELLY. I have a general goal. 

Senator HARRIS. What is that date? 

Secretary KELLY. Well, one of the things I will task my new Deputy that was confirmed yesterday, that she will take that on. 

Senator HARRIS. Have you given her a date for when that assessment will be complete? 

Secretary KELLY. No, because when she was not confirmed, I did 

not deal with her as a Deputy. I did not want to presume confirmation by the Senate. 

Senator HARRIS. So, you do not have a goal for your Department 

on when that assessment will be completed? 

Secretary KELLY. She and I will discuss the goal. 

Senator HARRIS. And, have you read the—as part of the assessment that needs to be done, have you read the report issued by the 

Inspector General (IG), John Roth, that was issued just 4 months 

ago, November 7, 2016, entitled ‘‘Major Management Performance 

Challenges Facing the Department of Homeland Security’’? 

Secretary KELLY. I am aware of the report, yes. 

Senator HARRIS. Have you read it? 

Secretary KELLY. I am aware of it, and—— 

Senator HARRIS. So you have not read it? 

Secretary KELLY. Executive summary. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. In the report, the IG says, ‘‘This year we 

are presenting a broader picture of management challenges by 

highlighting those we have repeatedly identified over several years. 

We remain concerned about the systemic nature of these challenges, some of which span multiple administrations and department leadership.’’ 
280 

Do you agree that many of these challenges are systemic and 

deeply rooted in the Department? 

Secretary KELLY. Well, of course, that was pre-Kelly, and it was 

Jeh Johnson—— 

Senator HARRIS. It was 4 months ago that report was issued. Do 

you agree with the statement found by the IG based on his analysis 

of your Department? 

Secretary KELLY. That was pre-Kelly. I am committed—— 

Senator HARRIS. I am sorry. Pre-Kelly, meaning yourself? 

Secretary KELLY. I was not in the job yet. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. 

Secretary KELLY. As I committed to Committee before and to 

Congress in general, we are going to take a top-to-bottom look at 

how we are organized and how we can do business better, and that 

includes how we do the leadership functions. 

Senator HARRIS. Are you aware, sir, that on March 22nd, union 

officials and leaders from both ICE and Border Patrol appeared before this Committee? During that hearing, Chris Crane, who is the 

National ICE Council President, said, and I will quote, there is a 

‘‘toxic and failed management culture.’’ He went on to say a ‘‘good 

ol’ boy network’’ exists within your Department. He went on to say 

officers are ‘‘tripping over managers in the field,’’ and then, said 

also that the agency has outdated and ‘‘practically no policies’’ in 

place. Are you aware that that is a sentiment among leadership in 

your Department? 

Secretary KELLY. Certainly, that is the sentiment throughout 

really DHS in terms of how DHS was run for the last 8 years. 

Going forward, it will not be run like that anymore. 

Once I determine how we are going to change the leadership approach. 

Senator HARRIS. So, you are going to come up with a plan for fixing this for the 230,000 people in your Department? 

Secretary KELLY. Yes. 

Senator HARRIS. And, is this a priority for you? 

Secretary KELLY. It is. 

Senator HARRIS. And, at the same hearing, both Mr. Crane and 

the National Border Patrol President Brandon Judd spoke of an extensive morale issue at DHS, which is also reflected in the Federal 

Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), which is published by OPM. 

Are you aware that DHS ranks as the last among large agencies 

in terms of its morale? 

Secretary KELLY. That was certainly the case under the Obama 

Administration, but we are changing that already. 

Senator HARRIS. And, you are going to change that within what 

time period for your Department of 23,000—— 

Secretary KELLY. It is already changing. 

Senator HARRIS [continuing]. Oh, it has changed? 

Secretary KELLY. It is already changing. 

Senator HARRIS. It is changing, OK. And, in regards to your topto-bottom assessment, has your assessment included looking into 

the morale issues at the agency and putting in place programs and 

initiatives to actually improve the morale? 

Secretary KELLY. It is what I do, yes. 
281 

Senator HARRIS. And, can you provide us with a list of the policies that you have instituted to improve morale at the Department? 

Secretary KELLY. My leadership is a start point, and we will continue to look at ways to improve the morale. One of the issues most 

focused on by the workforce since—over the last 8 years that affected their morale was an inability to do their jobs. Now that we 

have opened the aperture in terms of the amount of work that they 

are allowed to do, I am deflecting a lot of outside influences into 

the workforce so they can do their jobs. 

Senator HARRIS. But, my question to you, with all due respect, 

my question to you is: What have you put in place to turn the morale around in this Department, and the morale which is at the 

lowest of many large Federal agencies, and the condition has existed throughout, it appears, the life of the agency and certainly 

has passed through many Administrations? 

Secretary KELLY. Under the Obama Administration, the morale 

has suffered terribly. 

Senator HARRIS. So, what plans have you put in place, sir? 

Secretary KELLY. My leadership. 

Senator HARRIS. So, you are saying by virtue of you being there, 

morale will now change. 

Secretary KELLY. By virtue of the fact—the greatest impact in 

raising the morale in the last 90 days or so has been that the workforce now is allowed do their job. 

Senator HARRIS. And, that would be they are now unshackled. Is 

that correct? 

Secretary KELLY. They are allowed to do their job as the professionals they are. 

Senator HARRIS. And the Administration has proposed tripling 

the current number of ICE agents and increasing the number of 

Border Patrol agents by 25 percent in addition to requesting $4 billion to begin the construction of a wall, which has been discussed. 

Are you in support of actually bringing on these new agents before 

you have repaired the damage that has existed in your agency? 

Secretary KELLY. It is simultaneous, sure. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Harris, we are going to give you an 

opportunity—— 

Senator HARRIS. So, I will go for Round 2. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I am not sure we are going to have Round 

2, but we will have opportunities to submit questions for the 

record. 

Senator HARRIS. I do have more questions, so if we can do a second round, I would appreciate that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I want to be thoughtful of people’s time. 

Senator Portman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, General 

Kelly, it is good to have you before the Committee again. 

First of all, I am glad we finally got Elaine, a great Ohioan, over 

there in your Department. You talked earlier about her being a political appointee. I view her as a career person, having had 27 

years in the Federal Government, and including, obviously, big 

roles over at DHS as a career expert on management and procure-
282 

ment and some of the big challenges that you face trying to bring 

together all these departments and agencies into one. So, I am glad 

she is here, and I know she will be a tremendous asset to you. 

At your nomination, we talked a lot about this drug issue, and 

as you know, I was very complimentary of comments that you had 

made to this Committee about a year and a half ago now regarding 

the importance of focusing on the demand side. And, that is where 

I have focused most in the last 25 years, and I agree with you that 

the single most important thing is to reduce the demand. And, you 

talked about prevention and education, treatment and recovery, 

helping law enforcement and so on. 

I was a little concerned about the comments earlier about the 

commission. I do hope the commission heeds your comments and 

your thoughts on that. But, you should also know, just by way of 

information, Congress just spent 3 years going through this process 

that the commission is going to do in 90 days, apparently, which 

is helping identify the problem. We had five conferences here, not 

just numerous hearings but conferences, bringing in experts from 

all around the country, looking at best practices, and came up with 

this Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA), a bipartisan bill that was finally passed last year. And, one of my concerns 

is that only three of the eight programs provided there, including 

things like helping out on drug courts and some of the things you 

have talked about in terms of diversion—it is not about locking 

people up, it is about better prevention and getting people the 

treatment they need. But, only three of those eight programs have 

been implemented, and, I pushed the Obama Administration on 

this, and I am now pushing the Trump administration on it. 

So, one, I hope you will get up to speed on what CARA is about, 

what it does. It is comprehensive, not just in name but in reality, 

and it is based on a lot of work that has been done not just over 

the last few years with these conferences but around the country 

over time, because I do not think we need to re-create the wheel. 

I think we need to go to action. This is a crisis, and it is an epidemic certainly in my State and many other States around the 

country. It is one that is particularly difficult because of the opioid 

issue. In other words, crystal meth is increasing in some communities. I understand that cocaine is back in some communities. This 

opioid issue, the grip of that addiction has been a huge challenge, 

as you know, for treatment and recovery. We are beginning to 

learn more about it and how to do it better, but we have to get this 

legislation implemented and get the Cures Act money appropriated 

again. I hope the budget will reflect that, which is another $500 

million. We need an extra budget just for helping the States to be 

able to deal with this. 

On fentanyl, it is the new issue, as you know, in so many of our 

States. We are probably hit harder in Ohio than any other State, 

we are told, per capita. But, there is this toxic substance, as you 

know, that is a synthetic heroin, carfentanil, U4, it goes by various 

names, but it is created by evil scientists in a laboratory somewhere. And, you mentioned it coming in from Mexico. Some comes 

in from Mexico, but primarily that is coming from China to here, 

as I understand it from your people, and then going to Mexico and 

back to here, the vast majority of it. And, there is a new commis-
283 

sion report out, the U.S.-China Commission, recently that it is coming from China. And, it is coming from laboratories in China, and 

it is coming by the U.S. Mail system. 

You and I talked about this, again, during your confirmation 

process and the very difficult job that CBP and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and others have of identifying these 

packages because the U.S. Mail system does not require advance 

information as to what is in the package, where it is from, where 

it is going. 

By the way, Federal Express (FedEx) and United Parcel Service 

(UPS) and DHL and other private carriers do require that. And, 

what we heard from your folks, including Todd Owen, Executive 

Assistant Commissioner in the Office of Field Operations at CBP, 

when he testified before this Committee on this, is that having this 

advance data from the post office would be key to helping you to 

be able to target these packages to find the ones that are suspect. 

We have legislation, as you know, called the STOP Act that is 

bipartisan—Senator Klobuchar, myself, Senator Hassan, who was 

here earlier, Senator Rubio, and others—that we are attempting to 

get passed simply to say let us require that these packages have 

this information. This is what we have heard about from your people as the solution to being able to target some of this fentanyl, to 

be able to stop some of this poison coming into our communities 

and killing our citizens. 

By the way, that opinion was reinforced at a roundtable discussion I had just 10 days ago in Ohio with your CBP folks. We had 

two of your port chiefs there. We also had folks there who were 

from your HSI group, your group of individuals who work with law 

enforcement every day to try to find this material. We also had 

folks from DEA who have testified on this. 

So, my question to you is: What can we do to get this done? 

President Trump in the campaign talked favorably about the STOP 

Act. You have talked favorably about the need to have this information. I guess what I would ask is two questions. One, do you 

agree with me that having this advance data on shipments coming 

into the United States from both the post office and private carriers would help your officers be able to target illegal shipments? 

Secretary KELLY. I do, Senator. 

Senator PORTMAN. Second, would this informed targeting by CBP 

potentially reduce the ability of the post office to be used for illicit 

shipping of all kinds of contraband? 

Secretary KELLY. I think it will. 

Senator PORTMAN. And, third, have you had a chance now, since 

your nomination, to review the STOP Act? And, what are your 

thoughts and comments on the STOP Act and its potential to be 

able to help? 

Secretary KELLY. Just in preparation for this hearing, we had a 

long conversation with CBP people on the issue of the post office. 

Apparently—and, of course, they do not work for us, but the post 

office leadership is starting to move in the right direction. Just the 

other day, again, a DOJ effort, DEA agreement, such as they are 

with China, but an agreement at least that they will get after the 

fentanyl production and shipment out of their country. I will see 

how that turns out. 
284 

One of the problems, as I think you know, Senator, that my folks 

have pointed out to me is a lot of the countries where these parcels 

come from just do not cooperate. But, that is an effort that we 

should focus on to have them cooperate in terms of identifying the 

package, what is in the package, this kind of thing. 

So, again, I was probably not as aware of this issue 3 days ago 

as I am now, and Kevin McAleenan, who we hope someday will be 

the Commissioner—he is the Acting now—has this very much on 

his front burner, as it is now on mine. 

Senator PORTMAN. I appreciate that, and, by the way, we are 

asking President Trump to raise this with President Xi because, 

you are right, China is not doing enough to close down these laboratories and keep these materials from being spread. And, by the 

way, it is a problem in China as well. 

Secretary KELLY. Yes. 

Senator PORTMAN. I am told that fentanyl is now leaking out into 

the community. 

Secretary KELLY. I think that is the only reason now they are interested because it is a problem in China. 

Senator PORTMAN. It is a problem. Three flakes of this stuff can 

kill you. It is being put in relatively small packages and sent, and 

there are millions of packages. So, do you agree that the STOP Act 

would be helpful to be able to identify these packages? 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, sir. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you for that. And, I guess the final 

thing that I want to say with regard to the border, because we 

talked a lot about this earlier—and I really appreciated your comment, which was we are not going to build a wall where it does not 

make sense. We do need a wall in certain areas, including some 

urban and even some suburban areas, and we do need, again, the 

technology that was talked about earlier in other areas. 

You mentioned specifically the Big Bend of Texas. I was there at 

the end of the year. I have been there several times. And, you are 

not going to build a wall on those canyon walls, and so we need 

to reassure people that this is about an effectiveness way to secure 

the border, and I appreciate your comments on it. I think that will 

help clarify the situation. 

Thank you. 

Secretary KELLY. Thank you, sir. 

Senator PORTMAN. I appreciate your service. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Tester. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank you, Secretary Kelly, for your service, and I 

mean that. I go back to what the Ranking Member on this Committee said in her opening remarks, and that is that we have faith 

in you. We have faith in you being the adult in the room because 

of your past record and your past performance. We believe that 

that will carry on as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. 

I have a number of questions. One deals with there was $20 million worth of reprogramming money that you requested, and that 

Senator Boozman and I signed a letter basically stating utilize the 
285 

money but utilize it in the best way to protect the border, not necessarily a concrete wall. 

Secretary KELLY. Right. 

Senator TESTER. It could be a fence. It could be drones. It could 

be technology. It could be a number of things. Have you determined 

how that $20 million is going to be spent? 

Secretary KELLY. Again, Senator, on a barrier wall, technology, 

whatever, we will do it where it makes sense and what makes 

sense. But, we will not waste any money. But, we have not determined right now what this thing will look like, how long it will be. 

Senator TESTER. And, I appreciate that response, but really the 

question is: As we reprogram $20 million, I do not know that that 

is the best use of that money, because I think it was going to be 

used in technology. But, that is a different debate. We did it. And, 

the question becomes: If you use all that $20 million to put up a 

prototype concrete wall for a prototype to be used, that pretty much 

tells me what we are going to be doing. If you use that $20 million, 

part of it, to put up a concrete wall, part of it to use maybe Blue 

Rose technology, part of it to maybe use drones, part of it to maybe 

use radar, part of it maybe for manpower discussions, that puts my 

heart at more of an ease. So, the question is that if you have how 

this reprogramming money is going to be used, I would like to 

know it. And, if you have not, could you tell me when you might 

have it? 

Secretary KELLY. Let me get back to you specifically on that, 

Senator, but you can rest assured we will not waste the money, 

and we are not going to build one prototype. We are going to take 

a look at what makes sense along that whole border. 

