U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–996 WASHINGTON : 2018

THE EFFECT OF SANCTUARY CITY POLICIES ON 

THE ABILITY TO COMBAT THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 15, 2018 

Serial No. 115–32 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MATT GAETZ, Florida 

MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

JOHN RUTHERFORD, Florida 

KAREN HANDEL, Florida 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIE ́ RREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

TED LIEU, California 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 

PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington 

BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

VALDEZ VENITA ‘‘VAL’’ DEMINGS, Florida 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

LUIS V. GUTIE ́ RREZ, Illinois 

PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

FEBRUARY 15, 2018 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

The Honorable Rau ́l Labrador, Idaho, Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary .................................... 1 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, California, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary ...................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Detective Nick Rogers, President, Denver Police Protective Association 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 5 

The Honorable A.J. Louderback, Sheriff, Jackson County, Texas Sheriff’s 

Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 7 

Ms. Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies, Center for Immigration 

Studies 

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

Dr. Keith Humphreys, Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Stanford University School of Medicine 

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


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
(IV) 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Letter from Congresswoman DeGette, Statement for the Record from the City of 

Denver, Comprehensive Background Document, Copy of Denver’s Public Safety 

Priorities Act, Overview of efforts to address opioid epidemic in Denver, Overview 

of Denver Police Department’s Drug Enforcement Efforts, Q4 Tracker ICE Notification of Release Requests, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, American Immigration Council, Tahirih Justice Center, Church World Service (CWS), Immigrant 

Legal Resource Center (ILRC), Drug Policy Alliance. Submitted by the Honorable 

Zoe Lofgren, California, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and 

Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary. This material is available at the 

Committee and can be accessed on the committee Repository at: 

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-115- 

JU01-20180215-SD007.pdf 

DPD Policies regarding Illegal Immigrants slideshow. Submitted by the Honorable 

Ken Buck, Colorado, Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, 

Committee on the Judiciary. This material is available at the Committee and can 

be accessed on the Committee Repository at: 

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-115- 

JU01-20180215-SD003.pdf 

Crackdown on Immigrants undermines public safety, Tukwila officers turn immigrant over to ICE after he called them for help. Was that legal? Charge: Child 

rape suspect threatened to deport victim’s mother. Submitted by the Honorable, 

Pramila Jayapal, Washington, Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary. This material is available at the Committee and can be accessed on the Committee Repository at: 

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-115- 

JU01-20180215-SD005.pdf 

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, Committee Statement; The Effects of 

Sanctuary Policies on Crime and the Economy. Submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas, Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary. This material is available at the Committee and 

can be accessed on the Committee Repository at: 

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-115- 

JU01-20180215-SD004.pdf 

Letter to the Honorable Bob Goodlatte. Submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, 

Maryland, Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary. This material is available at the Committee and can be 

accessed on the Committee Repository at: 

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-115- 

JU01-20180215-SD008.pdf 

New Denver Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Proposal. Submitted by the Honorable Rau ́l Labrador, Idaho, Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary. This material is available at the Committee and can be accessed on the Committee Repository at: 

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-115- 

JU01-20180215-SD006.pdf 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE EFFECT OF SANCTUARY CITY POLICIES 

ON THE ABILITY TO COMBAT THE OPIOID 

EPIDEMIC 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Raul Labrador [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.] 

Present: Representatives Labrador, King, Jordan, Buck, Johnson 

of Louisiana, Biggs, Lofgren, Gutierrez, Jayapal, Jackson Lee, and 

Raskin. 

Staff Present: Joseph Edlow, Counsel; Sabrina Hancock, Clerk; 

and Maunica Sthanki, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. LABRADOR. The Subcommittee on Border and Immigration 

Security will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. We welcome 

everyone to today’s hearing on the effect of sanctuary city policies 

on the ability to combat the opioid epidemic. And now I recognize 

myself for an opening statement. 

One of the more destructive byproducts of irresponsible and lax 

immigration enforcement under the Obama administration was the 

rise of the sanctuary jurisdiction. Sanctuary jurisdictions nationwide continually refuse to cooperate with ICE and actively violate 

or disregard Federal law. This committee has repeatedly delved 

into the complex issues surrounding these practices, but the problem persists, and it is becoming endemic among many metropolitan 

communities. 

For several congresses, we have heard countless stories of sanctuary practices and the havoc they wreak on public safety, national 

security, and the sanctity of the rule of law in this country. Unfortunately, little has changed even with the change of administrations. Instead of working with the Federal Government, specifically 

ICE, to create a framework for cooperation, these jurisdictions have 

chosen to dig in deeper. 

Last year’s announcement by San Francisco that the city would 

no longer participate in the Joint Terrorism Task Force for fear of 

coming into contact with immigration issues has only been exacerbated by audacious State policy. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
2 

In 2017 the States of Illinois and California passed legislation 

that will tremendously limit the ability of State and local law enforcement agencies from working with or even contacting ICE. 

While the long-term effects of the framework have yet to be truly 

realized, these laws will absolutely have far reaching impacts on 

public safety and ultimately constitutional law. 

While this committee continues to work toward an end to sanctuary practices and a reinstatement of immigration enforcement 

nationwide, we cannot forget or largely ignore consequence of these 

ill-conceived policies. In many of these communities local law enforcement agencies that have traditionally enjoyed strong professional relationships with Federal law enforcement partners are 

being forced, through no fault of their own, to dissolve those relationships. 

This hearing focuses on the continual fight against the opioid 

epidemic that is raging in this country. We are not here to discuss 

the underlying causes of the epidemic. And to be sure, this committee is not asserting that sanctuary policies have caused such an 

epidemic. 

But the fight against opioids at the law enforcement level has, 

as asserted by our witnesses’ written testimony, greatly relied on 

strong Federal partnerships, including partnerships with ICE. The 

crimes associated with the opioid crisis, including drug trafficking 

and violent felonies, require coordination, cooperation, and most 

importantly, communication. 

Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in Denver, Colorado. At a time when drug crimes are soaring in the city, Denver 

has made a policy decision to not work with ICE and to make a 

poor distinction that immigration enforcement is unrelated to law 

enforcement activities. 

While the correlation between the two is incontrovertible, Denver 

is following the lead of many other cities and threatening those 

law-enforcement officers that would violate such a policy. These 

practices not only fail to recognize the benefit of strong cooperation, 

but also fail to see just how closely immigration enforcement and 

drug enforcement are connected. 

With the influx of narcotics smuggling, especially in opioids, 

through our porous borders, it is often the tools of immigration enforcement that provide best practices to interdict and dismantle 

those operations. Just this week, Fox News reported that an alien 

deported three times was arrested in Florida for the intent to distribute over $400,000 of methamphetamine. Our public safety and 

our public health are tied to eradicating opioids which can never 

be accomplished when the force multiplier that is ICE is sidelined 

based on political expediency and grandstanding. 

I want to thank Congressman Buck for bringing this issue to the 

foreground and for suggesting this important hearing. I also want 

to thank all the witnesses for being here today, and I look forward 

to this discussion. The time for Congress to act on sanctuary policies is long overdue, but I am confident that placing a continued 

focus on this issue will assist in the eventual reversal of such dangerous policies and practices. 

I now recognize our ranking member, Ms. Lofgren of California, 

for her opening statement. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
3 

Ms. LOFGREN. Today’s hearing asks us to examine the nexus between so-called sanctuary city policies and the opioid epidemic. I 

say ‘‘so-called,’’ because it is important to note at the outset that 

the term sanctuary city has been used to describe pejoratively a 

wide variety of community originated law enforcement policies. 

For example, Dayton, Ohio will honor ICE detainers if an individual poses a threat to national security or is a suspect in a felony 

offense involving violence or trafficking, and there is reason to believe the person lacks legal status. 