Senator TESTER. OK. The Secret Service was brought up earlier, 

and I also agree that, due to circumstances with this Administration, your Secret Service is probably stretched more than it ever 

has been before. Have you made any requests of Congress—first of 

all, am I reading that right? I may be reading it wrong, and if I 

am, that is fine. But, have you made any requests on Secret Service and the demands that have been put on the Secret Service and 

if we need to deal with that through the budget? 

Secretary KELLY. Not as of yet. Again, the first thing I would like 

to say—and I think you would agree—individually, the best men 

and women imaginable. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Secretary KELLY. They are just phenomenal people, and they 

work so hard, and they max out their overtime. I mean, they are 

just meeting themselves coming and going. 

Senator, they need—and we will come forward to Congress and 

make the case, but they need a lot more agents, not just because 

of the Trump era, if you will, although that is additional because 

he has a lot of children and grandchildren. We need more agents, 

and we need more uniform personnel, regardless of whether it is 

a Mr. Trump, a Mr. Obama, or a Mr. Anybody, because what they 

do is much larger than simply the mission there at the White 

House and with Presidential travel. Things like any foreign dignitary that comes to the United States—— 

Senator TESTER. I got you. 
286 

Secretary KELLY. It is much bigger than just that, so we need a 

larger Secret Service because we need to get some of these people 

a little bit of time at home with their families. 

Senator TESTER. OK, got you. The Coast Guard, you talked about 

it in your opening remarks. The President’s budget came out and 

whacked the Coast Guard, along with TSA and a lot of other agencies that are under your purview. 

Question No. 1 is: How much input did you have in that budget? 

Question No. 2 is: What are we going to do about fixing it? 

Secretary KELLY. Question No. 1, very little. I have talked to the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) people about the way forward, and we are going to make the money—we will make the 

money good for the Coast Guard. They are too vital in securing the 

Southwest border. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Secretary KELLY. And, a lot of other things. 

Senator TESTER. And, Mar-a-Lago and a lot of other things. OK. 

Thank you. 

Northern ports, we talked about ports of entry where the drugs 

are coming through. And, we are focused like a laser on the Southern border, and I think that is cool. But, the Northern border has 

its challenges, too. 

Can you tell me how concerned you are on the Northern border 

and if your concern is with—and I do not think this would be classified information. Is it with drugs? Is it with undocumented people 

coming across the line? Is it with terrorist activities? Where is your 

concern with the Northern border? And then, we will have a follow 

up on that. 

Secretary KELLY. Not as, obviously, as concerned with what 

comes with the Northern border as the Southern border, but it is 

our border, so I am concerned with all the borders. The absolutely 

great news story on the Northern border is that we have Canada 

there that is—— 

Senator TESTER. That is right, great ally. 

Secretary KELLY [continuing]. To say the least, a friend, an ally. 

They interact with us at every level. They are very careful about 

who comes into their country—maybe not as careful as I want us 

to be going forward about who comes into our country, but the 

good-news story, again, up there is the Canadians, their law enforcement, their commitment. 

I would say actually this might surprise you. I think not a concern really. What I would like to see the Northern border be is 

even thinner, if you will, so that the movement safely and securely 

of commerce and people can be even streamlined more. 

Senator TESTER. That is a big deal. The last thing, and excuse 

me if this has been asked before. I do not know that it has been 

or that it has not been. Eminent domain, on the Southern border, 

if we are going to build a wall, if we are going to do anything, it 

is require permission of the landowners. 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. On the Northern border, those landowners are 

critically important for security, by the way. They are an extra set 

of eyes we do not have to pay for. How are you going to deal with 

eminent domain on the Southern border? 
287 

Secretary KELLY. We will do it judiciously. There may be places 

we have to do it. Again, that would be part of the evaluation about 

where we build the wall, how we build the wall. 

Senator TESTER. Well, I would just say that—and this point has 

been brought up in these hearings before—if you want to get people’s attention in rural America, just talk about eminent domain. 

The hair will be on fire. 

Secretary KELLY. Senator, I am told that back in, I think, the 

2008 effort to put fencing on the border, we are still in court with 

people about eminent domain, 9 years ago. 

Senator TESTER. Look, I get it. I have a farm that has to be in 

the family 100 years. Those ones down there, they are probably 140 

or 150. If somebody tried to eminent domain my place, they would 

take me off in a box because I would not let them do it. So, that 

is where we are at. Thank you. 

Secretary KELLY. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. This hearing is setting a lot of hair on fire. 

Senator Paul. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And his is so special to be on fire. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL 

Senator PAUL. General Kelly, thank you for coming. If I travel 

abroad and I am coming back home, do you think it is appropriate 

to deny me entry to the country unless I let you search my cell 

phone? 

Secretary KELLY. Under very critical circumstances, I would say 

that an American citizen ought to be able to come back in and not 

have their electronics searched. 

Senator PAUL. We have gone from 5,000 people having their cell 

phones searched to 25,000. We are denying people entry who are 

citizens or green card holders who are coming back home, and your 

Department is saying to them, ‘‘You cannot return to your home 

without giving us your fingerprint and giving us all of the data on 

your phone, access to all of the data on your phone.’’ I think this 

is an extraordinarily unreasonable standard. 

I also think that you probably can differentiate between citizens, 

U.S. persons, and those who are coming to visit. So, I am not saying you cannot have some standards and that, based on suspicion, 

you can deny someone entry to the country—but not a citizen, not 

a green card holder. They are denying access to our own country. 

I could travel abroad and be told I cannot enter America unless I 

let you look at my phone. That is obscene. 

Do you have a response? We are up to 25,000 of these now. 

Secretary KELLY. Well, it certainly has not increased significantly in the 90 days I have been in the job and the 90 days Mr. 

Trump has been the President. I do not believe we ever turned 

back legal citizens or—I mean citizens or legal residents. 

Senator PAUL. That is what is in the paper. That is in the last 

month. There was a guy that had a green card and his wife was 

a citizen, but he lived here for many years. He was told he could 

not enter if he did not give his fingerprint to the government. 

Secretary KELLY. Let me take that on, Senator. The one thing I 

have learned in this job that everything I read about this Department or what goes on at our borders, there is always more to the 
288 

story. But, in general, just like an American citizen coming in and 

having his bag searched at the port of entry, generally speaking it 

is done for a reason. 

Senator PAUL. Right. But, I think there are different—and I am 

not blaming you. It may sound like I am blaming you. You have 

only been on the job for a month or two. But, in your nomination 

hearing, you said you were going to respect the Fourth Amendment 

and you were going to respect people’s privacy. So, my hope is that 

you will go back and ask people, ‘‘Are we really doing this?’’ 

Secretary KELLY. You know I will. 

Senator PAUL. Because it happened. There have been many reports of this. 

I would also argue, though, that there is a difference between 

searching my bag and my cell phone. OK? If I am coming in, it is 

known that one of the things that happens at the border are drugs. 

We have dogs. We do have random searches of bags. We are doing 

that even domestically. So, I think we can accept that. But, I think 

that people are going to be horrified the more they hear that their 

cell phone, all their contacts—we do not even know what is happening to our cell phone while it is gone and in the possession of 

the government. Are they downloading—and the story was this, 

that they are downloading everybody’s contacts and information. 

There is an extraordinary amount of information on your phone. 

Secretary KELLY. It is not happening. 

Senator PAUL. All right. But, that is what the stories are saying. 

Secretary KELLY. To citizens. And, in some cases, it is certainly 

happening to foreigners coming in, but not routinely. 

Senator PAUL. But, it has gone from 5,000 a year to 25,000. If 

you would not mind, if you would look into it and have your people 

get back to my office on this. 

Secretary KELLY. Will do. 

Senator PAUL. But, we put forward legislation, bipartisan legislation, because we are so upset about this, that really if you are a 

green card holder or a citizen, even if you had suspicion, the way 

it would probably work if you were, I think, obeying the spirit of 

the Constitution, is you might be able to seize my phone, but we 

would then go to a court, and a court would determine whether you 

had probable cause to actually get the access to my phone for a citizen. And, for a non-citizen, I think if you do not give it, you can 

probably deny entry. I mean, there are rules on travel to our country. But, I think for a citizen or a non-citizen to say, ‘‘I cannot come 

back to my country without giving you the contents of my phone,’’ 

is, I think, really—— 

Secretary KELLY. I just do not believe we are doing it. 

Senator PAUL. All right. But, please look at the news reports because it was not just one. There was a whole series of them in the 

last couple days and a few interviews of people who were green 

card holders not being allowed entry. Thanks. 

Chairman JOHNSON. We will do a second round, but I am going 

to limit it to 5 minutes because I want to be respectful of the Secretary’s time. So, Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Following up a little bit on Senator Paul, I 

had to smile when Senator McCain said I was being hysterical. I 

was being focused and passionate, and I learned it from him, by 
289 

the way. So, I want to be very clear. I completely understand that 

we have to take steps to keep terrorists out of our country that are 

coming here to kill us. I completely understand that this is a global 

threat that we have to pay attention to. And, I understand and 

completely accept that there are people being trained in Raqqa to 

come here and hurt us. 

My point is I want to make sure what we are doing is effective. 

It is now out there that we are taking people’s phones. I mean, no 

terrorist that has the ability to come into this country and hurt us 

is going to come in with anything other than a clean phone. And, 

the people who are going to get caught up in this are going to be 

a lot of people who are not probably terrorists because if they were, 

they would be smart enough to clean their phone. The same thing, 

like I talked about, with some of the questions. They are going to 

lie, and we are not going to—maybe we are going to do—for some, 

maybe we should do polygraphs if we have good information that 

they are terrorists. 

So, I am not in any way saying I do not want you to go after terrorists and I do not want you to figure out ways to find the people. 

And, we are taking lots of steps around the globe to do that, and 

I certainly identify with Senator Hassan’s remarks about the law 

enforcement teams helping embassies in terms of screening visa 

applicants. All great. 

So electronic devices. I agree with Senator McCain. I think we 

have to be doing some extraordinary steps about electronic devices, 

and I was supportive—I appreciated you giving me a call of you 

doing the unprecedented step of not allowing laptops in cabins from 

certain countries. And, if you wanted to take a moment—I only 

have one other brief question, so if you wanted to take a moment 

to maybe explain that so we all understand what steps you have 

taken and why it is important. 

Secretary KELLY. Senator, as we discussed on the phone—and I 

made 15 phone calls that day to make sure the leadership on both 

sides of the aisle and both sides of the Hill understood what we 

were doing, and then we provided classified briefs to the Hill again. 

It is a real threat. I mean, we know on any given day there are 

dozens of cells that are talking about aviation, attacking aviation, 

and you just watch them over time and see if they develop, if they 

go from talking to actually doing something. So, there is a real 

threat all the time. You saw the Russian airplane that was blown 

up coming out of Egypt as an example, the Somali airplane that 

thankfully did not catastrophically come apart, but a hole was 

blown in the side of the airplane, and only because the airplane 

was not at altitude was the pilot able to bring that aircraft home. 

It is real. Based on the threat—and this was my decision, certainly briefed it to the President but this was my decision, once I 

took in all the information from all the sources. There is a real 

threat against aviation always, but a specific threat. And, the airports that I decided to prohibit—or to do the additional—or the 

new baggage protocol, that is to say, the large electronic devices 

into the cargo hold, are predominantly Muslim countries. I did not 

do it because of the Muslim religion or the color of their skin or, 

as some have accused, I was trying to help out the American aircraft industry in places like the Emirates. It is real. I think it is 
290 

1The correction to Mr. Kelly remarks appear in the Appendix on page 346. 

getting ‘‘real-er,’’ so to speak. We may take measures in the not too 

distant future to expand the number of airports. It is real. 

Senator MCCASKILL. We appreciate your focus on it, and I certainly support the steps you have taken in that regard. 

Missouri is one of the States that has not done REAL ID, and 

I just want to make sure that you clarify what is going to happen 

next year. And, the reason I say this is the Missouri Legislature 

is struggling with this. This happened before I came to the Senate. 

Both Republican Senators voted for this in 2005. In fact, all 100 

Senators voted for it in 2005. And, I understand why it is controversial, and, frankly, I kind of identify with that in many ways 

because of the State I am from and our distrust of government in 

our Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). 

But, the Governor said recently that he had gotten some signals 

from the Trump Administration that would indicate that it was not 

going to be enforced, and so as a result, the Missouri Legislature 

I think is now struggling with whether they need to do anything. 

I do not know what you are going to do, but whatever you are 

going to do, the more quickly you clarify whether or not this is 

going to be enforced next year is really important, because I think 

there are some mixed signals going on, and as a result, I worry 

about Missourians and their ability to participate in aviation in 

this country come this time next year. 

Secretary KELLY. Senator, your comment just now is the only 

time I have heard anyone say that we are not going to enforce the 

law in January. I mean, as I say, I have been saying it to the press; 

we have been saying it to the Governors. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, you need to call the Governor of Missouri because the headline was, ‘‘Trump Administration indicates 

they may make a change,’’ and then it goes on to say the people 

who are against doing it in Missouri say, well, we need to give 

Trump time to change this. 

Secretary KELLY. I will call the Governor right away. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes, that would be terrific. I think that 

would be very helpful, because I know he wants Missourians to be 

able to fly, too. This is not partisan. We want Missourians to be 

able to fly next year. 

Secretary KELLY. I mean, my advice, again, to all of the States 

that are not right now compatible is to just tell their citizens the 

best thing to do is get a passport. And, again—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes, or a passport card. 

Secretary KELLY. Or a passport card. And, again, this issue up 

in Seattle this last week where I was with this business group, all 

of whom thought that their State license enhanced will fill the bill, 

and it will not. And, if they did not know that, then I would say 

the average Joe and Jane Doe, they are probably under that misconception. But, there are about, I would say, 10 to 12 States, anyways, that are questionable that they could pull this off. So, I will 

call the Governor.1

Senator MCCASKILL. I really appreciate it. 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, ma’am. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Harris for 5 minutes. 
291 

Senator HARRIS. I appreciate that. 

Secretary Kelly I represent a State of almost 39 million people, 

which is also a State with the largest number of immigrants, documented and undocumented, of any State in this country. And, they 

have a right to have an understanding, a clear understanding of 

the policy priorities of your Department. 

At the March 8th confirmation hearing for Elaine Duke, I asked 

how the seven enforcement categories from your February 20th 

memo would be prioritized, and she answered that the priorities 

are listed in descending order. Do you agree with that? 

Secretary KELLY. No. 

Senator HARRIS. And so, what is the—can you please rank then 

the seven factors and the priority among them? 

Secretary KELLY. Those seven factors allow the ICE folks to 

make their decision as to who they will develop a target package 

on and then go try and apprehend. But, they are not in descending 

order. Just those are the categories. 

Senator HARRIS. So, what has been your direction to the folks on 

the ground about what the priorities should be, understanding that 

they, like all law enforcement agencies, have limited resources and 

a very important charge? Are you not giving them any direction 

around priorities within the seven criteria? 