In my home State of California, there is State law that local law 

enforcement will notify ICE about individuals where certain criminal offenses allows for transfer to ICE only after a conviction. And 

these policies are considered by my local police department as community trust policies where they can make sure that community 

members will continue to cooperate with the police because they 

are not perceived as being immigration agents. 

I would note also that although our Attorney General has been 

quite vocal in opposition to policies that refuse to recognize socalled detainers, a court decision in the Central District of California just last week found that it violates the Fourth Amendment 

to do what the Attorney General is asking local governments to do. 

And I will just quote on page 41 of the decision, ‘‘The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department officers did not have probable cause that 

the individuals were involved in criminal activity but were instead 

holding these individuals on the basis of civil immigration detainers. The LASD officers had no authority to arrest individuals for 

civil immigration offenses, and thus detaining individuals beyond 

their date for release violated the individuals’ Fourth Amendment 

rights, and likely those individuals will obtain monetary damages 

for the violation of their rights.’’ 

So I think it is important to know that we have to have respect 

for the different levels of government; the Federal Government 

does one thing; State and local do others. There is no one-size-fitsall. 

I also think that to connect the opioid epidemic with the community trust policies is rather misplaced. You know, the Centers for 

Disease Control indicates that most opioid deaths have occurred in 

rural areas with small immigrant populations, not in large cities. 

In 2016, for example, West Virginia, a State with relatively few immigrants and few, if any, so-called sanctuary cities saw the highest 

number of opioid deaths per capita. And States with high immigrant populations and urban community trust policies, such as 

California and Texas, experienced relatively low numbers of opioid 

deaths. 

Now, the opioid crisis is a result of multiple systematic factors. 

Nearly all experts agree that it is an American-made problem that 

originates with our prescription drug industry. As Professor Keith 

Humphreys explains in his testimony, the opioid epidemic was 

made in America, not in Mexico, China, or any other foreign country. And the suggestion that mass deportation would solve the 

opioid crisis, I think, is ridiculous. And it derails a productive bipartisan conversation on the opioid epidemic. 

Now, numerous experts have concluded that we cannot arrest 

our way out of the epidemic; we cannot deport our way out of it 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
4 

either. Even if we were to deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants from our country, we would still have an opioid crisis on 

our hands. 

The opioid crisis can only be solved by assembling experts, medical professionals to assemble policies that will get at the root of 

this devastating crisis. But at a time when facts play a minor role 

and politics are in the driver’s seat, some are using the immigrant 

community as a scapegoat, I think, for a complex societal problem 

that is, really, unrelated to immigration policy. 

So I would challenge all of us today to take a break from that 

pattern and to work together to see if we could not come to grips 

with the serious opioid epidemic that is facing our country. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. Just for the record, I do 

not think anybody’s suggesting that mass deportation would solve 

the opioid crisis. I think you will see from all the witnesses that 

not a single one of them suggests that. But I thank you all for 

being here. 

Without objection, other members’ opening statements will be 

made part of the record. 

Mr. LABRADOR. We have a distinguished panel here today. The 

witnesses’ written statements will be entered into the record in its 

entirety. I ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or 

less. To help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on 

your table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you will 

have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns 

red, it signals that your 5 minutes have expired. 

Before I introduce our witnesses, I would like you to stand and 

be sworn in. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the 

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 

Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Thank you. Please be seated. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Buck, to introduce Detective Rogers. 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to introduce a dedicated public servant, Detective Nick Rogers. 

Detective Rogers serves as the president of the Denver Police 

Protective Association. He is a 32-year veteran of the City and 

County of Denver’s Police Department, serving as a detective for 

the District 4 Narcotics Investigations Unit of the Denver Police 

Department for the last 20 years. 

He brings a strong understanding of the tactics that narcotics 

traffickers use to feed the scourge of opioid addiction throughout 

our Nation, especially in my home State of Colorado. 

Detective Rogers will also tell us about the severe restrictions the 

City and County of Denver have placed on all Denver police officers, hampering officers’ ability to communicate with ICE following 

apprehension of heroin peddlers who are in this country illegally. 

Thank you, Detective Rogers, for agreeing to be here today. I also 

want to thank Chairman Goodlatte for bringing attention to this 

issue. Finally, I want to thank Chairman Labrador for holding this 

important hearing today. With that, I yield back the balance of my 

time. Thank you. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
5 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. Now I will introduce Sheriff 

Louderback. Sheriff Louderback is a 35-year law enforcement veteran serving his fourth term as Sheriff of Jackson County. He is 

currently the Legislative Chairman for the Sheriff’s Association of 

Texas, and is a past president of SAT. He has spoken nationally 

on Federal immigration policies and is a nationally published author on immigration legislation. 

Locally, Sheriff Louderback has led the 287–G program in the 

Gulf Bend region. Sheriff Louderback also serves on the Jail Advisory Committee, TCOLE Advisory Committee, and is a past board 

member of the Texas Association of Counties. He is an active member of the Gulfman Community Collaborative and serves on the 

National Sheriff’s Association Immigration Committee and Governmental Affairs Committee. 

Ms. Jessica Vaughan has been with the Center for Immigration 

Studies since 1992 where she served as director of policy studies. 

Prior to joining the Center, Ms. Vaughan was a Foreign Service Officer with the State Department where she served in Belgium, 

Trinidad, and Tobago. She is also an instructor for senior law enforcement officer training seminars at Northwestern University’s 

Center for Public Safety in Illinois. 

Ms. Vaughan has a master’s degree from Georgetown University 

and earned a bachelor’s degree in international studies at Washington College in Maryland. 

Professor Keith Humphreys. Dr. Humphreys is a professor and 

the section director for mental health policy in the Department of 

Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University. He is 

also a senior research career scientist at the VA Health Services 

Research Center, Palo Alto, and an honorary professor of psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College, London. 

Dr. Humphreys has served as a member of the White House 

Commission on Drug-free Communities, the VA National Mental 

Health Task Force, and the National Advisory Counsel of the U.S. 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. He 

also served one year as senior policy advisor at the White House 

office of National Drug Control Policy during the Obama administration. 

I now recognize Detective Rogers for his statement. 

STATEMENTS OF NICK ROGERS, PRESIDENT, DENVER POLICE 

PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION; A.J. LOUDERBACK, SHERRIFF, 

JACKSON COUNTY, TEXAS SHERIFF’S OFFICE; JESSICA 

VAUGHAN, DIRECTOR OF POLICY STUDIES, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES; AND KEITH HUMPHREYS, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY, STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF 

MEDICINE 

STATEMENT OF NICK ROGERS 

Mr. ROGERS. I am new at this. I am sorry. This is my first time, 

probably my last. I appreciate it; I really do. 

Beginning in 2006, I began to see heroin on the streets of Denver. As the arrests grew, I was able to interview both sellers and 

buyers. It became apparent the source of heroin was coming from 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
6 

Mexico, and the parties selling it were also from Mexico and Honduras. 

Early on, I found that almost all the buyers of the heroin were 

middle-class white young adults from the suburbs. Each one had 

a story to tell, but the overwhelming consistent part of the story 

was that they started their own opiate addiction by taking their 

parents’ leftover pain pills, slowly becoming addicted to them. 

Some had been involved in an accident or had a surgery, with 

the common thread of taking oxycodone and becoming addicted to 

it. Each of these stories wound up on the streets of Denver because 

buying pills on the street is too expensive, and they all turned to 

the cheaper opiate, heroin. 

The heroin dealers also had a common story. They were mostly 

young 18- to 25-year-old illegal aliens, mostly from Mexico. But as 

the years went by, some started coming from Honduras and Nicaragua. They were all in possession of several ounces of heroin, had 

a fake ID from Mexico—Sinaloa most common. 

Some of these arrests led to what was known as ‘‘the office’’; a 

location, usually a higher end apartment, which is used only to 

stash heroin and large amounts of money. Many of these offices 

produce tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars 

in cash waiting to be sent back to Mexico. Each office had produced 

an average of one pound of heroin located there. 

I began to see a disturbing trend. I started to arrest the same 

parties twice. For example, working in an undercover capacity, I 

bought heroin from an illegal alien, arrested him, charged him with 

distribution of a controlled substance and had an immigration detainer placed on him, believing this would end that suspect’s involvement in the narcotics trade. 

Several months to maybe a year or so later I arrested the same 

suspect who was now wanted for failing to appear on the first case, 

and is now in possession of heroin for a second time. 

The only change was the suspect was now in possession of a new 

fake ID with a different name. This became common practice in my 

unit, as well as other narcotics units around the city. Arresting illegal aliens for possession of large amounts of heroin, cocaine, and 

methamphetamine, who are now living under fake names, all the 

while being wanted on failing to appear for charges, appear on 

other drug charges. 

During a typical arrest, as I described above, I would contact one 

of two ICE agents, Nick Fowler or Kevin Cruz, both of whom I 

worked closely with here in Denver. These two ICE agents did a 

fantastic job and were invaluable to us during those early years. 

They would respond any time of day or night to assist us. They 

would interview the suspects and ultimately put a detainer on 

those suspects if they were, indeed, here illegally. They often found 

that the person they were interviewing had been deported before; 

sometimes they had been deported several times. 

In October, 2017 this all changed. The City and County of Denver placed several restrictions on all DPD officers, forbidding them 

to contact ICE, as we had done so many times before. The city 

adopted an ordinance, 17–0940, placing these restrictions on DPD 

officers. We were informed that if we communicated with ICE, we 

were subject to discipline up to and including termination. We were 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
7 

also told that if we violated the ordinance, we were subject to 

criminal prosecution and would be fined up to $999 and a term of 

incarceration not to exceed 300 days in jail. I have provided an actual ordinance for you to read. 

The individuals I am speaking about did not sell and distribute 

narcotics; they committed burglaries—auto thefts and robberies— 

just to name a few of their crimes. I think it should be noted that 

in all the years I have dealt with ICE, I cannot remember a single 

time our coordinated efforts were targeting minor offenses. 

In short, the only parties we ever worked together on were felons 

who had committed serious crimes. I also need to emphasize that 

illegal aliens are only a small percent of individuals that I deal 

with daily. Each day brings a new case, a new set of suspects, who 

span the entire gamut of all walks of life. 

The ordinance has had a chilling effect on our daily operations. 

We can no longer call and share information with ICE. They can 

no longer call and ask us for assistance or ask for intel on suspects 

involved in criminal activity. The ordinance has created, in my 

opinion, a city that is much less safe than it was prior to this ordinance. 

Detective Roger’s written statement is available at the Committee or on the committee repository at: http://docs.house.gov/ 

meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-115-JU01-Bio-RogersD20180215.pdf 

Mr. LABRADOR. Twenty more seconds. You are good? 

Mr. ROGERS. I skipped a little paragraph. 

Mr. LABRADOR. All right. 

Mr. ROGERS. I will be all right. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you very much for your testimony. Sheriff 

Louderback. 

STATEMENT OF A.J. LOUDERBACK 

Mr. LOUDERBACK. Chairman Labrador, Ranking Member Lofgren, and the other distinguished members of the immigration subcommittee: how can law enforcement be told, instructed, and ordered to not work together with all law enforcement agencies in 

this country? How, as a Nation of laws, can we not cooperate in the 

law enforcement field? How can law enforcement protect our citizens when cities, counties, and States will not partner against 

criminality? 

Law enforcement officers who have sworn to uphold the law is 

being used to undermine the law. Law enforcement faces a constant flow of opioids, trafficked humans, criminal aliens to our communities. Nowhere is it clearer than sanctuary cities, which is creating a safe haven for criminality. Wherever sanctuary policies 

exist, your law enforcement is not able or permitted to cooperate, 

communicate, or partner to fight crime as a team, or honor our 

laws of this country. 

This is, and has always been, a serious public safety issue. 

Thank you. 

Sheriff Louderback’s written statement is available at the Committee or on the committee repository at: http://docs.house.gov/ 

meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-115-JU01-WstateVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:06 Aug 11, 2018 Jkt 030996 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A996.XXX A996

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
8 

LouderbackA-20180215.pdf Mr. Labrador. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Vaughan. 

STATEMENT OF JESSICA VAUGHAN 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Thank you, Chairman Labrador and Ranking 

Member Lofgren, for the opportunity to participate today. 

The opioid epidemic has been nothing short of horrific; tragically 

destructive to families and potentially to our communities. And, of 

course, we must help those who are struggling with addiction and 

substance abuse with treatment and other support, but we will not 

make progress on this crisis until we disrupt and dismantle the 

criminal organizations that bring these deadly substances into our 

communities. 

Local law enforcement agencies cannot do it on their own. Neither can the DEA nor the FBI. Because these deadly drugs are 

coming in from across our borders, immigration enforcement is a 

critical element in that effort. For it to succeed, there must be robust and unfettered cooperation between all of the local, State, and 

Federal law enforcement agencies who are dedicated to fighting 

these criminal organizations. 

And let’s be clear, proponents of sanctuary policies claim that the 

policies are necessary either for community trust reasons or legal 

reasons. But these are bogus arguments. In truth, sanctuary policies are purely political and intended to thwart the enforcement of 

immigration laws that these political leaders disagree with, but 

which were enacted through our democratic process, and which 

Americans support. 

But there is a human cost to this politicization of law enforcement, and Congress cannot allow it to continue. According to the 

DEA, about 80 percent of the illegal opioids sold in this country are 

brought in by foreign criminal organizations, primarily the Mexicobased drug cartels, and especially the Sinaloa Cartel. 

They have cells in the United States; they work with other criminal groups to distribute the drugs—sometimes street gangs like 

MS–13, which also have a lot of members are noncitizens, many recently arrived. The fact that these operatives are in the country illegally is a major vulnerability that law enforcement agencies must 

take advantage of. 

There are three ways that sanctuary policies are compromising 

our ability to win against the foreign drug traffickers. First, they 

interfere with communication and block access to information as 

we have heard from the officer from Denver. A common type of 

sanctuary policy is to prohibit the questioning of suspects about 

their immigration status. And that means they have to look the 

other way in immigration violations, missing an opportunity to 

keep the criminal off the streets. It also means that they are less 

likely to detect imposters, people using aliases, fraudulent documents. That is all a common occurrence among drug traffickers, especially those who have been deported once already. 

Local officers typically are not trained to recognize immigration 

documents or signs of ID theft by foreign nationals, and they need 

the discretion to contact the DHS agencies that can assist in identifying criminal aliens involved in the drug trade. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
9 

Second, sanctuary policies inevitably result in the release of 

criminal aliens back to the streets where they can, and do, reoffend, just like American criminals do. According to ICE, since 

January, 2014 there have been 10,000 criminal aliens who were released by sanctuary policies who were later arrested for another 

crime after their release. 

These crimes create needless victims. ICE rearrests only about 

40 percent of them. A lot of them were released during the Obama 

administration and failed to appear for their hearings as the officer 

noted. So there is a lot of cleanup work that ICE now has to do 

because of these policies. 

Finally, sanctuary policies can act as a magnet for foreign criminal organizations because they know that immigration violations 

will be overlooked, and that their use of fraudulent documents and 

aliases is less likely to be detected. Just two nights ago Fox News 

ran a story about ICE sanctuary cleanup operations in California. 

And they had a criminal alien on camera saying how disappointed 

he was to be arrested because he thought he was safe in California, 

because it was a sanctuary State. 