Secretary KELLY. The direction they have is the start point is illegal status and then something from the priorities. But, they are 

not going to go after, as an example, all the murderers and then 

we get—all the very serious criminals, and then once we get all of 

them, go after the next and the next and the next. They can go 

after an individual, according to the law, if they are on the list because they are illegal and then something. 

Senator HARRIS. So, among the seven categories—— 

Secretary KELLY. Generally speaking. 

Senator HARRIS [continuing]. You have as number one, convicted 

of any criminal offense, and obviously there is no doubt that especially if someone has been convicted of a serious and violent felony, 

they should be apprehended and they should be dealt with. 

Second is anyone charged with a criminal offense, so then there 

has not been a finding of guilt. 

The third is they have committed an act which would constitute 

a chargeable criminal offense, so they have not even been charged 

with the offense. 

The list goes on to number seven, or in the judgment of immigration officers otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security. 

How are you training the folks on the ground to exercise their 

judgment as it relates to Factor 3 or Factor 7 as an example? 

Secretary KELLY. They are already trained, and they, through 

that direction down through the leadership of ICE down to the 

local agents in charge and what-not, they train them to execute 

that policy. 

Senator HARRIS. So, as a former manager of a very large law enforcement organization, the California Department of Justice, I am 

well aware that you cannot lead a department just from the top 

down. And, it is critical that you communicate the policies of leadership to everyone at every stage, including those at the lowest 
292 

level who, in your agency, as in most law enforcement agencies, 

have wide discretion to exert and use their authority. 

I would like to know what specifically you are doing to train 

those people, and I would like a copy of what you are doing that 

is beyond the conversations that you have had with managers, but 

actually what policies you have put in place to train those folks on 

how they should exercise the discretion that you have given them 

as it relates to this expanded list of folks that can be contacted by 

the folks in your agency. 

I would like to have a list submitted, sir, and if you would agree 

to give us a written copy of the training that you are instituting 

in your Department to train folks about how they should exercise 

their discretion. 

Secretary KELLY. We will certainly provide you the policy statements, and from that the training takes place. 

Again, they are already highly trained individuals. 

Senator HARRIS. Well, we have already discussed how they have 

the lowest morale of any Federal agency and that—— 

Secretary KELLY. Under the Obama Administration. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. So, sir, given the extent and depth of the 

problems that exist at DHS and that we have so far received no 

assessment or any program that you have or plan that you have 

to address these issues, how can you justify such massive increases 

in hiring and resources? And, should the American public really be 

expected to give you billions of dollars and provide billions of dollars to your agency on blind faith, in spite of the fact that there 

has been no clear change of direction or course beyond the fact that 

you were appointed to lead the agency? 

Should the American public believe to have blind faith in the fact 

that you are now the leader and, therefore, everything has 

changed? 

Secretary KELLY. They should have faith in the fact that I am 

the leader. They should also have faith that the rank-and-file have 

now been allowed to do their job, and we have already seen a 

change in the morale, yes. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. I have no further questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Harris. 

Just to add a little perspective and clarity to the device searches, 

in fiscal year 2015 there were 77.5 million people that came into 

this country internationally in flights. That included Canada and 

Mexico. There were 38.4 million that came in overseas. The 23,877 

devices that were searched in fiscal year 2016 was under a different Administration representing 0.03 percent of total international arrivals, 0.06 percent of overseas arrivals, just to put it in 

perspective. 

My concern about all of a sudden this new Administration, now 

all of a sudden this is a big problem, we are publicizing this, we 

may be taking a tool out of the toolbox, kind of like when Osama 

bin Laden found out that we could actually track his location based 

on his cell phone. 

So, again, I appreciate your comments on how it is being administered in kind of extraordinary circumstances in many cases, 

again, 0.03 percent of the time, 0.06 percent on overseas flights. 

And, I do not know, it is just unfortunate. 
293 

Secretary KELLY. Chairman, if I could, I think—and this has a 

lot to do with the press reporting, not against the press, just they 

pick up and intend to write off whatever the base story is. I think 

an awful lot of people are confusing what we are doing at the ports 

of entry today and the kind of thinking I have in terms of the additional vetting that we will be implementing, whether it is for overseas—in overseas locations—whether it is for visa requests to come 

to the United States or, for that matter, asylum requests. We are 

going to do a lot more of this electronic stuff in addition to other 

things, whether it is in refugee camps in Kenya or in some other 

country. And, we will do it—but we will not probably do the same 

type of additional vetting in, say, Britain or Japan. It just depends 

on the country, depends on the threat. 

But, I think an awful lot of people have jumped to the conclusion 

a little bit, certainly the press has picked up, for whatever reasons—and I will assume they were doing it, honestly—that we are 

not going to do everyone’s phone and computer at the border. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And, of course, that is the impression the 

press leaves, so we blow it out of proportion. We take what could 

be an effective tool out of our toolbox, and we make this Nation less 

safe. 

Again, I just think it is unfortunate. I kind of want to lay 

out—and, again, I think you explained it pretty careful, pretty well. 

You look at a phone, you look at the photos. There is no password 

required for that. It is just, ‘‘Oh, I see a potential pedophile in 

there,’’ and that helps prevent something. And, it is just unfortunate that we do publicize some of these things that, from my standpoint, ought to remain more at a classified level or just not really 

discussed in the public domain. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I think 

having these hearings is how we get to the bottom of it and find 

out the facts. That is why we do this. And, the questions are important to be asked so we can get the clarification. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I understand. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And so, I think the Secretary now is in a 

position to understand the concerns, and I think he will respond to 

them, and we will all be in a better place. 

Secretary KELLY. I am fortunately way ahead, and I think if Jim 

Comey and people like that certainly sitting here at the table with 

me, law enforcement in general, these new applications that will 

make it impossible to look into someone’s phone or electronic device, right, we will lose a huge—this country—the good guys and 

gals in the world, in the West and other places—well, in the world 

that are trying to protect their people will lose a tremendous asset 

when these applications become more widespread than they are, 

tremendous advantage lost. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And, let us face it, the last time Director 

Comey was before this Committee, he was basically predicting, 

when we finally end the caliphate a diaspora of terrorists unlike 

this world has ever seen, and we are going to be dealing with that. 

And, you are going to have to be dealing with that. So, I want to 

make sure you have the tools in your toolkit to keep this Nation 

safe. 
294 

Again, General Kelly, thank you for your service. Thank you for 

coming here. Thank you for your testimony and your answers to 

our questions. 

With that, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days until 

April 20th at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions 

for the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(295) 

A P P E N D I X 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 
355 
356 
357 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
363 
364 
365 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
374 
375 
376 
377 
378 
379 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 
390 
391 
392 
393 
394 
395 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 
403 
404 
405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 
413 
414 
415 
416 
417 
418 
419 
420 
421 
422 
423 
424 
425 
426 
427 
428 
429 
430 
431 
432 
433 
434 
435 
436 
437 
438 
439 
440 
441 
442 
443 
444 
445 
446 
447 
448 
449 
450 
451 
452 
453 
454 
455 
456 
(457) 

1The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 491. 

BORDER INSECURITY: THE RISE OF MS–13 

AND OTHER TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL 

ORGANIZATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, Lankford, Hoeven, Daines, 

McCaskill, Carper, Tester, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON1

Chairman JOHNSON. This hearing will come to order. 

I want to thank the witnesses for taking time and for your 

thoughtful testimony. I think it will be a pretty interesting description of a problem that I think plagues so many inner cities. And, 

from my standpoint, really one of the contributing factors to this— 

one of the top priorities of this Committee—is securing our borders. 

This is, I think, our 25th hearing on some aspect of border security. 

Now, the title of the hearing is ‘‘Border Insecurity: The Rise of 

Mara Salvatrucha (MS–13) and Other Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs).’’ Reading through the testimonies, it looks like 

we are going to be focusing an awful lot on MS–13, which is, obviously, in the news today. And, I will let the witnesses tell the stories, but it is kind of interesting—the history of MS–13. Originally 

formed out of immigrants coming from El Salvador—the war 

there—in the Southern California area, and then, based on problems—those members being deported to Central America—the organizations grew and thrived in Central America. Now, we are seeing them come back, sometimes in the form of unaccompanied alien 

children (UACs). 

I did send a letter yesterday as a result of information we received from a whistleblower. I sent it to Mr. Scott Lloyd, Director 

of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). And, yesterday—late 

breaking news—because of this hearing, we were informed by a 

whistleblower of a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) document 

from July 2014, describing an incident. This was right at the 

height of the surge of UACs arriving at our border, and the documents appear to indicate that CBP apprehended self-identified 
458 

MS–13 gang members at the border. The CBP Significant Incident 

Report (SIR), dated July 5, 2014, basically stated that officers assigned to the Nogales Placement Center (NPC) identified multiple 

admitted MS–13 gang members. 

Another document goes on to quote, ‘‘All identified gang members 

at Nogales Placement Center have been placed in the appropriate 

placement center and are no longer being held at the NPC. Sixteen 

identified juvenile gang members were transferred to placement 

centers around the country, including Shenandoah Valley Juvenile 

Center in Virginia, Selma Carson Staff Secure in Washington, 

Northern Virginia (NOVA) Staff Secure in Virginia, the Southwest 

Key (SWK) Mesa Staff Secure in Texas, Children’s Village New 

York, and Fort Sill Army Training Support Center (ATSC) in Oklahoma.’’ 

Now, the Office of Refugee Resettlement, within the Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS), was responsible, at that 

point, for the care and custody of UACs apprehended by CBP. 

Now, why do I point that out? We have a broken system. It was 

in 2002, in the authorization of the Department of Homeland Security, that we split out the responsibility, where now CBP apprehends, processes, and then turns UACs over to HHS. And, we have 

gotten very good at apprehending, processing, and dispersing, 

which, from my standpoint, has just fueled this rise in UACs coming to the border—certainly during the last Administration. 

Just so we understand what we are talking about when we say 

‘‘unaccompanied alien children,’’ because I know immediately people think of little children—7, 8, 9, or 10 years old. Here are the 

facts. Out of 188,000 UACs apprehended from 2012 through 2016— 

and that includes from Central America as well as Mexico, because 

it is only broken out with that—so it is not just Central America— 

68 percent of those UACs were 15, 16, or 17 years old—in other 

words, prime gang age. By the way, 68 percent are also men. Less 

than 18 percent were under the age of 12. 

So, the fact of the matter is, so many UACs are, literally, young 

men of prime gang age. And, now we have documentation from a 

whistleblower that CBP apprehended them, knew they were MS– 

13 gang members, and processed and dispersed them into our communities. 

So, again, I think the purpose of this Committee is to highlight 

these problems within our government Agencies—within our government laws and procedures—to make the public aware, so we 

can actually keep this homeland safe. 

So, again, I appreciate the witnesses coming here to testify. We 

will describe the danger—the problems with MS–13—the barbarity. 

And, that is what this Committee is all about: holding these hearings to raise that public awareness—lay out a reality so we can actually enact public policy to combat it and keep this homeland safe. 

With that, I will turn it over Senator McCaskill. 
459 

1The prepared statement of Senator McCaskill appears in the Appendix on page 492. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL1

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. And, I want to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing. There is nothing more important 

than getting these criminals behind bars. Nothing. And, if we have, 

in fact, in any way, allowed criminals to come into our country, 

then there is complete agreement, I believe, of every Member of 

this Committee that we need to do everything we can to apprehend 

them and catch them. 

I want to begin by recognizing the three witnesses here, today. 

And, I have such respect for what you do every day. I know, firsthand, from my time as a prosecutor, that people that wear the uniform in law enforcement in this country go to work each day not 

thinking about themselves, but thinking about what they can do to 

protect—what they can do to make sure that families are safe in 

their communities. And, they take a great deal of risk in doing so. 

So, I know your job is sometimes thankless, and it is easy for folks 

to criticize you. But, I just want you to know, from the depth of 

my person, how much I respect what you do every day. 

Gang violence is certainly a huge problem in this country—and 

it is tearing apart families and taking the lives of way too many. 

They prey on the weak and they prey on the vulnerable. They provide a sense of family that, many times, young people have never 

had. And, they do irreparable damage, not just to the lives of their 

victims, but also to the communities where they live. 

Today, we are here to discuss one gang in particular—MS–13— 

a gang that was started in Los Angeles in the 1980s and has since 

expanded to Central America. I recall the feeling of hopelessness 

I used to have when I was the prosecutor in Kansas City—and we 

had a huge gang problem—when we would be confronted with horrific violence that was gang-inflicted. And, we could not get anybody to talk. I remember sitting and crying with victims and explaining that, if no one talks, no one goes to prison. And, that is 

why these gangs are so insidious. Not only do they do violence, but 

also, by the way they commit violence, they discourage anyone from 

ever speaking up in ways that can hold them accountable. 

And, that is why I am troubled that we have seen a recent trend, 

in some places, of even fewer people willing to come forward in 

communities that are full of people who have come to this country 

looking for hope from another country. And, I certainly want to 

protect our borders. I certainly want to secure our borders. But, we 

also have to be cognizant that what we say and do has an impact 

on people’s willingness to come forward. 

And then, you exacerbate that with the fact that they are going 

to be coming forward against gangs—then we give you an absolutely impossible job to try to hold these gang members to the 

standards that we demand—and that is, putting them in prison for 

as long as we can possibly put them there—and in some instances, 

seeking the death penalty. 

So, because of my sensitivity about how hard it is to get these 

guys, I just want us to be very careful about documents that are 

released, because sometimes information about individuals is very 

sensitive—even documents that the Committee got a hold of last 
460 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Sini appears in the Appendix on page 496. 

night. These documents did not come from CBP. They came from 

a whistleblower, which—we want to encourage whistleblowers. But, 

we also have to be very cautious, if there is sensitive information 

in any of these documents, that they have been fully vetted and 

that law enforcement in those communities, who may be working 

investigations, as we speak, about some of these individuals—that 

there is nothing that is released that could ever harm any of those 

investigations in any way. Putting these people in prison is way 

more important than this hearing. And so, I have concerns that 

these documents were released so quickly and that we did not have 

a chance to even view the documents, on our side of the aisle, until 

they had already been released as now part of the public discourse 

on this issue. 

So, I understand the concern and I share the concern, but I think 

we have to be careful and cautious, because, at the end of the day, 

we have to make sure we are supporting you—and that is the most 

important thing that we have to do. 

So, I look forward to your testimonies, and I look forward to asking questions about the challenges you face in getting these gang 

members that are wreaking havoc in so many communities across 

the country. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. 

It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses, so if 

you will all rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the 

testimony you will give before this Committee will be the truth, the 

whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. SINI. I do. 

Mr. CONLEY. I do. 

Chief MANGER. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Please be seated. 