On this same operation, participants observed how absurdly 

time-consuming it has become for ICE in California, because instead of arresting dozens of criminal aliens at a time in the jails, 

ICE offices must stake them out at their homes where the criminal 

aliens know ICE cannot enter without consent; and they sometimes 

stand in the windows, laughing at the ICE officers. Eventually they 

come out and ICE gets them, but this is a very costly way to go 

about removing criminal aliens who could be picked up in the jail 

if ICE were not blocked by this irresponsible California law. 

Congress can do something about this. Local politicians are not 

going to reverse these policies on their own, so Congress must act 

to clarify the legal authorities that support immigration enforcement and to impose consequences on sanctuary jurisdictions and 

the officials who are responsible for these destructive policies. 

Also, Congress should update immigration laws to make sure 

that criminals who are involved in the drug trade and gang members are excludable from the country and cannot obtain visas, work 

permits, green card citizenship, or any immigration benefit. Thank 

you. 

Ms. Vaughan’s written statement is available at the Committee 

or on the committee repository at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/ 

JU/JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-115-JU01-Wstate-VaughanJ20180215.pdf 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. Dr. Humphreys. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH HUMPHREYS 

Mr. HUMPHREYS. Thank you, Chairman Labrador and Ranking 

Member Lofgren, for having me testify today. 

My comments reflect my 30 years of experience as a clinician and 

researcher in the addiction field, and also my service as a White 

House drug policy advisor in both the Bush and Obama administrations. And I mention that to say that is because drug problems 

affect all of us. I tried to work on them in a bipartisan fashion. 

In the first 15 years of this century more Americans died of drug 

overdose than died in World Wars I and II combined. 2016 death 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
10 

toll was 64,000 people, about 80 percent of which involved opioids, 

is worse than AIDS in the peak year of that terrible epidemic. To 

push back on this epidemic, we have to analyze it dispassionately 

and deploy our resources strategically. In that regard, I think there 

are many high-impact policies available to us, but I do not think 

that cracking down on sanctuary cities is one of them. 

I was born and raised in West Virginia, which is ground zero of 

this epidemic. I go back home frequently to help my home State 

deal with the ravages of opioid addiction. West Virginia is emblematic of where this epidemic has taken hold; in rural areas that do 

not have sanctuary cities. A lot of people would say we do not even 

have cities. Recent immigrants are rare, yet opioid addiction is 

rampant. That is because this epidemic was made in America, not 

somewhere else. 

Beginning in the 1990s, American companies such as Purdue 

Pharma produced a generation of doctors and healthcare regulators 

to dramatically increase opioid prescribing. As a result, the U.S. 

now dwarfs all other nations in opioid consumption. We are number one in the world. And if we cut our prescribing by 40 percent, 

we would still be number one in the world, not a distinction of 

which to be proud. 

The astonishing increase in providing opioids which at its apex 

reached a quarter billion prescriptions a year is what started and 

helps maintain our opioid epidemic. And again, prescription opioids 

come from American companies, prescribed by American doctors, 

overseen by American regulators. Immigrants have no part in it. 

It is absolutely true that some criminals from other countries 

deal heroin in the United States. But as documented in journalist 

Sam Quinones’ excellent book, ‘‘Dreamland,’’ those dealers came 

here to capitalize on people already addicted to prescription 

opioids, as Detective Rogers said as well. 

Few people decide to spontaneously use heroin laced with 

fentanyl. But many people get pushed to that point after first becoming addicted to prescription opioids. Arresting heroin dealers 

from other nations will thus never eliminate the root of our problem. 

Similarly, President Trump’s proposal to build a wall on the Rio 

Grande is ill-directed when the healthcare system puts out enough 

opioids each year for every American adult to be medicated around 

the clock for a month. 

There are, however, other policy options that would make a much 

bigger difference, and because Congress has very wisely appropriated $6 billion to fight the opioid epidemic, we now have the resources to begin putting them into place. 

Two sources of good ideas are the Surgeon General’s report on 

facing addiction that was released 14 months ago, and the President’s Commission on Combating Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, 

which began offering proposals beginning last summer. 

Here are some of their good ideas. We should enhance prescription drug monitoring programs which help prescribers identify doctors/shoppers who are addicted, diverting pills to sell, or both. 

These programs also help law enforcement identify pill mills. We 

should ensure that non-opioid pain treatments are adequately reVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:06 Aug 11, 2018 Jkt 030996 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A996.XXX A996

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
11 

imbursed by insurance. As a major purchaser of healthcare, the 

Federal Government has a lot of leverage in this area. 

Congress should direct the Department of Labor to actively enforce the provisions of the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. This law, which was passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in Congress, says that insurers of large companies have to cover employees’ addiction care at the same level they 

do other care. Many insurers have violated the regulations and denied life-saving addiction treatment to people who need it and to 

which they are entitled to it. 

We need to get naloxone, the life-saving overdose reversal drug 

into the hands of every first responder in this country. As a major 

purchaser, the Federal Government should in this emergency situation waive its rule forbidding negotiation of drug prices and purchase the medication on a massive scale for distribution to our Nation’s first responders. 

And last, but not least, we should augment Medicaid’s role as a 

payer for addiction treatment. We have unfortunately been moving 

in the opposite direction with efforts to curtail Medicaid expansion, 

impose work requirements, and cut funds from the program. Instead, we should be increasing the number of people covered so 

that opioid addicted individuals can receive the treatment they 

need to restore them to health. 

I hope this sampling of effective policies gives a flavor of how we 

can best focus our energies responding to an epidemic that was 

made in America, and to which the solutions are within America 

as well. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. Humphreys’ written statement is available at the Committee 

or on the committee repository at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/ 

JU/JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-115-JU01-Wstate-HumphreysP20180215.pdf. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you very much. We will now proceed 

under the 5-minute rule with questions. I will begin by recognizing 

myself for 5 minutes. 

Detective Rogers, in your opinion and in your experience, what, 

if any, will be the consequences of continued policies that limit the 

Denver Police Department from working with or communicating 

with ICE? 

Mr. ROGERS. I truly believe the fact that we are allowing the 

same people to just be recycled and continue to sell the heroin to 

profit the cartels—I am a realist. I realize that if you take someone 

off the streets, they are going to replace them with someone else. 

But you have to disrupt the trade. You cannot allow them to just 

sell it without the consequences. 

And I truly believe that if we do not come up with a way to enforce not only our laws, but the Federal laws and have the people 

that are here illegally selling these drugs deported, we are never 

going to get a hold of that side of the problem. Does that make 

sense? 

Mr. LABRADOR. Yeah. So in your capacity as the president of the 

DPPA, what has been the response to the ordinance from your 

membership? 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, that is why I am here, sir. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
12 

Mr. LABRADOR. Yeah. 

Mr. ROGERS. My membership is not happy. They feel that they 

are being handcuffed; they are being not allowed to do their jobs. 

We represent almost 1,500 officers, and—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. You mentioned that it would have a chilling effect. What did you mean by that? 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, to me, this ordinance has taken that component of my job away. As I testified to, I would call these two ICE 

agents. And I knew that if I contacted them and they showed up, 

that I would probably never see that specific heroin dealer on the 

streets of Denver again; that they would take charge and have 

them deported. 

Mr. LABRADOR. To your knowledge, has the Denver Police Department taken any action in the form of discipline, termination, 

other sanctions against officers who have continued to work with 

ICE? 

Mr. ROGERS. Not yet. I do not think anybody wants to be the test 

case, to be perfectly honest with you, sir. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Sheriff Louderback, do you believe sanctuary policies allow for narcotics to flow more efficiently across our 

borders? 

Mr. LOUDERBACK. Chairman, one of the key aspects of law enforcement, one of the fundamentals that we have is cooperation. 

You lessen our ability to communicate, operate, work together on 

any of these issues, then you have handcuffed law enforcement unnecessarily. It is one of the fundamental issues that we face as law 

enforcement. We work together. Sheriffs stand together on this 

issue nationwide. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So, how can ICE be a positive force in combating 

the opioid epidemic at the State and local level? 

Mr. LOUDERBACK. By cooperation and by removal. There has to 

be a handshake between all law enforcement agencies in this country in order for us to accomplish our goal of protecting the public. 

If we are not able to do that, if we cannot work together and cooperate across this Nation and figure out a way to do that effectively, then that is a serious public safety issue. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. Ms. Vaughan, do you believe that law 

enforcement can cut off a large segment of the illegal opioid market 

through Federal and local immigration cooperation? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Yes, indeed. Since the vast majority of the illicit 

opioids that are being trafficked are brought in by foreign organizations, if we could improve border security in a variety of ways, and 

also importantly, interior immigration enforcement, and go after 

them where they are doing the distribution, which is all over the 

country. By taking out these organizations and the people who staff 

them, that would make a big dent in the availability of opioids in 

our communities, and it would deter a lot of this illicit activity. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Our sanctuary policies allowing illegal immigrants with drug charges to avoid ICE detainers? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Sometimes, yes. If they have a policy in place that 

does not permit any cooperation with ICE, if they are forced to release criminal aliens that ICE has issued a detainer for, absolutely. 

That sends that criminal alien back to the streets to keep working 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
13 

for the drug trafficking organizations. And they feel enabled to go 

about their illegal business. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Dr. Humphreys, I do not think I disagree with 

much of what you said, and I think we may be having two different 

hearings today, because we are not claiming that this is not an 

American-made problem. But you claim in your testimony that immigration, by extension immigration policy, has no part in the ongoing opioid epidemic. How do you respond to Detective Rogers and 

Sheriff Louderback about their experiences in dealing with illegal 

opioid trade and drug smuggling into the United States from Mexico? 

Mr. HUMPHREYS. So all of the heroin that is sent from Mexico to 

the United States each year would fit in 2,000 pieces of luggage. 

Fentanyl is even more potent and more compact. It is come through 

the mail. So, that shows how incredibly difficult it is to stop things 

at the border. We have to have some border security. We do have 

some border security. 

The question, as you know, about where you want to invest your 

resources. So, if pouring, you know, billions of dollars into border 

security that we could spend on I think far more productive things 

in terms of the opioid epidemic, in terms of treatment, in terms of 

changing how prescribing works, and getting police officers, and 

Naloxone, all those things, I think that is where we are going to 

get the benefit, and not from border investment. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Humphreys, Detective Rogers has expressed his concern about Denver’s policies. The 

city of Denver provided a two-page document explaining their efforts to combat the opioid epidemic. Did you have a chance to review their document, and what do you think about it? 

Mr. HUMPHREYS. Yes, I did review the document. And it seemed 

to me they were doing a lot of intelligent things. They are expanding treatment; they are trying to use law enforcement in a productive way; they are trying to build relationships in the community 

so they can respond in an intelligent fashion to opioids; and they 

are also doing work around distributing naloxone. I am not an expert on Denver by any means, but based on that document, I think 

they have got some very smart people focused on this problem. 

Ms. LOFGREN. You mentioned, and we know from our own reports, and in some cases our own districts, that the opioid crisis is 

disproportionately impacting rural America as opposed to urban 

centers; not to say that there is no problem in urban centers. Can 

you give us any insight into why that is happening, and what specific solution should be implemented in those areas of rural America where this crisis is overwhelming our society? 

Mr. HUMPHREYS. So, you know, where I am from in Appalachia, 

you know, we have an incredible disinvestment. I mean there just 

are not the kind of jobs there were when I was a kid. You know, 

the mines do not employ as many people as they used to; families 

are under more strain; more and more people are working in lowwage jobs. That creates an environment, you know, where people 

under a lot of stress, where drugs are more rewarding because 

daily life is so tough. And it also creates a temptation to enter the 

illegal economy. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
14 

And what happened where we were was people started taking— 

they called it the OxyContin express—a flight from Charleston 

down to Florida, get a couple of garbage bags full of pills from a 

pill mill, fly back, and then sell them. It is the kind of thing I think 

people would not do if they were not economically stressed, but 

they get to that point. 

So we have two things meet. You know, really difficult economic 

times, and just an explosion of pills like no country on earth had 

ever seen before. And that is why I think we got hit so hard and 

why we are still being hit so hard in Appalachia and in also rural 

areas in New England and Northern California as well. 

Ms. LOFGREN. In terms of drugs coming in—you addressed this 

briefly—but we have got as a source obviously there is heroin that 

comes in across our borders, our southern border, our northern border through ports. There is fentanyl, which is I think primarily 

coming from China, but tell me if that is correct. 

Mr. HUMPHREYS. That is right. 

Ms. LOFGREN. How would we deal with the fentanyl issue, which 

is I do not know how many times more powerful than other 

opioids? 

Mr. HUMPHREYS. So, I mean, part of this is a foreign-policy problem. I mean, engaging China, it is terrifically important. They can 

do more about this than we ever can from over here. And there has 

been some engagement, and China did ban some of these. Fentanyl 

has a whole class of analogs, and they are all, you know, 50, 100 

times more potent than heroin. They can be helpful there. 

There is some work being done by Senator Portman on also trying to get packages registered before they come to the United 

States, which may help in terms of interdiction at efforts abroad. 

We should try to do those things. 

But fundamentally, this comes down to demand. Nobody will sell 

us drugs if we do not want to buy them. And that is always been 

the case. We are a wealthy country. If we want to buy drugs, someone will sell them. You know, people start making fentanyl in their 

garage. 

So that means you come back to, you know, doing prevention in 

the United States, persuading people not to use them, getting doctors to prescribe rationally and carefully again, and providing 

treatment to those people who are addicted so that they get out of 

this situation and stop being massive consumers of these illegal 

dangerous products. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I was fascinated. I did not realize, before your testimony, the amount of legal opioids that we have rolling around, 

swashing around our country. That is a shocking piece of information, and I appreciate your testimony. I think it certainly enlightens us as to what needs to be done. 

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to ask unanimous consent. I 

have just received a letter from our colleague, Diana DeGette, with 

a statement from the City and County of Denver, where just to 

quote some of it, they say that ‘‘ICE, along with the FBI, has access 

to biometric data fingerprints on every individual booked into the 

Denver County Jail. 

And to the extent Federal law enforcement officials have probable cause to arrest any individual housed in the jail, whether it 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
15 

be for a civil or a criminal matter arising under Federal law, they 

may do so by obtaining a warrant.’’ 

And that Denver’s choice was to limit its involvement in civil enforcement of Federal immigration laws. But that that should not be 

confused with their ongoing commitment to enforce criminal drug 

laws if such individuals commit crimes including drug crimes while 

present in the United States. 

And I would ask unanimous consent to put Ms. DeGette’s letter, 

this statement, and a background document, Denver’s Public Safety 

Priorities Act, the overview of their efforts to address the opioid 

epidemic, the overview of the Denver Police Department’s drug enforcement efforts, the Q4 Tracker ICE Notification Release Documents; as well as statements from the Law Enforcement Action 

Partnership, the American Immigration Council, the Tahirih Justice Center, Church World Service, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, and the Drug Policy Alliance into the record. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Without objection. 

This material is available at the Committee or on the Committee 

repository at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/ 

106864/HHRG-115-JU01-20180215-SD007.pdf. 

Mr. LABRADOR. I now recognize Mr. Buck. 

Mr. BUCK. Detective Rogers, you just heard the statement from 

Congresswoman DeGette, and I think that you probably read some 

of the news accounts yesterday from some of the leadership at the 

Denver Police Department about the access that Federal officials 

have to fingerprints. 

Do you want to respond to that and just tell us? Obviously not 

every American has fingerprints in the system that the Federal 

Government has access to. So, does that tell a Federal agency 

whether the person whose fingerprints are there is in this country 

legally or illegally? Does that help the Federal Government in enforcing immigration laws in any way? 