Our first witness is Mr. Timothy Sini. Police Commissioner Sini 

serves as the Police Commissioner for Suffolk County in the State 

of New York. Prior to his appointment as Commissioner, he served 

as the Assistant Deputy County Executive for Public Safety in the 

same jurisdiction. Commissioner Sini. 

TESTIMONY OF TIMOTHY D. SINI,1 POLICE COMMISSIONER, 

SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK 

Mr. SINI. Thank you very much. And, I want to thank the Chairman and all of the Members of the Committee for the opportunity 

to provide testimony today, regarding MS–13 in Suffolk County, 

New York—and ways in which we can work together to effectively 

eradicate this gang from our communities. 

Just briefly, Suffolk County is New York’s fourth largest county, 

situated some 20 miles east of New York City (NYC), covering 911 

square miles and 1,000 miles of coastline on the eastern end of 

Long Island. Suffolk is comprised mostly of suburban communities 

with a diverse population of approximately 1.5 million people. The 

Suffolk County Police Department is one of the 15 largest police departments in the country, with approximately 2,500 sworn officers 

and approximately 1,000 civilian employees. 
461 

Contrary to recent sentiments in the national media, thanks to 

the hardworking men and women of the Suffolk County Police Department, Suffolk remains one of the safest counties of its size in 

the United States. Presently, crime is the lowest it has been since 

we began collecting reliable crime statistics in 1975. 

Despite these historic reductions in crime, we have recently experienced an increase in gang violence connected to MS–13. Specifically, since January 1, 2016, of the 45 homicides that occurred in 

Suffolk County, 17 of those are believed to be linked to MS–13, 

which is approximately 38 percent of all homicides during that 

time period. And, since 2013, 27 murders in Suffolk have been attributed to MS–13. 

Suffolk County has approximately 400 identified MS–13 gang 

members organized in cells called ‘‘cliques.’’ Many of these ‘‘cliques’’ 

have connections to other jurisdictions, including our neighboring 

county, Nassau County, and New York City. 

Active MS–13 gang members are predominantly male and range, 

predominantly, from the age of 16 to 29—and the median age of 

MS–13 recent arrestees is 18 years old. 

In Suffolk County, MS–13 engages in a variety of criminal activity, such as assault, murder, drug dealing, extortion, robbery, and 

burglary. Intelligence indicates that many MS–13 gang members 

hold wage-paying jobs and are not focused primarily on incomegenerating crimes, such as drug dealing, differentiating them from 

the typical street gang. Rather, MS–13 often engages in violence 

for the sake of violence—to increase the notoriety of the gang and 

to cause communities to fear the gang and its members. 

In fact, in 2016, the most frequently reported crime committed 

by MS–13 was assault. The signature weapon used by MS–13 is 

the machete. As noted, however, MS–13 members also commit 

murder, often targeting victims who they perceive as disrespecting 

the gang. 

For example, in September 2016, MS–13 gang members brutally 

beat two young girls to death in a suburban cul-de-sac—Nisa 

Mickens and Kayla Cuevas. Nisa and Kayla were 15 and 16 years 

of age. They were high school students. Shortly before her murder, 

Kayla had a schoolyard argument with an MS–13 gang member. In 

collaboration with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) 

Long Island Safe Streets Task Force, the Suffolk County Police Department arrested their murderers, and they are currently being 

prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern 

District of New York. 

In response to heinous acts by MS–13, the Suffolk County Police 

Department launched a gang eradication strategy targeting MS–13, 

which, to date, has resulted in over 200 MS–13 arrests of more 

than 150 individual MS–13 gang members. Our strategy is as follows: We collect a tremendous amount of intelligence on the gang, 

with the specific objective of identifying MS–13 gang members and 

hangouts. And, we assign police officers to specific gang members 

to aggressively and relentlessly target the members and the locations where they frequent. This targeted enforcement suppresses 

crime, results in the collection of intelligence, and generates valuable evidence for Federal prosecutions down the road. 
462 

As we engage in this targeted enforcement, we are working hand 

in hand with our Federal law enforcement partners to strategically 

select MS–13 gang members for Federal prosecution under the 

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, 

which is a very effective tool to dismantle gangs, such as MS–13. 

We recognize, however, that targeted enforcement as well as enhanced patrols will not, alone, lead to the eradication of MS–13 

from our communities. As law enforcement weeds out gang members from our neighborhoods, we need to invest in school-based and 

community-based programs to reduce gang recruitment and gang 

enlistment. MS–13 preys on our most vulnerable young people. If 

we do not provide the structure for these young people, MS–13 will. 

To this end, we use an arsenal of community-based intervention 

strategies, such as custom notifications, call-ins, and youth conflict 

insertions. And, we also work closely with our schools to identify 

at-risk children early on, to intervene in effective ways to prevent 

them from joining gangs or to assist them in getting out of a gang. 

One specific segment of our population that is particularly vulnerable to gang recruitment are our UACs. From 2014 through 

March of 2017, 4,624 UACs have been placed in Suffolk County, 

alone—making it one of the largest recipients of UACs in the country. While the vast majority of these children are good kids seeking 

a better life in the United States, they are vulnerable, because they 

are young, unaccompanied, adjusting to a new country, culture, 

and language, and seeking a sense of belonging. And, some of them 

do not have the structure or support system in place to help their 

transition. Due to these circumstances, we have seen a small percentage of UACs fall victim to gang recruitment and gang victimization. 

In sum, while the vast majority of UACs live law-abiding lives, 

the vulnerability of some of these children creates a source of recruitment for MS–13. And, we must provide necessary support to 

these kids—or MS–13 will. 

To highlight ways in which the Federal Government can further 

assist local governments on this critical public safety issue, I respectfully suggest the following: 

More Federal prosecutors to prosecute RICO cases against 

MS–13 gang members. For example, we work with the Long Island 

Criminal Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the 

Eastern District of New York. They have only 11 line assistants 

and 4 supervisors—despite the fact that districts with comparable 

or smaller populations have significantly more Assistant United 

States Attorneys (AUSAs). Indeed, if provided with sufficient 

AUSAs, the Suffolk County Police Department could launch a pilot 

program in collaboration with the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, whereby every MS–13 arrest could be screened for possible 

Federal prosecution. This would increase the number of Federal 

prosecutions of MS–13 gang members, taking dangerous individuals off of our streets—and likely generate significant intelligence 

due to the incentives in the Federal system for defendants to cooperate with law enforcement. 

Second, improved intelligence sharing among law enforcement 

agencies throughout the country—perhaps by creating a singular 

database with information relating to identified MS–13 gang mem-
463 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Conley appears in the Appendix on page 515. 

bers. This system could include automatic notifications to local 

agencies when information is added regarding an individual who is 

of interest to that agency. Such a database would encourage multijurisdictional operations and allow local police departments to be 

more proactive in targeting MS–13 gang members in our communities. 

Third, additional Federal funding to offset patrolling costs associated with ‘‘hot spot policing’’ in areas affected by MS–13 activity. 

Fourth, additional Federal funding to fund gang prevention and 

intervention programs tied directly to the number of UACs placed 

in our communities, as they are some of the most vulnerable to 

MS–13 recruitment. 

And, lastly, improvements to the UAC program, including—but 

not limited to—increased screening and compliance monitoring of 

sponsors, notification of placement to school districts and local governments, and increased funding for post-placement services. 

In closing, I want to thank the Committee for its time and its 

commitment to this very important issue, as well as for the opportunity to appear before it today. I look forward to working with the 

Committee and all of its Members and its staff. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 

Our next witness is Detective Scott Conley. Detective Conley is 

the lead investigator for the Chelsea Police Gang Unit in Chelsea, 

Massachusetts. Detective Conley has been serving the public for 

over 22 years, including serving as the Task Force Officer in the 

Boston Field Office. Detective Conley. 

TESTIMONY OF SCOTT M. CONLEY,1 DETECTIVE, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION, CHELSEA POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

CHELSEA, MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. CONLEY. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill, 

and distinguished Members of the Committee, it is my honor to address you today on behalf of the citizens of Chelsea, Massachusetts. 

My name is Scott Conley, and I have been a member of the Chelsea Police Department (CPD) for over 22 years. To provide context 

for my testimony today, I have included a brief biography. I would 

highlight that I currently serve as a detective with the Chelsea Police Department’s Gang Unit as well as being a Task Force Officer 

for the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s North Shore Gang Task 

Force, which is funded by the Federal Safe Streets Initiative. 

Chelsea is a city in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. It is directly 

across the Mystic River. As of 2017, Chelsea had an estimated population of 42,828. It is also the second most densely populated city 

in Massachusetts, with a total area covering just 2.5 square miles. 

Chelsea is a diverse, working-class city. It is one of only three 

Massachusetts cities in which the majority of the population identifies as Hispanic or Latino. Chelsea’s residents enjoy a large and 

thriving Central American population. 

In 2014, our community, as well as surrounding cities and towns, 

experienced a significant increase in the number of teenage students entering the schools from Central America. For the most 

part—a large majority of these students were hardworking in their 
464 

pursuit of the American dream. But, there was a second type of 

student entering our schools as well: the MS–13 gang member, 

straight from El Salvador, Honduras, or Guatemala, with nothing 

but malice on his mind, looking to further the influence of his gang 

and to recruit as many of the above-mentioned children into the 

MS–13 gang as possible. These children were entering our country 

across the Southern Border as UACs. They were coming to communities that have a strong Central American population in an attempt to be reunited with family members. Upon arrival to the 

metropolitan Boston area, they found themselves in a very vulnerable position. 

Some of these individuals—some of them were being reunited 

with family members that they had not seen for 14, 15, and even 

16 years. Some were being reunited with mothers and fathers that 

had moved on and started their own families and did not welcome 

the child to be a part of it. And, at worst some of these UACs went 

into a sponsorship program with a so-called ‘‘concerned adult’’ that 

had no interest in the child’s well-being. As gang investigators, we 

know that this combination of breakdown in family structure, individuals wanting to belong, and the child’s thought that they were 

in need of protection makes that child a perfect candidate for gang 

recruitment—and, in this case, recruitment by MS–13. 

I have been investigating the MS–13 gang in Massachusetts for 

15 years. Over the course of those years, I have seen the gang’s 

membership numbers increase and decline. The most recent increase—and the most significant increase—began in 2014. The city 

of Chelsea, as well as surrounding cities and towns, saw an uptick 

in street-level violence associated with MS–13 and its rival, 18th 

Street Gang. 

At first, this violence was isolated to mostly armed and unarmed 

assaults, but it soon developed and evolved into coordinated attacks 

on rival gang members and students within our schools. 

Some of these attacks resulted in homicide. Homicide investigators have detailed the most brutal, premeditated and horrific 

crimes committed at the hands of MS–13. They are an organization 

that has no respect for human life. They kill on demand and without mercy. They often use cutting instruments, like machetes, 

knives, and even box cutters to inflict the most damage on the victims as possible. This is how they spread their influence, this is 

how they intimidate, and this is how, if left unchecked, they can 

take over a community or—in the case of El Salvador—influence an 

entire country. 

In 2016, as a result of a 3-year investigation conducted by the 

North Shore Gang Task Force and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the U.S. Attorney’s Office charged 61 leaders, members, and associates of MS–13 in a RICO conspiracy involving 6 

murders and 22 attempted murders. We do not view this investigation as a case but, rather, as a part of our MS–13 program. The 

multi-agency approach is critical to any successful MS–13 program. 

That program depends on closely coordinated investigative measures by a law enforcement team consisting of the FBI, specifically, 

in Massachusetts, the North Shore Gang Task Force, HSI, the FBI 

Transnational Anti-Gang (TAG) offices in El Salvador, Guatemala, 

and Honduras, the Massachusetts State Police (MSP), and various 
465 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Manger appears in the Appendix on page 522. 

local police departments within communities containing a strong 

MS–13 presence. This program also requires close coordination 

with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and local district attorney’s (DA’s) 

offices. 

The multi-agency approach is critical to any successful MS–13 

program. Also critical is an appropriate balance between criminal 

prosecution and deportation. To really get to the heart of the problem in the metro Boston area, we needed to investigate and prosecute a high volume of MS–13 members, including the entire leadership. Along the way, we used deportation, tactically, to remove 

dangerous individuals whom we were unable to prosecute either 

because of age or inability to gather sufficient evidence. We worked 

closely with our HSI partner to ensure that we were targeting the 

right individuals for deportation and providing HSI with the evidence it needed to ensure that the deportation would occur. 

Now that we have taken out a large portion of the leadership and 

membership, we continue a three-part strategy consisting of: developing human sources for continued, large-scale criminal enterprise 

investigations and prosecutions; using the intelligence—the sources 

we have developed for our prosecutions to assist local district attorney’s offices and investigators in our case with three or four pending investigations and prosecutions of MS–13 murderers involving 

juvenile defendants; and using deportation to disrupt MS–13 criminal operations. 

It takes a task force approach with the most sophisticated investigative techniques to combat a transnational threat. Each local, 

State, and Federal partner offers a unique skill set to the team. It 

is my opinion that it is critical to mission success that these efforts 

are supported with efficient funding and appropriate recognition by 

the U.S. Government. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Detective. 

Our final witness is Chief of Police Thomas Manger. Chief Manger has been the Chief of Police in Montgomery County since 2004. 

Chief Manger began his law enforcement career in 1997 with the 

Fairfax County Police Department (FCPD). Chief Manger. 

TESTIMONY OF J. THOMAS MANGER,1 CHIEF OF POLICE, 

MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND 

Chief MANGER. Thank you. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member 

McCaskill, and distinguished Members of the Committee, my name 

is Tom Manger. I am the Chief of Police in Montgomery County, 

Maryland. It is a community of one million people, one-third of 

whom were not born in this country. I am also here representing 

as President of the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA). That 

is an association with the largest 69 police departments in the 

United States. I want to thank you for this opportunity to address 

the Committee. 

Chairman Johnson pointed out in his remarks that MS–13 has 

been around, in the United States, for over 40 years. They started 

on the West Coast. Ten years later, they started showing up on the 
466 

East Coast. And, since the time that they have gotten here, MS– 

13 has evolved into one of the most violent and murderous gangs 

in the world. 

It has progressed from a group whose members, certainly in my 

jurisdiction, started off committing petty crimes and were initially 

considered to be more of a juvenile delinquency issue, as opposed 

to anything else. And, now they have escalated into acts of extortion, aggravated assaults, and murders. As a result, my department and others in the Washington, D.C., region formed a dedicated investigative unit that is solely focused on gangs and continues to target MS–13 and other gangs. 

Over the last 20 years, my department, in partnership with our 

regional and Federal law enforcement partners—along with the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office—have prosecuted numerous cases against 

MS–13 and its primary rival, the 18th Street Gang. With each 

major prosecution, the county experienced a period of relative inactivity from the gangs—only to have them reemerge after reconstituting their ranks and reestablishing their criminal enterprises. 

Beginning about 2 years ago, in June 2015, Montgomery County 

began to experience a spike in gang-related homicides. This 

marked increase correlated with the breakdown of a truce between 

the gangs and the El Salvadorean government—and a significant 

increase in that country’s homicide rate. 