Mr. ROGERS. No. I call it the three Ls. Lawyers taking liberties 

with language. Basically they—— 

Mr. BUCK. Do not belittle lawyers now, because you have got a 

lot of them on that Judiciary Committee. 

Mr. ROGERS. I apologize to any attorneys here. They like to spin 

things. And God bless them, they do a great job of it. But at the 

end of the day, your fingerprint, if you get booked into the Denver 

City Jail, there is not a magic switch that goes to the FBI that 

says, ‘Hey, Nick Rogers is in jail right now.’ Now if Nick Rogers 

has a warrant for his arrest and my fingerprint is associated with 

that warrant, absolutely there will be a hit that comes back. That 

is what they talk about biometrics. That is a fantastic word. 

But at the end of the day, when you arrest someone on the street 

that is selling heroin and has never been through the system before, there is no biometric feed to ICE or the FBI or anybody. The 

sheriffs take their fingerprints and they become part of a file at 

that moment. But they are not magically sent across the country, 

you know, claiming you are illegal or not legal. Does that make 

sense? 

Mr. BUCK. It does. Let me ask you some other questions. Are you 

familiar with the slideshow that was prepared by the Denver Police 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
16 

Department to explain the new ordinance that was passed by the 

Denver City Council? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. I believe that is the training that we all went 

through. All officers had to go through that training. 

Mr. BUCK. That is correct. And I do not have page numbers on 

this, but I am going to offer this, Mr. Chairman, to be part of the 

record. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Without objection, it will be made part of the 

record. 

This material is available at the Committee or on the Committee 

repository at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/ 

106864/HHRG-115-JU01-20180215-SD003.pdf 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you. Detective Rogers, one of the statements 

in this slideshow says the act of being present in the United States 

in violation of Federal immigration laws is not, standing alone, a 

crime. Do you recall that slide? 

Mr. ROGERS. I do. 

Mr. BUCK. And are you aware of the fact that if you enter this 

country illegally, it is a Federal crime, and if you overstay a visa 

in this country, it is not a Federal crime? 

Mr. ROGERS. Correct. 

Mr. BUCK. And do you also understand that until ICE inquires 

of an individual, they do not know whether that individual received 

a visa or legal status to enter this country, so they have no way 

of knowing until there is cooperation among law enforcement agencies whether this particular individual committed a crime or is in 

violation of Federal civil law? Is that fair? 

Mr. ROGERS. Absolutely. 

Mr. BUCK. And also in this slideshow it talks about—I do not 

know if it is meant to be sarcastic or affirming in some way—but 

it says, this sounds similar to what we have always done, with a 

question mark, as if the ordinance did not really change policy. 

And what I want to ask you is there is a paragraph in here that 

reads, ‘No access for ICE to city-owned law enforcement facilities 

beyond access granted to the general public.’ Is that a change in 

policy as a result of the ordinance that was passed by the Denver 

City Council? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. 

Mr. BUCK. And in fact is it not true that ICE worked alongside 

Denver narcotics officers—and I think it was in District 3, not necessarily your district—on a heroin distribution gang out of Honduras that resulted in 59 deportations. Is that correct? 

Mr. ROGERS. I am not familiar with that case, but I have had 

similar cases that I have worked with ICE where we would all brief 

in my office. And we would sit in our conference room and, you 

know, we would put together our tactical plans for that day for 

those arrests. So, those ICE agents were welcome in the front door. 

They are no longer able to even come through the security door. 

They do not even come in the parking lot anymore. 

Mr. BUCK. And what is the effect of that on the enforcement of 

narcotics laws in Denver? 

Mr. ROGERS. It is made it more difficult for us on the street, because they have information that we do not; we have information 

that they do not. And when we get together and we start talking 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
17 

about who is doing what in certain neighborhoods, it is amazing 

how many narcotics we can get off the street when we cooperate 

with those individuals. 

Mr. BUCK. Sheriff Louderback, any comments on that? 

Mr. LOUDERBACK. Sanctuary policies reduce the risk of criminality. And we cannot cooperate, there is your public safety nexus. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. And I will recognize the gentlelady 

from Washington. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

being here to testify before us. 

Mr. Chairman, I am confused about why our House Immigration 

Subcommittee is having a hearing on something that has no factual 

basis in connecting so-called sanctuary city policies with the opioid 

crisis when there is a massive debate raging on immigration issues 

on the Senate floor; when 800,000 DREAMers face deportation in 

3 weeks, and when this Committee has yet to raise any bill related 

to protecting DREAMers, something that is supported by 90 percent of the American people across Republican and Democratic districts. I am confused, frankly, about why we are having this hearing. 

And it would be laughable if it were not so serious; if it were not 

so hurtful to the characterization of immigrants across this country, that somehow immigrants are responsible for all these terrible 

things, including now, apparently, the opioid crisis. And by the 

way, hurtful to those who are suffering from the opioid crisis. I 

have great respect for Dr. Humphreys and the work that you have 

done to, in a bipartisan way, combat what is truly a terrible crisis 

in this country. 

But I forgot that there are some people in this body on the other 

side, and some people outside of this body on the other side who 

really delight in scapegoating immigrants and do not want to recognize that immigrants contribute to the economy every day. And 

to blame one person who is an immigrant for the crimes of everybody else, and to somehow pin responsibility for some of these terrible things that are happening in our country is a good tactic for 

dividing and scapegoating and driving up fear and hatred. 

Mr. Chairman, the latest falsehood is outrageous. Immigrants 

are certainly not making the opioid crisis worse. And alleging that 

deporting or cracking down on immigrants is somehow actually 

going to fix this very real situation is a falsehood. Here are the 

facts. We know we cannot arrest or—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. JAYAPAL. No. 

Mr. LABRADOR. No one has said that. Everything you have said, 

not a single person—— 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is my time, and I am 

not yielding. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. We know we 

cannot arrest our way out of the opioid crisis. And what we should 

really focus on are the underlying causes. And we do need to make 

sure that law enforcement, because we appreciate what you do in 

your jobs, has the tools in the first place to help keep people off 

their addictions. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
18 

One example of that is the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion 

Program, the LEAD program, that we pioneered in Seattle that 

Representative Jim Sensenbrenner and I have worked in a bipartisan way to continue to get funding so that you all have the resources that you need. But we know that community trust does 

matter in combating crime in local cities and counties across the 

country. 

Last year, our King County prosecutor wrote in an op-ed that, 

‘‘We are not safer when victims of crime fear being deported if they 

call 911, talk to the police, or come to a courthouse to get protection. We are not safer when a victim of abuse thinks that she must 

choose between deportation or suffering more violence at the hands 

of her abuser. An unpunished violent crime threatens us all.’’ 

And then, he goes on to say, ‘‘My alarm is not theoretical. Last 

year our office—’’ again, this is a Republican King County prosecutor—‘‘our office worked with 67 undocumented immigrants, 

more than 300 in the last 5 years, to prosecute crimes ranging from 

murder and rape to domestic violence. Without that cooperation 

and trust of undocumented immigrants, we would not have been 

able to get some dangerous offenders off the street.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit this op-ed for 

the record. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Without objection. 

This material is available at the Committee or on the Committee 

repository at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/ 

106864/HHRG-115-JU01-20180215-SD005.pdf 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just recently we saw 

another terrible example of what this fear is doing in our communities. We learned that a 14-year-old girl in Bellevue, Washington, 

my home State, suffered molestation for nearly 2 years. The reason 

that she did not come forward to seek safety is because her abuser 

threatened to have her mother deported. 

And in another case, a man in Tukwila, Washington called 911 

to report a person that he suspected of breaking into cars on his 

block. The local police took him to ICE because he had an ICE administrative document that popped up in the system. And ICE calls 

this a warrant, but it is misleading because there is no oversight 

by a third-party like the judge. Now, the local police are bending 

over backwards to try and win back the trust of immigrants and 

their family and friends. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record 

two news stories on these cases. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Without objection. 