This year, Montgomery County has not seen a spike in those 

homicides by MS–13, but this is because we have just completed 

a major Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations case that 

the task force officers from Montgomery County and Prince 

George’s County, in the D.C. region, and agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Homeland Security Investigations conducted, which netted several indictments of top Marylandbased MS–13 leaders. 

Coincidentally, we had two MS–13 gang members that were murdered in an altercation when an unidentified suspect at a local 

shopping mall got into a confrontation with them and stabbed both 

of the individuals to death. 

There was another highly publicized incident earlier this year, 

where a 15-year-old runaway from my county was killed in a neighboring jurisdiction by MS–13 gang members and associates. This 

certainly reminds us that, while we have seen a bit of a decline in 

the homicides this year, it reminds us that our work against gangs 

must continue. 

It is important to note that, during this same timeframe, my jurisdiction experienced seven more homicides that were attributed 

to two other local gangs or ‘‘crews.’’ These murders, by the neighborhood crews, appear to be motivated by illegal drug transactions, 

whereas, the MS–13 gang murders appear to be based on the victim’s perceived or actual affiliations with rival gangs. Furthermore, 

committing a homicide is a means for gang members to elevate 

their status within the gangs. What also distinguishes the MS–13 

murders is the premeditation, brutality, and callousness in which 

they were committed—with many of the victims suffering from 

multiple blunt force traumas and stab wounds as well as left in 

shallow graves in isolated wooded areas. 
467 

In addition to the homicides that I have mentioned, we have also 

heard from community members that MS–13, which, historically, 

extorted money from solely illicit businesses, such as bordellos and 

unlicensed cantinas, are now collecting ‘‘rent’’ from legitimate 

Latino business owners and residents in certain apartment complexes. In some instances, if the victims of these extortions refuse 

to pay the fee demanded by the gang, the gang members return 

with detailed information on the intended victims’ family members 

still living in Central America. The victims here in the United 

States know that that threat of violence to their extended family 

in their native country is a true possibility and that the perpetrators are out of the reach of U.S. law enforcement. 

This same coercive tactic is used to get young adults to join 

gangs or do tasks on their behalf. The UACs that come into our 

country are particularly vulnerable to gang recruitment. The gangs 

surf the Internet, building dossiers on potential recruits and gathering information on their social networks, both here and back in 

their countries of origin. The data from social media is then used 

to entice or coerce new prospects. In at least two of the recent MS– 

13-related murders committed in my jurisdiction, the victims were 

identified, targeted, and, ultimately, lured to their deaths after 

they developed fabricated social media relationships and accepted 

false invitations to meet with female MS–13 associates, posing on 

the Internet with promises of having sex with the unsuspecting victims. 

Technology also plays a role in hampering law enforcement’s investigations against gangs and other transnational criminal organizations (TCOs). In our recent case with the DEA and HSI, investigators learned that gang members were using commercially available encrypted applications to plot their criminal activities. These 

applications and other technologies are part of the growing, larger 

issue of criminal organizations ‘‘going dark’’ and exceeding the current abilities of both local and Federal law enforcement to legally 

monitor their communications—even with a court order. 

I want to also mention that my colleagues in corrections have 

mentioned that there has been a marked and dramatic increase in 

the number of MS–13 gangs in our jails and prisons. This dramatic 

uptick in that population has impacted the ability for our corrections professionals to keep these individuals segregated. It has impacted staffing and the safety of corrections officers (COs). 

Let me just finish by offering two recommendations to the Committee to address this growing problem. 

First, I believe that Congress can and should fund Federal, State, 

and local task forces to focus on gangs. They could be modeled after 

the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) and should have a single 

national and coordinated infrastructure, led, primarily, by a Federal Agency, with significant input from local departments. These 

regional gang task forces will need the full spectrum of support, 

from centralized intelligence sharing and analysis to prosecution in 

the U.S. Attorney’s Offices, where Federal grand juries and firm 

sentencing have had the greatest impact on disrupting these gangs. 

The Senate has previously enacted legislation to accomplish this 

purpose, but it was never approved by the House of Representatives. 
468 

Senator McCaskill, you mentioned that sometimes we have an 

impossible job. For my last recommendation, I urge Congress to act 

to balance citizens’ right to privacy with law enforcement’s need to 

lawfully monitor and intercept electronic communications, regarding criminal activity and potentially deadly plots. The expanding 

issue of ‘‘going dark’’ must be addressed at the Federal level to afford local law enforcement and our Federal partners the legislation 

and the tools they need to legally access the encrypted communications that are used to coordinate criminal activities. 

Thank you for holding this hearing. And, thank you for the assistance that you provide law enforcement throughout our Nation. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Chief. Senator Lankford has to 

leave, so I will yield my position to Senator Lankford. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Senator LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Gentlemen, thank you—not only for being here, but also for the 

preparation, for this time, for the incredibly compelling testimonies, and for the issues that you bring and the complexity of 

what you deal with every day. We appreciate your work very much. 

All three of you mentioned the interaction between MS–13 and 

what is happening in Central America. Several of you mentioned, 

specifically, the coordination efforts between Central America and 

law enforcement here—both Federal and their law enforcement in 

that spot. 

What can we do to help facilitate greater cooperation—whether 

that be fingerprint sharing, identity—background information between individuals that are being deported from here to back 

there—as they are trying to receive gang members back there—but 

also individuals that are moving this direction as well? So, what coordination is missing? Because, MS–13, obviously, is a strong Central American—especially Salvadorean—presence there. What can 

we do? 

Chief MANGER. I would just say that you touched on a couple of 

things that we need to do. The first, is our ability to remove identified MS–13 gang members that have been arrested or convicted of 

crimes. Oftentimes, we have—not only in Central America, but in 

other nations in our world—countries that will not accept their 

residents back. And, we need to remove them from our country. 

And so, if we can work on that issue, it would be very helpful. 

And, as I mentioned in my testimony, the truce that was in place 

between gangs in El Salvador and their government really did impact things in our country. And, when that truce broke down, it 

created a spike in violence in our country. 

Senator LANKFORD. What you are saying is, the gang truce broke 

down in El Salvador—— 

Chief MANGER. That is correct. 

Senator LANKFORD [continuing]. And it affected the violence directly, here in the United States? 

Chief MANGER. Yes, sir. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. What other resources—what other cooperation do we need from Central American countries? 

Mr. CONLEY. I had the privilege to just return from El Salvador. 

And, with my position with the FBI’s task force, I have been able 
469 

to go down there approximately half a dozen times. I just returned 

as recently as Saturday. The FBI has in place, in El Salvador, the 

TAG group. Their success prompted them to have another TAG 

placed in Honduras and Guatemala. What I believe we are seeing 

up in the metropolitan Boston area is the inability to refer to a 

database that does not just cover local MS–13 members, but MS– 

13 members nationally, as well as internationally. And, I feel like 

a database, where the input was from both El Salvador and the 

United States, would assist in the vetting process of these UACs 

that are crossing the border. 

A lot of times, in El Salvador, they have information that the individual may have gang ties—possibly not a member—and, in return, in the United States, we have information that the individual 

has gang ties—whether or not he or she is a member. And, it would 

be a great asset if that information found its way to a clearinghouse, where they would have access to that internationally, nationally, and even at the local level. 

Senator LANKFORD. All three of you mentioned something along 

those lines. Is the FBI the correct depository for that? Because, trying to set up something new, obviously, is an additional cost, an 

additional level of bureaucracy, and everything else. Is there 

enough of a relationship with the gang task forces—locally, with 

the FBI and their gang task forces—to say the FBI should be 

tasked with having this database—all local folks be able to have 

access to it—international and national? 

Mr. CONLEY. In the metropolitan Boston area, which I can speak 

on with confidence, we speak to the FBI TAG in Central America, 

specifically Guatemala and El Salvador, on a weekly basis. The 

Massachusetts State Police speak to the FBI TAG in El Salvador 

and Guatemala maybe even more often than that. So, it would be 

my opinion that the FBI already has in place those resources—and 

to expand those resources would probably be the best course. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Mr. Sini? 

Mr. SINI. I agree wholeheartedly. As I mentioned in my testimony, this database is critical—mission-critical to facilitating effective collaboration and eradicating these gangs from our communities here. 

What we are seeing for the first time on Long Island, is direct 

connections with the young gang members to El Salvador. So, in 

the past, we have seen connections from gang members in Suffolk 

County and on Long Island to the west coast. Now, it is directly 

to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. So, your question is directly on point. 

In addition to the database, I would just add, you know, we work 

very closely with the FBI in Suffolk County, through the FBI Safe 

Streets Task Force. However, a broad special operation division 

may also be worth taking a look at. My understanding is that that 

is essentially a multi-Agency organization. And, that could be a division that could assist in this type of database. 

What is very helpful is, when we have a number pop in Suffolk 

County—a phone number—and we share that with our Federal 

partners abroad, who have assets in Central America—and the 

type of analysis and intelligence that they can gain from a single 
470 

number is scary—when you see all of the connections—but also extremely helpful. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. So, what is missing in this database 

that does not already exist? Because, it sounds like the cooperation 

is there and the relationships are already there. What is missing 

in this database? Is it just that it has not been launched? Because, 

the information is there. 

Mr. CONLEY. It is my opinion that we have a series of individual 

databases that do not always connect nationally and internationally. And, I think it would be an asset to be able to connect them 

internationally—again, because that would not only assist us with 

knowing who is coming into our community, but also would assist 

the governments within Central America in knowing, at times, who 

is coming back. And, from conversations with government officials 

in El Salvador, that was one of the things that they were struggling with—is that, as their resources—to include the FBI’s TAG— 

addressed the MS–13 problem locally, in El Salvador—and they 

may arrest 20 or 25 individuals—they said that it is just a short 

time later that a plane arrives and 50 more gang members are 

brought back to their country. And, they have to continue the process again. 

So, it is important to address the problem in El Salvador if we 

are going to take a really hard look at the problem that we are experiencing here, in the United States. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I just have a quick comment on this. This is 

something that the Senate Appropriations Committee has already 

started on. In fact, yesterday, we had a hearing on State and Foreign Operations, appropriations regarding Central America, specifically, and some of the investments and the way they have been targeting how we spend money in our foreign aid and how we need 

to be able to target this—specifically, dealing with violence in those 

areas, because it has an exact connection to what is happening 

here. I would encourage cooperation between those two Committees 

and whatever we can do with the FBI to be able to help them finish this database. 

Chairman JOHNSON. It sounds to be pretty much a common solution here. So, we will work together with you on that. Senator 

McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. When you all identify a gang member who 

is in this country illegally, are you getting an immediate response 

from ICE for deportation? 

Chief MANGER. When we arrest them, we typically do. We can 

identify them. It is not until they are arrested and fingerprinted— 

the fingerprints get to the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS)—that they identify them as someone they would be interested in, yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And, let me ask about the countries who 

will not take them back. And, the problem that you just laid out 

very well to us, just that, when El Salvador arrests 25 leaders, we 

send them back 50 more to take their place from this country. 

Have we had any problem with either Guatemala or El Salvador 

refusing to take any of the people that we have arrested for gang 
471 

activity here—to send back there—that are not in this country legally? 

Mr. CONLEY. I would not be the subject matter expert to answer 

that question. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Have you all ever encountered the situation 

of not being able to get rid of a gang member that you are holding 

because a country will not receive them back? 

Mr. CONLEY. In Massachusetts, and specifically in the task force 

that I work in, we have not had a problem—we do not know of a 

problem where the country did not take them back. There have 

been road blocks at times, when an individual committed a crime 

and was placed in custody—was up for deportation—and the Federal judge refused the order of deportation. But, that would be completely different than the country not taking them back. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Right. That is a whole other issue. 

I know you all have talked about money for regional task forces. 

I think this is one of those areas where we have to be really careful 

with the budget the President presented, because, while they are 

putting more money into border security, we cannot forget that a 

lot of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) money— 

a lot of the money that—Byrne JAG grant money, I mean—you all 

know what these programs are because your departments depend 

on them—especially for interagency task forces. Having firsthand 

experience at this—this money is not wasted. This is not soft stuff. 

This is what is giving you the tools. So, I just want to make that 

comment, because the President’s budget was not kind. The skinny 

budget—and the new budget that has been presented—was not always kind to programs like that. 

Let me ask you about prosecutors. You talked, Commissioner 

Sini, about more line U.S. Attorneys—and I get that RICO has 

tools that local prosecutors do not have within the RICO umbrella. 

But, are you getting cooperation from local prosecutors on these assaults—on these felonies? Is there not enough cooperation from 

your local DAs on this? Because, all of these crimes, obviously, are 

State crimes—not Federal crimes. Assault is not even a Federal 

crime. Really, murder is not either. So, I am just curious as to 

what the local cooperation has been. 

Mr. SINI. So, as I mentioned before, part of our strategy is to target these gang members and make street arrests. And, I mentioned 

we have made over 200 MS–13 arrests. The vast majority of those 

arrests are prosecuted by our local district attorney’s office. So, in 

that regard, we get excellent cooperation from the district attorney’s office. 

Where I would improve the collaboration among the police department, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and the district attorney’s office is—oftentimes you are able to develop probable cause and have 

the ability to arrest an individual on local or State murder charges 

much sooner than you are able to make a Federal murder RICO 

charge. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Right. 

Mr. SINI. So, what I would like to see—if the machine was running perfectly—is that once we have probable cause (PC)—once we 

have probable cause to make that State murder charge, that person 

is arrested and prosecuted in the State system. If it turns out that 
472 

we are able to make that into a Federal RICO charge, we can bring 

that case over to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. And, it becomes a collaborative effort. Perhaps, you have a special assistant district attorney (ADA) in the U.S. Attorney’s Office and a special assistant 

district attorney—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Right, so it is coordinated. 

Mr. SINI. Exactly. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes. Improved screening and post-placement 

services were also some of your recommendations. I, certainly, am 

aware of the post-placement services issue. We had a whole hearing—Senator Portman and I did on the Permanent Subcommittee 

on Investigations (PSI)—about the incredible problem of HHS not 

really—I mean, there has been some—put the gang issue aside. 

There has been some horrendous treatment of these children, in 

terms of being forced into child labor and other issues. And, clearly, 

I think that is something that we need to continue to focus on. 

Let me finally just ask you this. It is my understanding, Commissioner and Chief, that neither one of your departments will be 

participating in the 287(g) program. Is that correct? 

Mr. SINI. That is correct. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And, would you explain briefly why you will 

not be participating in 287(g)? 

Mr. SINI. Although we believe that it is mission-critical to collaborate with the Department of Homeland Security to remove 

dangerous gang members from our streets, we also simultaneously 

have to create an environment in which undocumented individuals 

feel comfortable coming to law enforcement with information about 

crimes. So, therefore, we do not, for example, inquire into the immigration status of those individuals who are coming to the police 

as a witness, as a victim, or as someone merely seeking police assistance. In the same vein, we believe that, if we entered into a 

287(g) agreement, it could compromise our mission in creating that 

environment and could hurt our ability to make cases where we 

need to encourage witnesses and victims to come forward. 

With that said, whenever we arrest an individual for a crime— 

misdemeanor or felony—and that person is not here legally, we 

automatically notify the Department of Homeland Security. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And, Chief Manger, your department was 

listed on ICE’s list of jurisdictions that supposedly did not cooperate with them. Obviously, what the Commissioner just described is 

the ultimate cooperation. It is paying attention to your public safety mission, which has to be foremost. You are the only one that answers 911 calls. I am not aware of anybody else in the entire criminal justice system that answers 911 calls, besides your departments. And so, what was the downfall that resulted in you being 

listed as a department that failed to cooperate with ICE? And, 

what was the impact on your ability to, in fact, put criminals in 

prison? 

Chief MANGER. The biggest challenge that I have had is to try 

and make sure that what a number of our elected officials have 

said is not misinterpreted by our Federal colleagues. The fact is, 

we are not now—nor have we ever been—a sanctuary jurisdiction. 

We have found, we believe—because, as I mentioned, Montgomery 

County is one-third immigrant when you look at our population. 
473 

And, I think, the Commissioner described it perfectly. We have to 

find that balance for what is right for public safety in our jurisdiction. If people are afraid to come forward and report crime—afraid 

to come forward as witnesses to crime—our jurisdiction is less safe. 

So, we have found that balance. We do not inquire about people’s 

immigration status. However, if we arrest someone, we cooperate 

fully with ICE. We respond to every one of their inquiries. The 

issue where I think many jurisdictions run into a challenge—and 

we have been talking to the Department of Homeland Security 

about this forever—is the issue of the detainers. And, I think many 

people look at the issue of whether we honor a detainer or not— 

that is, hold someone beyond when they would normally be released—as a political decision. It is not. It is a legal decision. We 

have been instructed by the Federal Circuit—the Fourth Circuit— 

we have been given instructions by our attorneys that we can hold 

these folks until the time when they would be released. At that 

point, we will notify ICE they are being released. If ICE can come 

down and get them, they are welcome to them. We will notify ICE 

when they are going to be—we will give them notice ahead of time 

when they are going to be released, if we have that information. 

We had a case recently where ICE took the opportunity to put 

a press release out, saying that Montgomery County released a 

dangerous person back into the community. It was a mistake. We 

had a detainer. We should have honored it. It was unexpected that 

a judge was going to release this person and we did not notify ICE. 

I say ‘‘we.’’ It was our Corrections Department. And, it was a mistake. It was fixed the next day. The person was taken into custody 

the next day. 

Senator MCCASKILL. But, that does not overcome the press release. 

Chief MANGER. It does not overcome it, but the fact of the matter 

is, we are doing the same thing that Suffolk County is doing—the 

same thing that about 90-plus percent of the 18,000 police departments in this country are doing. We have found that balance, 

where we do not want to be the immigration police, but we absolutely cooperate and help our Federal partners. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Make no mistake, you guys are handling 95 

percent of the violent crime that occurs in this country—not the 

Federal authorities. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I will take Senator Lankford’s questioning. 

Then, it will be Senator Hassan. 

On that same line of questioning, is there any Federal law that 

you would want to see changed or modified to help you do your job, 

as it relates to this gang activity and your dealing with ICE, in 

terms of detainers and immigration law? 

Chief MANGER. We are bound by case law. And, when we are informed by our attorneys that we would be liable for false imprisonment if we do not release someone when they are entitled to be released, that is a problem. And so, if there can be a change in the 

law that gives those detainers the strength of a warrant—because, 

if we have a warrant, we will hold someone. And, that is, I believe, 

the easiest solution: to get a warrant to hold somebody. That gives 

us the legal authority to do so. 
474 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, again, you are concerned about your liability. And, I have heard the same thing, in terms of county sheriff’s departments in Wisconsin. There are some civil cases out there 

that hold them liable if they detain people. So, it is really giving 

you that liability protection to be able to actually detain people in 

this country legally. 

Chief MANGER. That is correct. And, believe me, there is not a 

police department in this country that does not want to hold someone who is a danger to their community. And, if we can use that 

person, who has already committed a crime that has gotten them 

locked up in the first place—if we can use deportation as a tool for 

that individual, I am perfectly happy to remove that person from 

my community. But, I cannot run afoul of the law in doing that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I am going to come back to the strategy of 

using deportation as opposed to arrest and imprisonment. But, I 

first want to get to something pretty basic. 

It was interesting being briefed for this. I have not been a prosecutor. I have not been involved in the whole issue of gangs. My 

assumption going in was that MS–13 would have been primarily 

there as drug traffickers and human traffickers. Kind of splitting 

this out, the reason people join gangs—we have talked about how 

they do not have people here and they do not have family here. 

This is a type of family. But, they are also extorted to join the gang 

as well. 

Can you just tell me, what is the purpose of MS–13? From the 

gang’s perspective, why are they recruiting and why are they extorting? What is their main activity? I will start with you, Commissioner. 

Mr. SINI. Sure. They recruit to sustain themselves. And, they are 

a criminal organization. Their main objective is to exist and to be 

feared. And, there is no question that they engage in criminal economic activity. Many of them sell drugs. Many of them commit extortion, robberies, and burglaries. But, they do not engage in those 

criminal activities as their primary purpose of existence. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Do you understand why that is just surprising to hear that? Their main purpose is just to exist, to be an 

entity, and to have people loyal to them—and the loyalty extends 

to killing people with a machete. Does everybody else agree with 

that? Is that the main purpose? 

Mr. CONLEY. Just to add to what the Commissioner said, we 

have to look at MS–13 in the United States as it evolves—just like 

we have to look at MS–13 in El Salvador as it evolved. On the east 

coast of the United States, MS–13 is just getting a foothold. On the 

west coast of the United States, like Senator McCaskill and Senator Johnson have said, they have been there for decades. And, we 

actually imported MS–13 back to El Salvador. But, now they have 

begun to evolve. And, on the west coast, they do control drug-trafficking markets. They do have connections with other criminal organizations, such as the Mexican Mafia, La Eme. 

In El Salvador, almost everybody pays. Almost everybody pays 

some sort of extortion payment to MS–13. In some cases, it might 

be as little as one dollar. But, when a household in El Salvador 

might only bring in $250, that one dollar is pretty significant. 
475 

So, we need to learn from the patterns of MS–13 on the West 

Coast and the patterns of the criminal activity of MS–13 in El Salvador in order to be prepared for what MS–13 is ultimately going 

to try to put into place on the East Coast. So, to piggyback on what 

the Commissioner said, as of right now, they are just maintaining. 

And, they really do just go out and commit the most heinous of violent acts—some of which, as a 22-year investigator, I have never 

investigated before—to include cutting off of limbs and the attempt 

to cut off a victim’s head with a machete. 

So, at this moment, on the East Coast and in Boston, like the 

Commissioner said, some of them are employed. Some of them go 

to work at 6 o’clock in the morning. If you go into certain restaurants in Boston to arrest an MS–13 member, sometimes the 

business owner says, ‘‘He was one of my best workers.’’ 

So, right now, they are maintaining. They are getting their numbers up—and we can see that, from the metropolitan Boston area 

all the way down to Charlotte, North Carolina. But, they are going 

to evolve, and they are going to attempt to take over the trafficking 

markets of narcotics—just like they have on the West Coast and 

just like they have in Central America. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, again, they have different specialties. In 

El Salvador, it is extortion. On the West Coast, it is drug trafficking. And, we are not quite sure how it evolves, but you would 

suspect that it would be drug trafficking or human trafficking. 

Mr. CONLEY. I believe that, on the East Coast, they are still trying to get leadership into the right places, including Boston, Long 

Island, Virginia, the Carolinas. And, I think once they establish 

that leadership base, you will start to see a more sophisticated 

gang that does not just solely commit violent acts, but also controls 

some sort of narcotics market and possibly even illegal trafficking. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, let me ask how they differ and how they 

are similar to other major gangs. Maybe Chief Manger can answer 

that. 

Chief MANGER. Our neighborhood crews, which are not ethnicbased—that is, they are more diverse, in terms of their membership—they are the ones that typically have—when we have homicides relating to those, it is usually drug-related. The homicides related to MS–13, it is just because they can, because they will, and 

because they want to instill that fear. It is because they think, ‘‘If 

you are not in my gang, then you are my enemy and I am going 

to kill you.’’ 

The economic support that MS–13 was engaged in was very unsophisticated for a long time. They were thinking, ‘‘We are going 

to rent an apartment in some old apartment building, and we are 

going to put a couple of young women in there and get $20 for 

every guy that wants to come in.’’ And, this would operate for 

about a week. When it would finally come to our attention, we 

would be able to shut that down. It would just pop up somewhere 

else. Not very sophisticated. And, it was usually that they were extorting money and making money from unlawful operations. Now, 

they are going to Latino-owned businesses and charging them 

‘‘rent.’’ And, they are using coercion, fear, and threats, as the victims know that these people have the ability and the willingness 
476 

to carry out—to now extort money from legitimate business. This 

is a trend that we are seeing more recently. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Really quickly, because I did just want to 

ask you—you talked about the instances of a couple of individuals 

lured through the Internet to their deaths. Was that an initiation 

rite? Why would they lure individuals just to kill them? 

Chief MANGER. In one case, it was because they believed that 

that individual was part of a rival gang. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. 

Chief MANGER. In another case, it was that this individual had 

been approached and had been resistant to joining MS–13. So, it 

was basically to teach them a lesson. No more reason than that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Hassan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member McCaskill, for this hearing. 

First of all, to the three of you, thank you for your service as law 

enforcement officers—and please thank your families for all of us, 

too. I am the former Governor of New Hampshire, and I had the 

great privilege of being the chief executive over the New Hampshire State Police, so I am very appreciative of the time, effort, and 

commitment that you all provide to your fellow citizens. 

And, I am very grateful for your testimonies today. I am very 

grateful, not only for the information, but also for the suggestions 

and recommendations. I think they will help all of us as we work 

together to combat this gang and other public safety threats. 

I did want to delve a little bit more into some of the discussion 

of what we think the root causes of gang violence are. We know we 

have to ensure that our Federal, State, and local law enforcement 

officers have the resources necessary to keep our communities 

safe—and I thank you for your recommendations in that regard. 

But, to touch on something that Commissioner Sini talked about 

a little bit, having a strong law enforcement presence in our communities is only really one part of the solution. We have to ensure, 

too, that there are social and educational programs in place—and 

that those are adequately resourced—to try to divert young people 

away from joining gangs in the first place. 

So, in my State, one of the important social programs that has 

helped us to address youth violence was a mentorship program between police and students. It is known as Manchester Police Athletic League (MPAL). It paired cops with kids in a mentorship capacity, in order to help kids grow, make the right choices, and become productive members of the community. Among other things, 

they teach kids boxing, how to exercise, and how to work out. And, 

it has been an important tool used to combat gang recruitment and 

crime, but also to combat drug abuse as well, which, as you know, 

is a particularly devastating issue in my State. 

So, I want to ask you all about the social and educational programs in your communities, and how they seek to address some of 

the root causes of gang violence. And, I also just wanted your 

thoughts on what we saw yesterday from the President’s budget, 

which has eliminated Federal support for key educational pro-
477 

grams, such as dropout prevention and after-school support activities. 

I assume that you think Federal dollars for this kind of work are 

important, but I would love to hear your thoughts. And, maybe, 

Commissioner, we could start with you. 

Mr. SINI. Sure. So, that is a critical piece to addressing this significant public safety issue. In Suffolk County, our police officers— 

they do such fantastic work in terms of mentoring our students— 

our children in the communities—and doing outreach to all of our 

children, but particularly our at-risk youth. And so, we do that in 

a variety of different forms. We do it directly with police officers. 

We also have launched a new program called ‘‘Change,’’ which is 

with the Department of Probation and a not-for-profit organization 

that specializes in gang prevention. And, the idea is early intervention, trying to identify at-risk children early on to connect them to 

services that they may need—whether it is social work services, 

psychological counseling, or medical services—and providing that 

support, so that they can do well in our communities—and also involving the family, because that is key. The family is going to have 

the biggest impact on this child’s life, so there needs to be an approach to involve the family in that process. And, involving law enforcement in these social programs is critical for several reasons. 

One, police officers tend to be very warm, very intelligent, and 

very charismatic individuals, so they tend to be good at this. 

Senator HASSAN. Yes. 

Mr. SINI. But, also, it creates that trust between law enforcement 

and the community. So, to the extent that people are not comfortable with law enforcement, mentoring programs, like the one 

you launched in your home State, help break those barriers. So, it 

also achieves that objective. 

And, I would just add that, in terms of early intervention, what 

better place to start than with the UACs, because we know they 

are coming over and they are at risk—they are vulnerable by nature of coming to this country illegally, by not being with their parents, by being so young, and by being new to this country. And, to 

identify them early on would be key, which is why notification to 

local governments, I think, would be very helpful. And, yes, I vehemently support Federal dollars for community policing. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you very much. Detective. 

Mr. CONLEY. I will be brief. I feel that the two gentlemen to the 

left and right of me are in a position to speak on policy better than 

I am. But, I will tell you, in Chelsea, Massachusetts, my chief, 

Brian Kyes, has always said that if we are reacting to a crisis, then 

we have already lost. We need to be proactive and prevent the crisis. And, in Chelsea, we have many programs, especially addressing the UACs—whether it be after-school programs that involve policing or whether it is the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) 

in Chelsea that provides social resources to these children. 

Like the Commissioner said, you have to involve the family. You 

cannot take a 15-year-old and think that 30 minutes after school 

playing basketball is going to have a lasting effect. It may open up 

some doors for a relationship, but, once that door is open, you need 

to find out where that individual is going home to—because we can 

spend all day playing basketball, but where is that 15-year-old 
478 

going home to? And, as law enforcement agents, it is our job to 

know where that 12-year old, 13-year old or 14-year-old individual 

is going home to. 

And so, we spend a lot of time—I probably spend just as much 

time fighting gangs as I do trying to spend time with individuals 

in Chelsea, preventing them from joining the gangs in the first 

place. 

So, you have to get the families involved. And, when it comes to 

these UACs, it is important to help us identify what the crisis is. 

A lot of these individuals are coming here across the border, and 

they already have Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) setting 

in. Just the crossing, in and of itself, we have heard horror stories 

about. 

One of the important things that I think would greatly help the 

State of Massachusetts, and specifically my community, Chelsea, is 

if we knew—if there was some sort of notification that came to the 

police department or came to the city, notifying us that a UAC was 

about to join our community. That way, we can search them out 

to offer resources, instead of them having to seek us out. 

And, lastly, when it comes to MS–13—inherently they are not 

very trusting of the government. And, a lot of the social programs 

that we have in Chelsea—to include what is called Reaching Out 

to Chelsea Adolescents (ROCA)—the MS–13 members see that as 

a government agency. They do not know that it is a social agency. 

So, it does hinder their ability to do reach-out work. 

But, just in closing, the proactive approach—the reach-out work, 

preventing these individuals from joining the gang at the recruitment stage is critical. 

Senator HASSAN. OK. Thank you. Chief. 

Chief MANGER. Every single one of us, when we were 12 years 

old or 13 years old started to sort of mature out of always being 

under Mom and Dad’s umbrella. And, you want to have—every one 

of us wanted a sense of belonging to something—a sense of being 

able to be somewhere where we had people that cared about us— 

friends. For some of us, it was sports. For some of us, it was other 

school activities. For some, it was church. 

The UACs that come here are just a perfect recruitment opportunity for gangs, because they come with none of that, but they all 

want that. 

Senator HASSAN. Right. 

Chief MANGER. So, the key, I think, is to be able to—as soon as 

possible—when we identify those folks—is to give them the wraparound services. And, I am telling you, Scott is right on. And, I 

wrote down, ‘‘walking home,’’ because we can do that—we can, for 

these kids, but then, they have to walk home. And, that is where 

they are vulnerable. 

Senator HASSAN. Yes. 

Chief MANGER. So, the early intervention programs—the intervention programs—we have something called a ‘‘street outreach 

network,’’ where we have counselors who are specially trained— 

many of them are former gang members, who, actually, intervene 

with these kids. They help them get out of the gangs and, if possible, keep them from joining gangs in the first place. The challenge, I think, is to identify these kids, and the one place where 
479 

1The Report submitted by Senator Harris appears in the Appendix on page 532. 

these kids will all end up where you might be able to connect with 

them is schools. And, the problem is, the schools are hesitant—and 

I understand this—why they are hesitant. They are hesitant to get 

involved in the gang issue. But, that is where you can actually find 

these kids. But, the schools have been reluctant—understandably— 

to start getting involved in those gang intervention kind of programs. But, if we can somehow coordinate a little bit better—without running afoul of all of the protections that are in place for 

these young kids—the early intervention is the way to go, absolutely. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for 

your indulgence. Gentlemen, thank you all very much—and be 

safe. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Sure. By the way, I just have to chime in. 

You were talking about how, if you are dealing with a crisis, you 

are already too late. The primary goal, I believe, of Federal policy 

should be to stop the flow or drastically reduce it. If we focus on 

that, then you are not having to worry about dealing with all of 

these UACs—because it has been a crisis level. It is creating all 

kinds of havoc. So, our focus ought to be on how we stop or dramatically reduce that flow. Senator Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. Chairman, as Attorney General 

(AG) of California, I convened a group of law enforcement leaders 

in our State—and other experts—over quite some period of time to 

produce this report, ‘‘Gangs Beyond Borders.’’ And, it is an examination of transnational criminal organizations and what we need 

to do to stop them. I would like to submit that for the record.1

Chairman JOHNSON. Without objection. I appreciate it. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. 

I want to thank each of you. As a career prosecutor, I started out 

as a baby DA, and I have prosecuted, personally, everything from 

low-level offenses to homicides. I was the elected DA of San Francisco and the Attorney General of California. And, I cannot thank 

you each enough for the work you do, in particular as local law enforcement. Perhaps, it is a bit of my bias, but I do know that local 

law enforcement disproportionately shoulders the burden and responsibility for dealing with these issues, including transnational 

criminal organizations. And, it is too bad that others—when we 

talk about transnational criminal organizations, they automatically 

go to international law enforcement or Federal, when, in fact, local 

law enforcement really does carry an extreme burden for dealing 

with it at the local level. So, I want to thank each of you and the 

men and women of your departments for the work they do. 

So, as local law enforcement, we know that, first, transnational 

criminal organizations—and it is in the report also—certainly they 

are involved in the trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings. 

They also, like everyone else in society, have adopted technology in 

the way they do their work. Among their many reasons for being— 

the Chairman asked that question—one of the highest reasons for 

being is to make money. But, they profit off of illegal activities that 
480 

rise to the level of also being lethal. And so, they are also involved 

in money laundering. They are involved in government fraud. They 

are involved in piracy. They are involved in identity fraud. All of 

those are pursuits of illegal and organized criminal associations. 

But, as local law enforcement, one of the things that we know 

is that one of the best tools that we have is the trust that we have 

between ourselves and the communities we serve. And, when there 

is a break in that trust, it breaks our ability to do the work that 

we need to do—and the men and women of your departments need 

to do, which is to concern themselves with public safety. So, I 

would like to talk for a moment about the importance of the relationship of trust between local law enforcement and the communities you police. 

You are aware that this Administration has been looking at a 

policy of withholding Byrne JAG and Community Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS) funding—Federal funding to local law enforcement 

if you do not cooperate with immigration enforcement. We have 

talked about that previously. 

First, tell me, how much do your departments rely on Byrne JAG 

and COPS funding to do your everyday work? Can you tell me? 

Each of you, if we can just go down the line. 

Mr. SINI. We are a recipient of Byrne JAG grant money in excess of $1 million, and it helps us fulfill many of our mission-critical objectives. 

Senator HARRIS. And, if that funding were withheld, what would 

that mean, in terms of your ability to perform your everyday duties 

and responsibilities? 

Mr. SINI. We would have to secure funding from another location, 

which, in these days, in my county, that would be extremely challenging. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. CONLEY. I would mirror what the Commissioner said. My department relies greatly on that funding. And, if that funding was 

taken away, it would seriously inhibit our ability to do what we do 

every day. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. 

Chief MANGER. Ditto. We typically have around $1 million at any 

given time of that kind of grant money. The programs that we operate with that money are absolutely critical to our mission and are 

doing phenomenal things for the residents of our county. 

My hope is that with—there is beginning to become—we are getting more clarity as to what a sanctuary jurisdiction is and what 

would make a jurisdiction ineligible for these kinds of grants. As 

we get that clarity, I think that my concern is lessening a little 

bit—because nowhere did I see that a place like Suffolk County or 

Montgomery County would have to change what we are doing. We 

do, in fact, cooperate with Federal authorities. But, again, we 

have—but the fact that we have elected not to become 287(g) jurisdictions and do immigration enforcement ourselves would not make 

us ineligible for those kinds of grants. 

So, I am hopeful that, as we get more clarity, it will not impact 

the majority of jurisdictions. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you, Chief. And, on your point about 

your department’s statement to your community that you will not 
481 

be a 287(g) city and department, let us talk a little bit about, 

again, the relationship of trust, as it relates to what we ultimately 

want to do, which is to not just arrest the bad guy, but to prosecute 

him, get a conviction, and lock him up. What we want to do is 

make sure that there is going to be serious, swift, and severe accountability and consequence, in particular for those who commit 

violent crimes in our communities. 

As we both know, the only way that we get to that goal is to 

prove a case in a court of law. And, the only way we are going to 

prove a case in a court of law is if we present evidence to a jury 

or a judge. Correct? 

Chief MANGER. Yes. 

Senator HARRIS. And, most of the time, that evidence is not going 

to be coming from the bad guy himself. It is going to be because 

we have produced witnesses to the crime who will come and testify 

before a jury in an open courtroom. Is that correct? 

Chief MANGER. That is correct. 

Senator HARRIS. And, would you not agree, then, that what has 

happened over the course of many months, since these statements 

have been made about a policy that would have local law enforcement cooperate with ICE, is that there has been a chilling effect, 

in particular around witnesses who are immigrants—be they documented or undocumented? 

Chief MANGER. Certainly, when the Executive Orders (EOs) were 

first issued—right after the new Administration came into office— 

there was absolutely great fear in our community about just how 

those Executive Orders were going to be implemented. 

Senator HARRIS. And, you mentioned you are the head of the Police Chiefs—— 

Chief MANGER. The Major Cities Chiefs Association, yes. 

Senator HARRIS. Yes, and thank you for that. So, you probably 

know Chief Charlie Beck in Los Angeles (LA). 

Chief MANGER. Very well, yes. 

Senator HARRIS. So, Chief Beck has reported that, in March, he 

witnessed a 25-percent drop in reports of sexual assault and a 10- 

percent drop in reports of domestic violence among Latinos in Los 

Angeles from the same time in 2016. Similar reports have come 

from Houston, Texas, and Salt Lake City. 

Would you agree, that when the people of our communities think 

that they are going to be deported, many victims—in fact, especially victims—will endure crimes like domestic violence or sexual 

assault, rather than be deported and removed from their children 

or the community that they know? 

Chief MANGER. I do believe that. And, when we became—we 

were very quickly aware of the fear in our community, and we redoubled our efforts to ensure—to let the folks in our community 

know that our policy has not changed and that they had no reason 

to fear coming forward to report crimes or being witnesses. 

Now, I will just tell you a very quick story. We had a domestic 

homicide where a man driving down a busy street had abducted his 

estranged wife, and she tried to jump out of the car. He grabbed 

her by the hair, pulled her back in, shot her in the head, and then 

pushed her out onto the street. There were two men who were 

within the distance that you and I are away from where this hap-
482 

pened. They heard her scream. They heard the shot. They saw 

what occurred. Both of these men were day laborers. They were 

standing in a parking lot at a convenience store waiting to be 

picked up for work. Neither man spoke English. I do not know 

their immigration status, but people can certainly speculate. 

As we arrived, these men came forward and spoke to one of my 

officers about what they saw. And, had we not had the relationship 

with the community that we have and the policies that we have, 

my guess is that both of these men would not have been there 

when officers arrived to start investigating that case. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. Thank you all for your service. I 

really appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Heitkamp. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, we 

are all announcing our street credibility on this. I, too, was the Attorney General of my State, like Attorney General Harris—and I 

had the wonderful opportunity of leading teams in drug enforcement, which inevitably led to gang enforcement. And, it was very 

difficult sometimes for people in a State like North Dakota to understand that gangs have infiltrated their community. I think 

sometimes one of the challenges we have in States—unlike California—is getting people to admit they actually have a problem. 

I do not think there is any doubt that MS–13 has become a cancer in our society and that it is metastasizing in every community, 

including communities in my State, especially Native American 

communities, where it is easier to infiltrate. 

I will tell you, like any cancer, we need a whole range of treatments. If you get breast cancer, you cannot just rely on surgery. 

You are going to have chemotherapy; you are going to have radiation; you are going to have after-treatment. And so, I want to 

focus, as my colleague Senator Hassan focused, on prevention—and 

Senator Harris focused on what we need to do to actually have 

prosecutions. I want to talk about deportations. 

I, through an interesting set of circumstances, actually spent 

about an hour and a half—2 hours in an El Salvadorean prison 

with leaders of MS–13. They rely on those gang leaders to maintain some kind of order within the prison system, because, otherwise, with the overcrowding, there is no way they could maintain 

that population. And so, you see MS–13 basically embedded 

throughout the culture and throughout the society—the civil society of these communities. 

In San Salvador, I also went to a religious-based anti-gang program where a lot of it was job training and a lot of it was trying 

to find opportunities, so that future gang members or people who 

were just on the cusp of recruitment could find an opportunity 

other than joining the gang for economic stability in their lives. 

Now, with that said, I will tell you that the biggest problem I see 

is extortion. And, when you deport a gang leader—an MS–13 gang 

leader—back to the community—they are going to find a family 

member—and they are going to extort. And, all of the great wishes 

and outreach that you are talking about today may not be all that 
483 

valuable if they think that if they do not join in this country, that 

Grandmother will not be alive the next day. 

And so, the extortion piece of this is incredibly difficult to get at. 

And, I think we cannot solve this problem without thinking about 

stabilizing the Triangle countries—especially the country of El Salvador. They are still suffering from the residuals of a civil war. 

That created the vacuum, in terms of security and safety that 

gangs moved into. And, there has never been, in my opinion, a very 

effective reestablishment of the rule of law. And, they act in that 

way. 

Chairman Johnson and I also witnessed some of the collaborations between our institutions. And, we actually saw the Colombian 

folks come up and try and help to establish a rule of law and order 

in these communities. 

My question to all of you is—and then I will just let you take 

it from here: When you are arresting or when you are dealing with 

the community, how much of this do you hear? And, have you 

thought about how, if only we could have a program in El Salvador 

and if only we could work more collaboratively with our counterparts in the Triangle countries—particularly, El Salvador—we 

could get a better handle on what is happening here? How much 

thinking have you done about international collaboration? I guess 

that would be my question. 

Mr. CONLEY. To answer that, I just want to touch base on what 

Senator Harris was asking. In my community, where the majority 

of the community identifies as Hispanic or Latino, promoting trust 

of law enforcement is priority number one. A lot of our community 

is made up of undocumented residents. And so, furthering trust 

with that sub-community is priority number one. And, we have 

gone to great lengths to assure them that, yes, since January, ICE 

has had more of a presence in our neighborhoods. But, the Chelsea 

Police Department does not assist ICE operations when they are 

solely for immigration issues. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I can appreciate that one of the challenges 

that you have is just within the community, writ large, where you 

are. But, it is going to be really hard to convince that kid not to 

join a gang and not to act the way they are going to act if they 

think that their parents or if they think that their grandparents 

are at risk back home in El Salvador. 

Mr. CONLEY. Right, and that is a true—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. How do we solve that? 

Mr. CONLEY. And, that is a true statement. We do have evidence 

of individuals being pressured into joining gangs because of some 

sort of tie directly with El Salvador. Senator, I think you said it 

at the beginning of your question. We need to secure—we need to 

stabilize those countries. They are fleeing for a reason. And, when 

they do, they are coming to this country under the worst possible 

conditions. 

So, like yourself, I have been to many of the jails and prisons in 

El Salvador. And, they have resources that are minimal at best. 

And so, there is no reason for that individual to actually attempt 

to reform while they are in prison. They are just looking to get out 

and just go right back to where they were before they went in. 
484 

So, to answer you directly, yes, we need to make an effort to assist those Central American countries—specifically, El Salvador, 

where I have been—in stabilizing. 

Senator HEITKAMP. From the standpoint of the chiefs of police, 

how do you see an opportunity to collaborate with your counterparts in the Triangle countries, particularly El Salvador? 

Chief MANGER. It is a challenge. I mean, we certainly have 

partnered with our international partners—and 10 of our members 

are from police departments from Canada. We have had associate 

members from the United Kingdom (U.K.). The relationship between law enforcement agencies—especially our Federal partners— 

and the law enforcement agencies of some of these countries 

is—we have to build the trust there. You have to be able to trust 

that that information that you are sharing is not going to be misused. 

There is no question that the premise of your remarks—that 

what is happening there has an impact on what goes on here. Unfortunately, as a local police chief—even as president of Major Cities Chiefs—I am not sure that local law enforcement has much control or much influence over the issue that you are asking about. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And, I think my point would be, then we are 

just treating symptoms, because we are not going to get ahead of 

this unless we work collaboratively. And, I completely understand 

the hesitation to share intelligence or any kind of information back 

and forth. You do not know who you are talking to. And, I think 

these are all efforts that we are working on to try and improve the 

professionalism, the honesty, and the integrity of police departments. We have seen some steps in the right direction. They definitely are not there. 

But still, like Senator Harris and Senator Hassan, I understand 

the critical role that local law enforcement plays. And, when we 

make mistakes here, in terms of national policy and national cooperation as well as the utilization of the resources we have in this 

country—when we do not do our job internationally, you guys are 

going to continue to be stressed and have this same issue. 

And so, I just wanted to bring that up, because I think a lot of 

people think, ‘‘Well, deport them home.’’ Deporting people home 

may, in fact, mean sending one of the worst perpetrators, who now 

has the ability to extort any number of additional people, home to 

achieve a criminal result right here in the United States. 

So, thank you so much for everything that you do. We want to 

be great partners with you. And, thank you so much for your testimonies. 

Chief MANGER. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Daines, good timing. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAINES 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. Precision, like the Blue Angels, 

here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, thank you all for testifying 

today—and for your service in the law enforcement community. 

You all mentioned brutal crimes in your testimonies. These are 

hard to stomach. We just had a very brutal crime in Montana last 

week, where we had a deputy sheriff that was murdered by a man, 

who was eventually killed by law enforcement. We had the funeral 
485 

yesterday. We need to do everything in our power to put an end 

to the violence and to cut off the flow of resources that fuel it. 

In Montana, while we do not have a sizable transnational criminal organization presence, we do feel the impacts of their illicit activities. MS–13 has established relationships with drug-trafficking 

networks that distribute in Montana. Virtually all methamphetamine in Montana is trafficked from south of the border. 

We have seen the price drop in half with the influx. And, now, 

more than 90 percent of all drug offenses in Montana are methamphetamine-related. Additionally, we have seen a nearly fivefold 

increase in positive heroin drug tests. This impacts our communities, from increases in violent crime to a disturbing rise in child 

endangerment and foster care caseloads. 

Detective Conley, at previous hearings with Homeland Security 

Secretary Kelly, we discussed domestic demand for drugs as a key 

contributor to the violence in Central America. I understand that 

you recently returned from El Salvador, training their police. From 

your perspective, how can we reinforce their law enforcement efforts? 

Mr. CONLEY. While I was down there, I had the opportunity to 

speak to high-ranking officials within their law enforcement community. And, what they said over and over again was that what 

they were experiencing in El Salvador was the sophistication of 

gang members that were coming back from the United States. Just 

recently, in El Salvador, they started doing Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Wiretap Act) wiretaps. Up until 2015, they did not even have the ability to do that. 

In El Salvador, what they need most, in regards to combating 

MS–13 and their rival, the 18th Street Gang, is not just the technology, but also the personnel that knows how to utilize that technology. And, most importantly—and I know the Department of Justice (DOJ) has gone to great lengths to provide this—they need 

training for their prosecutors. A lot of their prosecutors did not 

have the adequate training needed to prosecute a sophisticated 

gang, like MS–13 or the 18th Street Gang. 

When I was down there—not just this most recent time, but a 

couple of years ago—we found that their homicide detectives did 

not do homicide investigations. For the most part, they just responded, wrote a report, and then moved on to the next homicide. 

So, to answer your question directly, training is what they need. 

They want to combat the gang. El Salvadoreans that live in El Salvador—they despise the MS–13 gang just as much as El 

Salvadoreans that live in Massachusetts. They despise the gang, 

and they applaud all efforts to rid their area of the gang. But, to 

answer your question, it is training. 

Senator DAINES. So, to follow up, what else do you think these 

countries could be doing to stop the production of methamphetamine—to stop the production of these other drugs, before they are 

even shipped to the United States? 

Mr. CONLEY. I think it would be outside of my scope of expertise 

if I were to answer that. I am sure that the same techniques that 

we would use here in the United States—I mean, it would require 

a joint approach—a joint effort to totally stop the traffic of narcotics. 
486 

Senator DAINES. Commissioner Sini, in your testimony, you discussed the surge to over 400 MS–13 gang members in your county, 

in just a few years. How in the world did that happen? 

Mr. SINI. These are identified gang members in Suffolk County, 

in a handful of hamlets. These individuals are certainly comprised 

of mostly males. They are mostly Latino, coming from countries 

such as El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Many of them 

came to the country illegally. A small percentage of them are UACs 

and a small percentage are also lawful residents—and even American citizens. 

Certainly, we are concerned that MS–13 is recruiting younger 

people. As we target them, they recruit even younger. And, as we 

mentioned earlier, the UACs are certainly vulnerable to MS–13 

gang recruitment. And, that is why it is so important to address 

that population. 

Senator DAINES. So, speaking of gangs—and I hail from a State 

that has a number of Indian reservations. I am told, by State law 

enforcement, that gangs often find Indian reservations to be a safe 

haven. Do you have any thoughts—and I will open this up to the 

panel. Do you have any thoughts on how we can boost collaboration 

between the tribal communities and law enforcement? 

Mr. SINI. Suffolk County has reservations in its jurisdiction. And, 

we have had issues involving crime—particularly, gangs—on our 

reservations. In one instance, what we have done is we have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the tribe 

to essentially provide police services to that reservation. There are 

obviously very complex issues involving jurisdiction and sovereign 

territory. And, that memorandum of understanding set forth clear 

terms, upon consent with the reservation and the tribe, to accept 

police services. That document has gone a long way in improving 

relations between the Native Americans living on that reservation 

and the Suffolk County Police Department. And, we have been able 

to collaborate with the tribal council to target those criminals, because the—— 

Senator DAINES. How long ago did you put that MOU in place? 

Mr. SINI. The MOU has been in place for several years. 

Senator DAINES. And, have you seen actual results? 

Mr. SINI. Yes, absolutely. We were able then to work hand in 

hand with the tribal council to target problem individuals and 

problem locations, because there is no arguing and there is no debating whose role it is, who is allowed to be there, and when we 

are allowed to be there. So, it facilitates that collaboration, and we 

have an excellent relationship with the tribal council on the reservation with which we have that MOU. And, just like we would 

work with a town or a municipality, where we partner with their 

code enforcement and their public safety to target, say, a problem 

home—we have zombie homes in Suffolk County—these abandoned 

homes—or a problem location, like a drug spot. We do that with 

the reservation, and it is very effective. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Daines. 

Just to give you a little further insight on your opening line of 

questioning, in terms of the law enforcement in Central America, 

when we were down there—one of the biggest problems they 
487 

have—first of all, they are combating impunity and corruption. 

When I first heard that, I kind of—impunity—that is a different 

term. But, then you find out that local law enforcement has been 

provided a not-so-subtle threat when they have been given a video 

showing their families going to church or their children going to 

school. So, that is a pretty brutal reminder of why it is pretty tough 

being local law enforcement down in Central America. 

Senator Hoeven—further evidence that we are committed to securing our Northern Border—well represented on our Committee. 

You are next. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HOEVEN 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 

calling a hearing on this important issue. And, I guess I would 

start out by asking each of you the following: What are we doing— 

what is Customs and Border Protection doing at the border, particularly in regard to unaccompanied alien children, to make sure 

that we are trying to prevent the growth of MS–13—in other 

words, looking at people who may be trying to come across to join 

MS–13 in this country? And, what is the average age for MS–13 

gang members? 

Mr. SINI. So, in Suffolk County, the median age of recent 

MS–13—I should say active MS–13 members, based on our arrests, 

is 18. And, it certainly ranges from—the largest age range for active MS–13 gang members is 14 years old to 29 years old. And, certainly, there are younger MS–13 gang members—and older—but 

that is our biggest bulk. 

In terms of what the Department of Homeland Security is doing, 

my understanding is, they are transferring responsibility over to 

the Department of Health and Human Services at an early stage. 

And, I think I will speak for Suffolk County—what we would like 

to see is more collaboration between local governments and the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Refugee 

Resettlement (ORR), in terms of the placement of these children in 

our communities—including notification to school districts and local 

governments, so that we can be proactive in dealing with this very 

vulnerable population. 

Senator HOEVEN. Well—and also the immigration courts, because 

if unaccompanied alien children, particularly, say, young males in 

that 14 year old or 15 year old to 18 year old age bracket—if they 

are being released into the community, then does that not create 

a real concern that some of them may get recruited and end up as 

MS–13 gang members? 

Mr. SINI. Yes, and we have seen that some of them have. Now, 

it is still a very small percentage of the UAC population, but, nonetheless, it is of concern to us, which is why we think local notification and funding to provide services to these children is so important. 

Senator HOEVEN. Where is MS–13 drawing their ranks from? I 

mean, you talked about significant growth. Where are they drawing 

that growth from? Where is it coming from? 

Mr. SINI. They are recruiting young people in our communities 

and they are recruiting recent immigrants, because, oftentimes, 

they prey on people’s fears. So, recent immigrants may not feel 
488 

comfortable coming to law enforcement. They are adjusting to a 

new culture and society, so they are vulnerable at that point. And, 

they are recruiting also very young people. There is one instance 

where, in Suffolk County, we have intelligence of MS–13 gang 

members recruiting a 10-year-old. 

Senator HOEVEN. And, what is the draw? 

Mr. SINI. I think it is a combination of factors. There is the draw 

that ‘‘You can belong to something and we can put some money in 

your pocket. You can get high with us. You will have a family. We 

will protect you.’’ There is a sense of cultural unity as well. And 

then, there is the other part: ‘‘By the way, if you do not join, you 

are going to have problems.’’ So, there is the fear factor as well— 

the coercion, if you will. 

Senator HOEVEN. I guess the same questions, Mr. Conley. 

Mr. CONLEY. I just wanted to add to what the Commissioner 

said. I could tell you, in my community, if you are a 17-year-old El 

Salvadorean that just arrived in the Massachusetts area as a UAC, 

all you have ever known is MS–13 and the 18th Street Gang back 

home. From childhood, that is all you have ever known. They control complete city blocks—multiple city blocks. They control multiple cities. So, a lot of times, when that child comes here and they 

are confronted—like we spoke about a few times—under the worst 

possible conditions and they have one individual come up to them 

and even speak about MS–13 or the 18th Street Gang, that child 

goes back to what he or she knows, which is what MS–13 is in El 

Salvador. And, they know that, once that contact has been made, 

they only have really one choice—and that is to join. 

Now, we have had success with individuals resisting at the beginning of that recruitment process, locally. I am talking about success locally. We have had success with having that individual resist 

that gang recruitment, and then actually the gang, at some point, 

kind of leaves them alone, because a lot of times MS–13 is only 

looking for individuals that want to be MS–13. 

But, under the UAC program, a lot of these individuals were 

coming to homes that did not want them—a parent that did not 

want them—and sometimes we have even had interviews done 

with individuals that did not want to be here—that their grandparents said, ‘‘We have raised you long enough. It is time for you 

to go live with your Mom.’’ 

And then, in the worst-case scenario, the sponsorship program, 

where there was not any vetting taking place—and we have horrific stories of individuals living in the worst of conditions. And, 

like everyone on this panel has said in our opening briefs, that is 

the classic vulnerable 15-year-old individual that seeks out the 

identity of the gang and replaces it for a broken family structure. 

I have just one more point. I cannot comment on what goes on 

at the border, but I can tell you, from a local law enforcement perspective, like the Commissioner said, if we had some sort of notification that came to the community—and I am not sure how that 

notification would be made—so that when the individual comes 

here, they have resources provided to them—whether it be through 

the schools or whether it be through mental health services. But, 

the worst-case scenario is the scenario that we are living with right 

now, where we get notified from the school that 38 new students 
489 

just arrived from Central America. Some are thriving and some are 

not. And, those are only the ones that we can identify, because they 

are seeking out education through the schools or social services 

through medical facilities. 

So, it would greatly assist local law enforcement if some sort of 

notification was done—especially when we are talking about 13- 

year old, 14-year old, and 15-year-old kids. 

Senator HOEVEN. Well, that actually goes right to my next question. Are our laws sufficient to try to deal with the MS–13 problem? It sounds like that right there is something that would be 

helpful—and that is some type of notification requirement for people coming across the border, so as to address where they are 

going—and that law enforcement would be one of the entities at 

least notified, so that you are aware. I mean, we would have to give 

some thought as how to do it. But, that would be my question. Are 

our laws sufficient so that you can try to deal with this problem? 

Chief MANGER. I think that our criminal laws are sufficient, in 

terms of dealing with criminal behavior by gangs. Where I think 

we need help—and I do not know whether it is new laws or different laws, but if our Department of Health and Human Services 

folks—and they are notified in my jurisdiction. Somehow, they are 

notified when we get these UACs sent to our jurisdiction. But, as 

Detective Conley mentioned, oftentimes, these kids—they say, ‘‘I 

am going to my uncle’s house. This is where my uncle lives.’’ They 

verify that. What they do not do is get enough information about 

whether the uncle is even capable of taking this person in. And 

then, what happens when the uncle does say, ‘‘OK, I will take 

him,’’ and 2 weeks later says, ‘‘This is not working. We cannot do 

this.’’ 

Where are the wrap-around services to help that family and to 

help that child—that individual? And, we need, perhaps, better 

standards in place to make sure that whatever situation we are 

sending that person to is viable—and viable for some longer period 

of time. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you. Thank you for your work. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. 

Again, I just want to thank the witnesses for taking the time, for 

your testimonies and for your thoughtful answers to our questions. 

But, primarily, thank you for your service. We all know the risks 

you are taking. We all have, I am sure, in our States, people—police officers and other public safety officials—that have given their 

lives in the line of duty. So, we understand that and truly appreciate your service. 

With that, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days until 

June 8 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions 

for the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(491) 

A P P E N D I X 
492 
493 
494 
495 
496 
497 
498 
499 
500 
501 
502 
503 
504 
505 
506 
507 
508 
509 
510 
511 
512 
513 
514 
515 
516 
517 
518 
519 
520 
521 
522 
523 
524 
525 
526 
527 
528 
529 
530 
531 
532 
533 
534 
535 
536 
537 
538 
539 
540 
541 
542 
543 
544 
545 
546 
547 
548 
549 
550 
551 
552 
553 
554 
555 
556 
557 
558 
559 
560 
561 
562 
563 
564 
565 
566 
567 
568 
569 
570 
571 
572 
573 
574 
575 
576 
577 
578 
579 
580 
581 
582 
583 
584 
585 
586 
587 
588 
589 
590 
591 
592 
593 
594 
595 
596 
597 
598 
599 
600 
601 
602 
603 
604 
605 
606 
607 
608 
609 
610 
611 
612 
613 
614 
615 
616 
617 
618 
619 
620 
621 
622 
623 
624 
625 
626 
627 
628 
629 
630 
631 
632 
633 
634 
635 
636 
637 
638 
639 
640 
641 
642 
643 
644 
645 
646 
647 
648 
649 
650 
651 
652 
653 
654 
655 
656 
657 
658 
659 
660 
661 

Æ