This material is available at the Committee or on the Committee 

repository at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/ 

106864/HHRG-115-JU01-20180215-SD005.pdf 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now I would like to 

ask—and this is a yes or no question for Sheriff Louderback—is it 

your contention that so-called sanctuary city policies have a substantial impact on your ability to counter the opioid crisis? 

Mr. LOUDERBACK. Yes. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. And have you read, Sheriff Louderback, the recommendations of the bipartisan Opioid Task Force? Just a yes or 

no. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
19 

Mr. LOUDERBACK. No. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Because if you had, you would see—because I am 

a member of that bipartisan task force and it has been working for 

several years on this very serious issue of the opioid crisis—nowhere in those recommendations is there any reference to sanctuary city policies as being critical. 

Dr. Humphreys, can you tell us more—Mr. Chairman, I ask for 

an additional 30 seconds since the other side had an additional 30 

seconds on the last round? 

Mr. LABRADOR. Forty-five seconds. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you. You are better than I even asked for. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. I thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. I already gave you an additional 45 seconds, so your time has expired. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. I appreciate it very much. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Yeah. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Dr. Humphreys—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. No. No. Your time has—— 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Oh, you did. Okay. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. LABRADOR. I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just going to do the 

previous presenter. I turn to Ms. Vaughan. This morning I wrote 

a couple of numbers on my hand; $116 billion and another one is 

$38 billion, and I added them up and it is $154 billion. This is out 

of an article written by FAIR just recently. Do you recognize those 

numbers, Ms. Vaughan? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Perhaps the cost of illegal immigration to State 

and local taxpayers and the Federal taxpayers? 

Mr. KING. Exactly. And I wonder if you would care to comment 

to the remarks made by the gentlelady previous to me. 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Yeah. I mean with respect to this so-called 

chilling effect that cooperation is supposed to have on crime reporting, what is important is that everyone needs to get the message; 

the victims and witnesses are not targeted for immigration enforcement, unless they also are criminals and are an appropriate priority. 

And this notion that immigrants in the community have something to be afraid of in going forward to report crimes is put out 

there primarily by these advocacy groups that advocate against enforcement. It is a complete myth and completely unsubstantiated 

in either government statistics, academic research, or the real-life 

experience of law enforcement agencies. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Ms. Vaughan. Just an observation. As I 

am listening to this testimony about sanctuary cities, it makes me 

think of ‘‘Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid’’ and the Hole in the 

Wall Gang, where the criminals all went into that place in the canyon where there was a narrow notch that they could guard, and 

they lived in there happily ever after protecting themselves and 

each other from the impact of law enforcement. 

And I would ask Sheriff Louderback, do you see any similarities 

in that with regard to our sanctuary jurisdictions across this country? Have they become something similar to the Hole in the Wall 

Gang? 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
20 

Mr. LOUDERBACK. Respectfully, sir, that is a very good analogy. 

Mr. KING. I thank you, and I appreciate your testimony about 

the cooperation required between every level of law enforcement. I 

grew up in a law-enforcement family, and I watched as every level 

of law enforcement reached out and helped each other. Wherever 

they had a skill set or a knowledge base, they shared information, 

they worked together. 

Can you name another subject of law enforcement anywhere currently or in the history of this country where it is been a carveout, where our local law enforcement declared they would not cooperate with any other level of law enforcement? 

Mr. LOUDERBACK. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. KING. Detective Rogers, are you aware of any other circumstances similar to this with regard to immigration law? 

Mr. ROGERS. No, sir. 

Mr. KING. And I turn back to Ms. Vaughan because I remember 

you said the numbers 80 to 90 percent, and I just missed the definition of what that was and did not see it in your written testimony. 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Of the opioids that are distributed in our communities, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration. And I 

think it is important to emphasize that—— 

Mr. KING. They come from where? 

Ms. VAUGHAN [continuing]. This distribution is carried out by 

people. And many of those people are in this country without authorization. And those people are the subject of ICE and local law 

enforcement agencies. And that is how they disrupt the trafficking 

of these deadly drugs, and that is what keeps them off the streets. 

Mr. KING. And that is why that number rung my bell, because 

probably as far back as 10 years ago I sat down with DEA, and 

they said to me that day that 80 to 90 percent of the illegal drugs 

consumed in America come from or through Mexico. 

Ms. VAUGHAN. That is right. Even the fentanyl. It might originate in China, but it is processed and imported by way of Mexico. 

Mr. KING. And another statement that they made was in every 

illegal drug distribution chain in this country, at least one link goes 

through an illegal alien. Would that be consistent with what you 

know, Ms. Vaughan? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. I am not familiar with that, but it is definitely 

true in certain parts of the country. Especially New England, that 

is certainly true. 

Mr. KING. I would turn to Sheriff Louderback. Is that contrary 

to any of your knowledge, Sheriff? 

Mr. LOUDERBACK. No. I think it is accurate. 

Mr. KING. And Detective Rogers? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. I agree. 

Mr. KING. So, we can understand on this left side, doctor, because this is our law enforcement side of this thing, but I am hearing a consensus here that 80 to 90 percent of the illegal drugs consumed in America come from or through Mexico, and at least one 

link in the illegal distribution chain is an illegal alien. And I heard 

the gentlelady from Washington say that that is got nothing to do 

with immigration. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
21 

It would seem to me that if tomorrow morning everybody magically woke up in their home country where they could legally reside, it would instantly stop all of the illegal drug distribution in 

America. I do not doubt that there would be a reform of those drug 

distribution chains, because Dr. Humphreys does make the point 

that this is a demand on this side that we have to address as well. 

And when I talk to the Mexicans about this in particular, I have 

to confess at the beginning, it is an American demand that is 

bringing about these drug deaths. But it is a distribution that 

comes across the Rio Grande River to us; needs to be addressed 

both ways. And in this Committee, we address it from the immigration side. 

So I thank the chairman for holding the hearing and the witnesses for the testimony. And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. I now recognize the gentlelady from 

Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and to the ranking 

member for her persistent leadership on these issues. 

Frankly, to the witnesses, let me thank you for being here, but 

I would rather be talking about how we save the lives of children 

who have been murdered and slaughtered by assault weapons, of 

which this Congress and this Judiciary Committee has failed to 

act. I would imagine maybe if I would ask the Sheriff in a meeting 

of law enforcement officers—I am not sure if he is willing to speak 

to that here. Everyone is so afraid of organizations who oppose 

common sense, as to whether or not he would want a 19-year-old 

to have an assault weapon, and AR–15. 

Not that I am interested in the issue of what gun you may have, 

since the Second Amendment is a constitutional right, but I would 

imagine that if the individual had a plain handgun that, although 

tragic, we might not have had that enormous loss of life. That is 

what we need to be discussing here this morning. Saving lives, saving lives. Rather than trying to mix apples and oranges. 

Sheriff, what are the sanctuary cities in Texas? I see that you 

are from Texas. Welcome; fellow Texan. We are proud of each other 

and proud of your service, sir. 

Mr. LOUDERBACK. Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. What are the sanctuary cities in Texas? 

Mr. LOUDERBACK. Respectfully, ma’am, we do not have that 

issue. Senate Bill 4 was passed by the Texas Legislature in 2017. 

But we have a consistent application of law and cooperation with 

law enforcement with all law enforcement agencies at every level 

in the State of Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, let me just say that all of us living in 

Texas for more than 10 years, I assume, I know that bill was 

passed with a lot of hoopla, but there were no sanctuary cities even 

before that. And I have been on the Judiciary Committee for a very 

long time here in Washington, and that never came up about any 

sanctuary cities in Texas. So, I appreciate State law and that is 

probably where it should stay because there really is no consistency 

between the sanctuary cities and this opioid crisis. 

The three Republican witnesses, have you read the report that 

my colleague from Washington State mentioned? The Opioid Task 

Force of the House report. The three witnesses? Sheriff, have you 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
22 

read it? And I am a member of that task force, so nowhere in that 

report did they indicate that there was any correlation between 

sanctuary cities and the devastation of opioid. I think it is devastating. Are you aware, Ms. Vaughn, of the $1.3 trillion cut to Medicaid 

by the budget offered by the President and the Republicans? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. I am not an expert on those kind of entitlement 

programs, but—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You mean those life-saving programs. And so, 

I assume you know that the cure or the treatment of individuals 

with opioid has been heavily reliant on Medicaid. Are you aware 

of that? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. I am not. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, let me just put into the record that it 

is. 

Dr. Humphreys, would you help us? Coming from an administration of another fellow Texan that you worked with and a great admirer of the Bush family. But in any event, is this an accurate correlation? We have heard our colleague talk about demand. We have 

had demand when it was cocaine, when it was crack, and we did 

not have the treatment protocols. So, how would sanctuary cities 

have any correlation? Demand is treatment protocols. 

And when we speak of the issue of opioid crisis, we think of the 

New England, Northeast corridor, Midwest areas that have devastating poverty. And you look at some of the urban symptoms or 

cities, they may be engaged in drug activity, but we are talking 

about the crisis of opioids. Would you respond to that, please, sir? 

Mr. HUMPHREYS. Well, Congresswoman, you described the situation extremely well. We, in the end, buy these drugs. We choose to 

do that. And that means we need to invest on the demand side. 

Prevention programs for kids, support for families, treatment for 

the addicted. 

And then, we also need to control our own healthcare system, 

which is here—it does not come from anywhere else; it does not 

matter if it is a sanctuary city—that is spreading so many of these 

opioids out that people are getting addicted. And, you know, this 

problem started, you know, what, 20 years ago almost. I do not see 

any connection with sanctuary cities, and I do not think cracking 

down on them will affect our opioid problem at all. I think there 

are more productive things we could do. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Just a quick question. You do not profess to 

be an immigration specialist, but my understanding of sanctuary 

cities may mean moms and dads, DREAMers, landscapers, people 

working in restaurants. That is just people who are undocumented. 

Do you understand that concept? 

Mr. HUMPHREYS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Is that you would have people that are undocumented, and you are not just raiding them and arresting them, 

which is going on now under this administration. Is that your understanding, sir? 

Mr. HUMPHREYS. Yes, ma’am, with the stipulation I am not an 

immigration expert. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. Thank you so much all the witnesses who came. We appreciate you. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
23 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer into the record that my colleague and I join together, the gentlelady from Washington, is ‘‘The 

Center for American Progress, the Effects of Sanctuary Policies on 

Crime and the Economy.’’ I would like to offer that into the record 

as unanimous consent. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Without objection. 

This material is available at the Committee or on the Committee 

repository at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/ 

106864/HHRG-115-JU01-20180215-SD004.pdf 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. I yield, and again, I thank the 

witnesses for their service. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. I recognize the gentleman from Arizona. 

Mr. BIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this hearing today. I think it is very important, and I appreciate 

the witnesses, all four of you being here today. And I think you get 

a flavor of somehow we manage to turn every issue that we hear 

into some kind of political grandstand. So I will try not to do that, 

but it is a political place. 

So, I want to just start with you, Ms. Vaughan. Are you familiar 

with the Arizona Immigration Law of SB–1070? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Yes, I am. 

Mr. BIGGS. And do you recall the Supreme Court holding that basically repealed or set aside much of that State law on the basis 

that the jurisdiction of immigration was solely held by Federal 

Government? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Yes. 

Mr. BIGGS. And I guess my question, initially, to go with this is 

do you think that sanctuary cities and States are consistent with 

that ruling in SB–1070? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. No, they are not, because what sanctuary policies 

are is an attempt to nullify Federal law because local jurisdictions 

disagree with it. And if this happened in any other area of the law, 

whether it is environmental laws, or tax laws, or, you know, other 

laws that you can think of, it simply would not be tolerated. 

Immigration officers and the immigration enforcement agencies 

are singled out for interference and obstruction based on political 

differences over what our immigration laws should be. But these 

laws are passed by you folks, by Congress, and they are overwhelmingly supported by Americans. 

Immigration law is not some obsolete law that nobody thinks is 

important to enforce anymore. There are important public safety 

consequences that result from that cooperation. And that is why 

the Federal Government needs to take action and impose consequences on sanctuary policies, because they are not going to 

change on their own. 

Some of the sanctuary defenders are happy to be martyrs, or 

have their taxpayers be martyrs for the sanctuary cause. But they 

are putting everyone in the community at risk through these policies because the result is the release of criminal aliens who go back 

to the streets to reoffend. And that is especially the case when 

these individuals are opioid dealers and traffickers. These are people who could be sent home but are instead sent back to sell more 

drugs to people. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
24 

Mr. BIGGS. And so with that in mind, let’s talk about the opioids 

for a second. And I do appreciate all the testimony with regard to 

opioids that we have heard today. 

In particular, I am intrigued by the statement that you could fit 

all the heroin that comes across here in 2,000 suitcases. But 

fentanyl is really what is loose and rampant in our streets. And 

there was some intimation by some who were asking questions that 

maybe fentanyl is not coming across the southern border. I find 

that a dubious comment, and so I am going to ask Dr. Humphreys, 

origins of fentanyl. And we recognize that China is a large purveyor of that, but they have trade routes basically. And are any of 

those coming from the southern border? 

Mr. HUMPHREYS. No. You are correct about that. Fentanyl is primarily produced in China. Some of it is shipped directly here 

through our mail system; some of it is shipped to Mexico to trafficking groups who mix it with heroin to basically extend the 

strength of heroin for cheap and then make more money. So some 

of it does come in that way as well. 

Mr. BIGGS. Right. So when we look at it coming across the border, and Detective Rogers, in your experience, have you seen 

fentanyl distribution in the Denver area that originated across our 

southern border? 

Mr. ROGERS. We really do not have a lot of fentanyl in Denver 

right now. We are not seeing the fentanyl. One of the issues that 

you have is when I take heroin off the streets, it is tested by our 

lab, and it comes back positive as heroin. It does not come back 

positive for heroin and fentanyl. 

So there is a chance there is a lot of fentanyl in Denver, but I 

can tell you that we just deal with heroin. So, it is kind of hard 

for me to answer that any differently than I just did. 

Mr. BIGGS. Thank you, Detective. I am just going to conclude by 

just making this observation here. It appears to me that there are 

those who tacitly support criminal sanctions on officers for cooperating with ICE, as we have seen in the Denver area, while seeking 

only treatment options and no criminal deterrence on distribution 

and use of opioids, which will perpetuate this problem in my opinion. And so, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield. 

Mr. LABRADOR. This concludes—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Yes? 

Ms. LOFGREN. May I ask unanimous consent to put a letter into 

the record at the request of Mr. Raskin, who was unable to be here 

today? 

Mr. LABRADOR. What does the letter say? 

Ms. LOFGREN. It is a letter to Mr. Goodlatte, signed by several 

members of the committee, about the opioid crisis. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Without objection. 

This material is available at the Committee or on the Committee 

repository at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/ 

106864/HHRG-115-JU01-20180215-SD008.pdf 

Mr. LABRADOR. Yes. And just to make clear, we are planning on 

having a hearing on the fuller opioid crisis epidemic. Like I said 

earlier, I do not necessarily disagree with many of the things that 

Dr. Humphreys said today. We have a much larger problem, and 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
25 

the full committee will be holding a hearing on this. This is the immigration subcommittee, and our job is to figure out what the immigration implications are of some of the policies and some of the 

issues that we are dealing with in the United States. 

So thank you all very much for being here today. This concludes 

today’s hearing. Thanks for all of our witnesses for attending. 

Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. And this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:18 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING