S. Hrg. 114–516 

BORDER SECURITY—2015 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SECURING THE BORDER: UNDERSTANDING THREATS AND 

STRATEGIES FOR THE NORTHERN BORDER, APRIL 22, 2015 

SECURING THE BORDER: FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY FORCE MULTIPLIERS, MAY 13, 2015 

THE 2014 HUMANITARIAN CRISIS AT OUR BORDER: A REVIEW OF 

THE GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO UNACCOMPANIED MINORS ONE 

YEAR LATER, JULY 7, 2015 

SECURING THE BORDER: UNDERSTANDING THREATS AND 

STRATEGIES FOR THE MARITIME BORDER, JULY 15, 2015 

ALL HANDS ON DECK: WORKING TOGETHER TO END THE 

TRAFFICKING AND ABUSE OF PRESCRIPTION OPIOIDS, HEROIN, 

AND FENTANYL, SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 

ONGOING MIGRATION FROM CENTRAL AMERICA: AN EXAMINATION 

OF FY 2015 APPREHENSIONS, OCTOBER 21, 2015 

AMERICA’S HEROIN EPIDEMIC AT THE BORDER: LOCAL, STATE AND 

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS TO COMBAT ILLICIT 

NARCOTIC TRAFFICKING, NOVEMBER 23, 2015 

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

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
BORDER SECURITY—2015 

VOLUME 2 of 2 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–901 PDF 2016

S. Hrg. 114–516 

BORDER SECURITY—2015 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SECURING THE BORDER: UNDERSTANDING THREATS AND 

STRATEGIES FOR THE NORTHERN BORDER, APRIL 22, 2015 

SECURING THE BORDER: FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY FORCE MULTIPLIERS, MAY 13, 2015 

THE 2014 HUMANITARIAN CRISIS AT OUR BORDER: A REVIEW OF 

THE GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO UNACCOMPANIED MIN0RS ONE 

YEAR LATER, JULY 7, 2015 

SECURING THE BORDER: UNDERSTANDINF THREATS AND 

STRATEGIES FOR THE MARITIME BORDER, JULY 15, 2015 

ALL HANDS ON DECK: WORKING TOGETHER TO END THE 

TRAFFICKING AND ABUSE OF PRESCRIPTION OPIOIDS, HEROIN, 

AND FENTANYL, SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 

ONGOING MIGRATION FROM CENTRAL AMERICA: AN EXAMINATION 

OF FY 2015 APPREHENSIONS, OCTOBER 21, 2015 

AMERICA’S HEROIN EPIDEMIC AT THE BORDER: LOCAL, STATE AND 

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS TO COMBAT ILLICIT 

NARCOTIC TRAFFICKING, NOVEMBER 23, 2015 

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 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Chief Counsel 

BROOKE N. ERICSON, Deputy Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

JENA N. MCNEIL, Deputy Director of Homeland Security 

JOSE J. BAUTISTA, Professional Staff Member 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN. Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, Minority Chief Counsel 

STEPHEN R. VIN ̃ A, Minority Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

HOLLY A. IDELSON, Minority Senior Counsel 

HARLAN C. GEER, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member 

JILL B. MUELLER, Minority U.S. Customs and Border Protection Detailee 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN M. CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Johnson..... 1, 165 303, 425, 599, 771, 933, 1087, 1207, 1409, 1585, 1919 

Senator Carper ................ 3, 166, 305, 427, 600, 771, 934, 1098, 1208, 1410, 1587 

Senator Baldwin............................................................................................ 22, 1227 

Senator Heitkamp................................................................................... 24, 331, 963 

Senator Lankford ..................................................... 27, 204, 797, 1113, 1431, 1612 

Senator Booker ..................................................................... 31, 182, 453, 950, 1097 

Senator Ayotte.................................................. 33, 179, 325, 977, 1229, 1420, 1481 

Senator Ernst ............................................................. 184, 171, 335, 795, 961, 1426 

Senator Peters................................................ 202, 449, 789, 956, 1224, 1428, 1609 

Senator McCain ........................................................................ 320, 958, 1422, 1920 

Senator Tester............................................................................................. 446, 1104 

Senator Sasse .................................................................................................... 953 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 1605 

Senator Shaheen ............................................................................................... 1485 

Senator Flake .................................................................................................... 1922 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Johnson ........... 43, 209, 351, 465, 645, 813, 981, 1129, 1241, 1443, 1515, 

1625, 1961 

Senator Carper .... 45, 210, 353, 467, 646, 814, 982, 1130, 1243, 1444, 1517, 1626 

Senator Ayotte........................................................................................... 1519, 1964 

Senator Shaheen ............................................................................................... 1523 

Senator McCain ................................................................................................ 1963 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2015 

WITNESSES 

Stephen C. Goss, Chief Actuary, U.S. Social Security Administration ............... 6 

Hon. Eileen J. O’Connor, Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP ...... 8 

Luke Peter Bellocchi, Of Counsel, Wasserman, Mancini and Chang, and 

Former Deputy Ombudsman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

ath the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ............................................... 10 

Shawn Moran, Vice President, National Border Patrol Council .......................... 12 

Bo Cooper, Partner, Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen and Loewy LLP, and 

Former General Counsel at the Immigration and Naturalization Service ..... 14 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Bellocchi, Luke Peter: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68 

Cooper, Bo: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 91 

Goss, Stephen C.: 

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

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 47 

Moran, Shawn: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 80 

O’Connor, Hon. Eileen J.: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 
Page

IV 

APPENDIX 

Chart submitted by Senator Johnson .................................................................... 104 

Goss Actuarial Note submitted by Senator Johnson ............................................ 105 

Statement submitted for the Record from American Immigration Council ........ 110 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: 

Mr. Goss ............................................................................................................ 141 

Ms. O’Connor .................................................................................................... 143 

Mr. Bellocchi ..................................................................................................... 147 

Mr. Moran ......................................................................................................... 161 

THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2015 

WITNESSES 

Hon. Michael Chertoff, Co-Founder and Executive Chairman, The Chertoff 

Group .................................................................................................................... 168 

Marc E. Frey, Ph.D., Senior Director, Steptoe and Johnson, LLP ...................... 170 

Brian Michael Jenkins, Senior Adviser to the President, The RAND Corporation ........................................................................................................................ 172 

Mark Koumans, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, Office 

of Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ............................................ 189 

Maureen Dugan, Deputy Executive Director, National Targeting Center, U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ...... 191 

Edward J. Ramotowski, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services, U.S. 

Department of State ............................................................................................ 193 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Chertoff, Hon. Michael: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 168 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 212 

Dugan, Maureen: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 191 

Joint prepared statement ................................................................................. 239 

Frey, Marc E., Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 170 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 219 

Jenkins, Brian Michael: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 172 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 228 

Koumans, Mark: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 189 

Joint prepared statement ................................................................................. 239 

Ramotowski, Edward J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 193 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 246 

APPENDIX 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: 

Dr. Frey ............................................................................................................. 251 

Mr. Jenkins ....................................................................................................... 254 

Mr. Koumans and Ms. Dugan ......................................................................... 266 

Mr. Ramotowski ................................................................................................ 295 

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2015 

WITNESSES 

Chris Cabrera, Border Patrol Agent, Rio Grande Valley Sector, U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection, on behalf of the National Border Patrol Council ....... 308 

Mark J. Dannels, Sheriff, Cochise County, Arizona ............................................. 310 

Howard G. Buffett, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Howard G. Buffett 

Foundation, and Arizona Landowner ................................................................. 313 

Othal E. Brand, Jr., Farmer, McAllen, Texas ....................................................... 315 

Monica Weisberg-Stewart, Chairwoman, Committee on Border Security and 

Immigration, Texas Border Coalition ................................................................. 318 
Page

V 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Brand, Othal E., Jr.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 315 

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 394 

Buffett, Howard G.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 313 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 364 

Cabrera, Chris: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 308 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 355 

Dannels, Mark J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 310 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 358 

Weisberg-Stewart, Monica: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 318 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 400 

APPENDIX 

Statement for the Record: 

American Civil Liberties Union ....................................................................... 406 

National Immigration Forum .......................................................................... 414 

Responses to questions for the Record: 

Ms. Weisberg-Stewart ...................................................................................... 422 

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2015 

WITNESSES 

General Barry R. McCaffrey, USA (Ret.), Former Director (1996–2001) of 

the Office of National Drug Control Policy ........................................................ 430 

John P. Torres, Former Acting Director and Former Deputy Assistant Director for Smuggling and Public Safety at U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ..................................... 433 

Elizabeth Kempshall, Executive Director, Arizona High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, Office of National Drug Control Policy ........................................ 435 

Benny Martinez, Chief Deputy Sheriff, Brooks County, Texas ........................... 437 

Bryan E. Costigan, Director, Montana All-Threat Intelligence Center, Division 

on Criminal Investigation, Montana Department of Justice ............................ 439 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Costigan, Bryan E.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 439 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 539 

Kempshall, Elizabeth: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 435 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 487 

Martinez, Benny: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 437 

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 494 

McCaffrey, General Barry R.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 430 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 469 

Torres, John P.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 433 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 477 

APPENDIX 

Picture submitted by Senator Johnson .................................................................. 552 

Statement submitted for the Record from AIC ..................................................... 553 
Page

VI 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2015 

WITNESSES 

William A. Kandel, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Congressional Research 

Service, U.S. Library of Congress ....................................................................... 603 

Hon. Roger F. Noriega, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, and 

Former Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the U.S. 

Department of State ............................................................................................ 605 

Hon. Adolfo A. Franco, Former Assistant Administrator for Latin America 

and the Caribbean at the U.S. Agency for International Development .......... 607 

Eric L. Olson, Associate Director, Latin American Program, Woodrow Wilson 

International Center for Scholars ....................................................................... 610 

Hon. Alan D. Bersin, Acting Assistant Secretary and Chief Diplomatic Officer, 

Office of Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ................................. 627 

Francisco Palmieri, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Central America and the 

Carribean, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Deparment of 

State ...................................................................................................................... 629

Lieutenant General Kenneth E. Tovo, USA, Military Deputy Commander, 

U.S. Southern Command, U.S. Department of Defense ................................... 631 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Bersin, Hon. Alan D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 627 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 683 

Franco, Hon. Adolfo A.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 607 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 673 

Kandel, William A.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 603 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 648 

Noriega, Hon. Roger F.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 605 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 659 

Olson, Eric L.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 610 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 677 

Palmieri, Francisco: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 629 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 689 

Tovo, Lt. Gen. Kenneth E.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 631 

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 694 

APPENDIX 

Chart submitted by Senator Johnson .................................................................... 734 

Statement submitted for the Record from Church World Service ....................... 735 

Statement submitted for the Record from United Nations High Commissioner 

for Refugees .......................................................................................................... 736 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: 

Mr. Bersin ......................................................................................................... 741 

Mr. Palmieri ...................................................................................................... 749 

THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 2015 

WITNESSES 

Jeffrey S. Passel, Ph.D., Senior Demographer, Hispanic Trends Project, Pew 

Research Center ................................................................................................... 774 

Daniel Garza, Executive Director, The LIBRE Initiative .................................... 776 

Madeline Zavodny, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, Agnes Scott College, and 

Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute ............................................... 779 

Randel K. Johnson, Senior Vice President, Labor, Immigration, and Employee 

Benefits, U.S. Chamber of Commerce ................................................................ 781 

Marc R. Rosenblum, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Immigration Policy Program, 

Migration Policy Insitute ..................................................................................... 784 
Page

VII 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Garza, Daniel: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 776 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 848 

Johnson, Randel K.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 781 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 862 

Passel, Jeffrey S., Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 774 

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 816 

Rosenblum, Marc R., Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 784 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 881 

Zavodny, Madeline, Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 779 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 853 

APPENDIX 

Charts submitted by Senator Johnson ................................................................... 906 

Statements submitted for the Record from: 

AFL–CIO ........................................................................................................... 909 

Farmworker Justice ......................................................................................... 912 

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers .......................................... 920 

Immigration Myths .......................................................................................... 921 

Jobs with Justice .............................................................................................. 927 

National Association of Home Builders .......................................................... 929 

National Roofing Contractors Association ...................................................... 931 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2015 

WITNESSES 

Michael J. Fisher, Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security .................................................... 936 

James C. Spero, Special Agent in Charge Buffalo, Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security .......................................................................................... 938 

John Wagner, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ......................................................................................................................... 939 

David Rodriguez, Director, Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, 

Office of National Drug Control Policy ............................................................... 942 

Hon. Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney, Northern District of 

New York, U.S. Department of Justice .............................................................. 944 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Fisher, Michael J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 936 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 984 

Hartunian, Hon. Richard S.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 944 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1019 

Rodriguez, David: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 942 

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 1002 

Spero, James C.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 938 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 992 

Wagner, John: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 939 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 984 

APPENDIX 

Charts submitted by Senator Johnson ................................................................... 1027 
Page

VIII 

Chart submitted by CBP to Senator McCain ........................................................ 1029 

Prepared statements submitted for the Record by: 

John Ghertner, Director, Greater Rochester Coalition for Immigration 

Justice ............................................................................................................ 1030 

Northern Border Coalition ............................................................................... 1034 

New York Civil Liberties Union ...................................................................... 1038 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: 

Mr. Fisher & Mr. Wagner ................................................................................ 1046 

Mr. Spero ........................................................................................................... 1082 

Mr. Rodriguez ................................................................................................... 1086 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2015 

WITNESSES 

Randolph D. Alles, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Air and Marine, U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ...... 1088 

Mark Borkowski, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Technology Innovation 

and Acquisition, U.S. Cusoms and Border Protection, U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security .......................................................................................... 1090 

Ronald Vitiello, Deputy Chief, Office of Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ............................. 1091 

Anh Duong, Director, Borders and Maritime Security Division, Directorate 

of Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Homeland Security .............. 1092 

Rebecca Gambler, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. Government 

Accountability Office ............................................................................................ 1094 

Michael John Garcia, Legislative Attorney, Congressional Research Service, 

U.S. Library of Congress ..................................................................................... 1095 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Alles, Randolph D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1088 

Joint Prepared statement ................................................................................ 1131 

Borkowski, Mark: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1090 

Joint Prepared statement ................................................................................ 1131 

Duong, Anh: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1092 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1147 

Gambler, Rebecca: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1094 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1153 

Garcia, Michael John: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1095 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1175 

Vitiello, Ronald: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1091 

Joint Prepared statement ................................................................................ 1131 

APPENDIX 

Chart referenced by Senator Johnson .................................................................... 1190 

Prepared statements submitted for the Record by: 

American Civil Liberties Union ....................................................................... 1191 

National Immigration Forum .......................................................................... 1194 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record from: 

Mr. Borkowski & Ms. Duong ........................................................................... 1200 

TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2015 

WITNESSES 

Juan P. Osuna, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice .............................................................................................. 1212 

Mark H. Greenberg, Acting Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children 

and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ..................... 1214 
Page

IX 

Philip T. Miller, Assistant Director of Field Operations, Enforcement and 

Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security ..................................................................... 1216 

Joseph E. Langlois, Associate Director, Refugee, Asylum, and International 

Operations Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security ..................................................................... 1218 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Greenberg, Mark H.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1214 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1252 

Langlois, Joseph E.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1218 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1273 

Miller, Philip T.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1216 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1267 

Osuna, Juan P.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1212 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1245 

APPENDIX 

Chart referenced by Senator Johnson .................................................................... 1279 

Prepared statements submitted for the Record by: 

American Immigration Council with an attachment ..................................... 1280 

American Immigration Lawyers Association ................................................. 1307 

Alliance To End Slavery and Trafficking ....................................................... 1313 

Center for Gender and Refugee Studies ......................................................... 1319 

Church World Service ...................................................................................... 1328 

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America ...................................................... 1329 

First Focus Campaign for Children ................................................................ 1332 

Freedom Network USA .................................................................................... 1334 

Kids Post ........................................................................................................... 1339 

Kids in Need of Defense ................................................................................... 1343 

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service and Women’s Refugee Commission ........................................................................................................... 1347 

National Immigration Forum .......................................................................... 1356 

National Immigrant Justice Center ................................................................ 1360 

Safe Passage Project ......................................................................................... 1366 

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ......................................... 1369 

U.S. Committee for Refugee and Immigrants ................................................ 1375 

Young Center with an attachment .................................................................. 1377 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record 

Mr. Osuna ......................................................................................................... 1393 

Mr. Greenberg ................................................................................................... 1396 

Mr. Miller and Mr. Langlois ............................................................................ 1400 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2015 

WITNESSES 

Rear Admiral Peter J. Brown, Assistant Commandant for Response Policy, 

U.S. Coast Guard ................................................................................................. 1412 

Randolph D. Alles, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Air and Marine, U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ...... 1414 

Peter T. Edge, Executive Associate Director, Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 1416 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Alles, Randolph D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1414 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1452 

Brown, Rear Admiral Peter J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1412 
Page

X 

Brown, Rear Admiral Peter J.—Continued 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1446 

Edge, Peter T.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1416 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1462 

APPENDIX 

Response to post-hearing questions for the Record from Mr. Alles ..................... 1475 

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 

WITNESSES 

Enoch ‘‘Nick’’ Willard, Chief, Manchester Police Department, Manchester, 

New Hampshire .................................................................................................... 1486 

Doug Griffin, Father of Courtney Griffin, Newton, New Hampshire .................. 1488 

Heidi Moran, Clinical Administrator, Southeastern New Hamsphire Services, 

Dover, New Hampshire ....................................................................................... 1491 

Hon. Michael P. Botticelli, Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy ..... 1499 

Hon. R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security ............................................................. 1501 

John ‘‘Jack’’ Riley, Acting Deputy Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Justice ................................................................... 1503 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Botticelli, Hon. Michael P.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1499 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1544 

Griffin, Doug: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1488 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1531 

Kerlikowske, Hon. R. Gil: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1501 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1568 

Moran, Heidi: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1491 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1536 

Riley, John ‘‘Jack’’: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1503 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1576 

Willard, Enoch ‘‘Nick’’: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1486 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1525 

APPENDIX 

Photos submitted by Chief Willard ........................................................................ 1529 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2015 

WITNESSES 

Kimberly M. Gianopoulos, Director, International Affairs and Trade, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 1590 

Chris Cabrera, Border Patrol Agent, Rio Grande Valley Sector, U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection, on behalf of the National Border Patrol Council ....... 1591 

Kevin Casas-Zamora, D.Phil., Senior Fellow and Program Director, Peter 

D. Bell Rule of Law Program, Inter-American Dialogue .................................. 1593 

Duncan Wood, Ph.D., Director, Mexico Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars ............................................................................... 1595 

The Most Reverend Mark J. Seitz, Bishop, Diocese of El Paso, Texas, on 

behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ............................................ 1597 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Cabrera, Chris: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1591 
Page

XI 

Cabrera, Chris—Continued 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1641 

Casas-Zamora, Kevin, D.Phil.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1593 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1643 

Gianopoulos, Kimberly M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1590 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1628 

Seitz, Bishop Mark J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1597 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1666 

Wood, Duncan, Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1595 

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 1656 

APPENDIX 

Documents submitted by Senator McCaskill ........................................................ 1681 

Charts submitted by Senator Johnson ................................................................... 1831 

Document submitted by Bishop Seitz .................................................................... 1833 

Statement submitted for the Record from: 

American Immigration Council with an attachment ............................................ 1834 

Interfaith Immigration Coalition ............................................................................ 1895 

Women’s Refugee Commission, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service 

(LIRS) and Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) ..................................................... 1907 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record 

Ms. Gianopoulos ............................................................................................... 1913 

Mr. Casas-Zamora ............................................................................................ 1917 

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2015 

WITNESSES 

Hon. Douglas A. Ducey, Governor, State of Arizona; accompanied by Colonel 

Frank Milstead, Director, Arizona Department of Public Safety ..................... 1922 

Hon. R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security ............................................................. 1926 

Hon. Bill Montgomery, County Attorney, Maricopa County ................................ 1930 

Hon. Mark J. Dannels, Sheriff, Cochise County ................................................... 1940 

Dawn Mertz, Executive Director, Arizona HIDTA, Office of National Drug 

Control Policy ....................................................................................................... 1944 

Brandon Judd, President, National Border Control Council ............................... 1945 

Jeff Taylor, Member, Public Advisory Board/Public Policy, The Salvation 

Army ...................................................................................................................... 1948

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Dannels, Hon. Mark J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1940 

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 1987 

Ducey, Hon. Douglas A.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1922 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1966 

Judd, Brandon: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1945 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2026 

Kerlikowske, Hon. R. Gil: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1926 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1971 

Mertz, Dawn: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1944 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2017 

Montgomery, Hon. Bill: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1930 

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 1981 

Taylor, Jeff: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1948 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2029 
Page

XII 

APPENDIX 

Wilmot statement for the Record ........................................................................... 2033 

Chart submitted by Senator Johnson .................................................................... 2053 
(933) 

1The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 981. 

SECURING THE BORDER: UNDERSTANDING 

THREATS AND STRATEGIES FOR THE 

NORTHERN BORDER 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in room 

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

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

Ernst, Sasse, Carper, Heitkamp, Booker, and Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning. This hearing will come to 

order. Senator Carper is on his way, and his staff informed me that 

we could get underway here. 

I would like to, without objection, enter my opening comments 

into the record.1 Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

As I was talking to the witnesses before the hearing here, this 

is our fifth in a series of four hearings on border security, and what 

we are trying to do is we are trying to lay out the reality. And I 

think Senator Booker would agree with me it is not a pleasant reality. It is an enormously difficult problem. And, of course, in terms 

of illegal immigration, in terms of drug trafficking, the biggest 

problem is, no doubt about it, on the Southern Border. 

As my Ranking Member says repeatedly—and I completely agree 

with this, coming from a manufacturing background—we really 

need to analyze the root cause of the problem. 

We had an extremely good meeting with General Kelly, head of 

Southern Command, yesterday just discussing the problems in 

Central America and the problems with border security and the 

drug trafficking. And looking for that root cause we were discussing that it is really America’s demand for drugs, how that demand has created these drug cartels that really has corroded and 

been so harmful to the societies in Central America. We bear some 

responsibility for that. 

So these are not going to be easy problems to solve, but we have 

to make incremental improvements. I come from a manufacturing 

background. Nothing is ever perfect. You always have to continuously improve. 
934 

So, again, the purpose of this hearing and every hearing is to get 

the people watching, the people on the dais here, admitting we 

have the problem by trying to lay out that reality properly. 

I see that my Ranking Member, our Ranking Member has joined 

us here, so I would like to turn it over to you if you have some 

opening comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. I would love to. Not too long. 

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for pulling 

this together. It is an important hearing, and we appreciate those 

Members, including the Senator from New Jersey, who has been 

very strong and encouraging to have this kind of hearing. So thank 

you, Cory. 

Over the past couple months, we have spent a fair amount of 

time on this Committee, as some of you know because you have 

been here, focusing on trying to better understand the security 

challenges that we face along our Southern Border with Mexico. 

But as large and challenging as our Southern Border is, our 

shared border with Canada is even larger and comes with its own 

unique opportunities and risks. Our shared border with Canada 

is—listen to this—the largest in the world. It spans some 4,000 

miles. And when you add in Alaska, Alaska’s borders with Canada, 

that goes up to about 5,500 miles. It is huge. 

It is also an economic powerhouse for both of our countries. According to at least one estimate, some 300,000 people and $1.5 billion in trade cross the U.S.-Canada border every day. That is something to celebrate, even as we pay close attention to addressing potential border threats. 

Last Congress, I had the pleasure of visiting Michigan with Senator Levin and North Dakota with Senator Heitkamp, and a memorable visit with Carl Levin. A memorable visit. Carl and I went to 

this Mexican restaurant. We sat in the parking lot and listened to 

the opening game in Minnesota. The Tigers beat the Twins. I will 

not forget that. A great day. 

The risks along our Northern Border include both northbound 

and southbound flows of drugs, other transnational criminal activity, and potential exploitation by terrorists. 

Since 9/11, we have increased our border staffing and technology 

footprint along the Northern Border. For instance, I think there are 

about 2,000 Border Patrol agents stationed on the Northern Border 

today, and that is compared to, I think, 340 in 2001. That is almost 

a sevenfold increase. And there are about 3,700 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers at the northern ports of entry (POE); 

that is an increase of about a third over the last 10 years. We now 

have several CBP drones patrolling high above our Northern Border as well. 

Is there more that we can do to better secure our Northern Border? Sure there is; however, we can no more seal this border than 

we can totally close our Southern Border with Mexico. Having said 

that, we need to better understand the risks associated with it. 

Then we need to implement the most cost-effective strategies to 

buy down those risks. And we need to do this while sustaining the 
935 

robust trade and travel relationships that benefit us and our neighbors so greatly. 

Not unlike our Southern Border, force-multiplying technology 

such as aerial surveillance, underground sensors, and cameras on 

mobile towers can greatly increase our ability to detect and respond 

to threats along this vast Northern Border. 

Good intelligence and strong information-sharing networks can 

also help make the best use of limited staffing and resources. Fortunately, our relationship with Canada is perhaps the best ‘‘force 

multiplier’’ we could wish for. Canadian and U.S. agents are working closer and closer together in a number of areas to enhance our 

shared security and ensure our shared prosperity. 

We look forward to hearing more about how this relationship is 

working under the 2011 ‘‘Beyond the Border (BTB)’’ framework and 

any other areas where progress is still needed. I also hope the witnesses will address whether there are successful practices at the 

Northern Border—either for increasing security or expediting trade 

or both—that we could replicate and use on our Southern Border 

with Mexico. 

Finally, I continue to hope that our focus on border security will 

become part of a larger conversation on how to fix our broken immigration system and pass comprehensive immigration reform. 

With that, we look forward to your testimony. Thank you all for 

coming and for your service. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

This Committee really is pretty well populated with Senators 

from those Northern Border States. We have got Senator Peters 

from Michigan. I am from Wisconsin. We have Senator Tester from 

Montana, Senator Heitkamp from North Dakota, Senator Ayotte 

from New Hampshire. So this really is a pretty relevant hearing, 

and—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Should I leave? 

Chairman JOHNSON. No. You are welcome as well. It is all part 

and parcel of the same problem. [Laughter.] 

We are actually glad to see you, Mr. Chairman. 

But, again, I do want to welcome the witnesses. Thank you for 

your very thoughtful testimony, and we are really looking forward 

to your testimony. 

It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses, so if 

you would 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. FISHER. I do. 

Mr. WAGNER. I do. 

Mr. SPERO. I do. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I do. 

Mr. HARTUNIAN. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

By the way, we do have votes starting at 10:45, so I would ask 

the witnesses to keep your opening statements to the 6-minute 

timeframe so we have time for questions, because we have got good 

attendance here by our Committee. 

Our first witness is Michael J. Fisher. He is the Chief of the U.S. 

Border Patrol. Chief Fisher joined the U.S. Border Patrol in June 
936 

1The joint prepared statement of Mr. Fisher and Mr. Wagner appears in the Appendix on 

page 984. 

1987 and has served in numerous sectors and positions since then, 

including Field Operations Supervisor in El Paso, Deputy Chief Patrol Agent of the Detroit Sector, Assistant Chief Patrol Agent in the 

Tucson Sector, and Chief Patrol Agent of the San Diego Sector. Mr. 

Fisher. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL FISHER,1 CHIEF, U.S. BORDER PATROL, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. FISHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Committee. It is indeed a privilege to appear today on behalf of the United States Border Patrol to discuss 

our strategy to secure the Northern Border between the ports of 

entry. 

Our approach along the Northern Border supports U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection’s overarching strategic themes of collaboration, integration, and innovation. Collaboration at all levels, including information sharing and operational coordination, among U.S. 

and Canadian law enforcement is critical to the shared security of 

the border. 

Advanced information and intelligence is and will always be the 

key to minimizing risk along our borders. For instance, the Operational Integration Center (OIC), located at Selfridge Air National 

Guard Base in Michigan, is a information-sharing demonstration 

project to enhance the situational awareness of CBP and our mission partners, including U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE), State and local law enforcement, 

as well as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Canadian Border Services Agency. 

The OIC consolidates a wide range of information, including 

radar and camera feeds, blue force tracking, database queries from 

databases not previously available to CBP, remote sensor inputs, 

remote video surveillance and mobile surveillance system (MSS) 

feeds, and video from various ports of entry. Additional information 

feeds such as local traffic cameras will be added in the near future. 

In terms of innovation, our joint efforts to improve existing surveillance technologies that can overcome Northern Border terrain 

and environmental challenges, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate is collaborating 

with Canada along with us in a Sensor Sharing Pilot to demonstrate the capability and operational utility of a common surveillance picture between CBP and the RCMP, using a combination of 

U.S. and Canadian sensor information. Our situational awareness 

on the Northern Border is enhanced by technological capabilities, 

including thermal camera systems, mobile surveillance systems, 

and remote video surveillance systems. 

CBP’s Office of Air and Marine (OAM) has 41 fixed-wing and rotary aircraft equipped with sensors stationed along the Northern 

Border, including two unmanned aerial systems (UASs), and they 

operate out of the Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota. 
937 

UAS flights improve our situational awareness and border security 

in areas that are difficult to reach. 

In addition, we are expanding the coherent change detection 

technology along the Northern Border this year. As this Committee 

is aware, this is the same methodology that allows us to cover approximately 900 miles along the Southwest Border without having 

to deploy technology or Border Patrol agents. 

Finally, our integration efforts continue as well. For instance, 

each month CBP produces the State of the Northern Border Briefing, which provides a cross-component, multi-agency intelligence 

report for identifying, monitoring, and addressing emerging trends 

and threats along the Northern Border. The report is produced in 

direct collaboration with our Canadian partners as well as other 

Federal, State, and local partners. The State of the Northern Border has provided a broader avenue for information sharing and 

great intelligence insight to activity with a nexus along our Northern Border. 

The Border Patrol is also an active participant in several targeted joint operations which are called the ‘‘Integrated Border Enforcement Teams,’’ (IBET). They are comprised of U.S. and Canadian law enforcement personnel, encompassing 15 regions along 

the Northern Border. IBETs operate as intelligence-driven information teams designed to increase information-and intelligence-sharing capabilities among the appropriate U.S. and Canadian authorities. By incorporating integrated mobile response capabilities in the 

air, land, and the marine environments, the IBETs provide participating law enforcement agencies with a force multiplier that maximizes border enforcement efforts. 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, again, thank you 

for the opportunity to appear today, and I look forward to your 

questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Chief Fisher. 

I do want to note that the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the 

Office of Field Operations (OFO), John Wagner, that was also your 

written statement, but let me just introduce you as well. You have 

been assigned to the CBP headquarters since 1999. Mr. Wagner 

began his Federal law enforcement career in 1991 when he joined 

U.S. Customs Service as a Customs Inspector. Mr. Wagner also has 

worked at the New York-New Jersey Seaport and the Port of Laredo, Texas. So, again, we appreciate you joining us here and look 

forward to your answers to questions. 

Our next witness will be James Spero. He is a Special Agent in 

Charge for the Buffalo, New York, area. Mr. Spero also served as 

the Deputy Assistant Director of the ICE Transnational Crime and 

Public Safety Division, Unit Chief for the Identify and Benefit 

Fraud Unit at ICE headquarters, and Acting Assistant Special 

Agent in Charge for Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Washington field office. Mr. Spero. 
938 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Spero appears in the Appendix on page 992. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES C. SPERO,1 SPECIAL AGENT IN 

CHARGE, HOMELAND SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS BUFFALO, 

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S., DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. SPERO. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, and 

distinguished Members, thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before you to discuss ICE’s efforts to improve security along the 

Northern Border. 

As DHS’ principal investigative agency, Homeland Security Investigations is positioned to leverage its broad statutory authority 

to support border enforcement. HSI works in close coordination 

with DHS components and U.S. interagency partners, as well as 

our counterparts in Canadian law enforcement, to target 

transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) involved in illicit travel, trade, and finance. HSI applies a full range of innovative investigative and enforcement techniques, including leading and participating in joint U.S.-Canadian task forces, undercover operations, 

controlled deliveries, asset identification and removal, confidential 

informants, and Title III electronic intercepts to identify and disrupt criminal operations. We have nearly 1,300 special agents and 

100 intelligence research specialists operating along the Northern 

Border. 

In fiscal year (FY) 2014, HSI’s seven Special Agent in Charge offices covering the Northern Border, often in joint or cooperative investigations with Federal, State, local, tribal, and Canadian law 

enforcement, seized more than $237 million in cash and monetary 

instruments, nearly 26,000 pounds of marijuana, 2,000 pounds of 

cocaine, 146 pounds of ecstasy, 719 pounds of heroin, 949 pounds 

of methamphetamine, nearly 1,400 weapons and firearms, over 

55,000 rounds of ammunition, and about 8,400 weapon components. HSI Special Agents made over 5,700 criminal arrests resulting in nearly 3,800 indictments and approximately 3,500 convictions. These statistics reflect the impact of our coordinated law enforcement investments and investigations along the Northern Border. 

Additionally, HSI maintains the largest investigative footprint of 

any U.S. law enforcement agency in Canada. HSI’s four attache offices, located in Ottawa, Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal, further 

enhance national security by serving as ICE’s liaison to our interagency partners and our counterparts in local government and law 

enforcement. 

Our partnerships are essential to joint operations and information sharing along the Northern Border and beyond. One example 

is how HSI participates in the Federal Bureau of Investigations 

(FBI)-led Joint Terrorism Task Force. HSI brings its unique authorities and experience to the task force to help protect the homeland from threats to national security. 

HSI’s flagship task force program, the Border Enforcement Security Task Force (BEST), was created in 2005 as a mechanism to address the threat of cross-border crime. In 2007, ICE began to deploy BEST units along the Northern Border. BEST provides a proven and flexible platform from which DHS investigates and targets 
939 

1The joint prepared statement of Mr. Fisher and Mr. Wagner appears in the Appendix on 

page 984. 

transnational criminal organizations that attempt to exploit perceived vulnerabilities at our Nation’s borders. 

BEST units differ from other task forces due to their proximity 

to the border and the program’s focus on cross-border criminal activity. Currently, there are four BEST units operating along the 

Northern Border. One significant advantage of the BEST task force 

model is the participation and integration of foreign law enforcement personnel who have the ability to conduct cross-border investigations with HSI and our Federal, State, local, and tribal partners to address criminal activity on both sides of the border. 

One successful collaboration with our international law enforcement partners is Operation Primed, which is an HSI Buffalo investigation that targeted a cocaine-smuggling organization involved in 

the illicit movement of cocaine and bulk cash within Canada, the 

United States, and Mexico. Investigators estimated that this organization was responsible for the smuggling of approximately 1,600 

kilograms of cocaine into Canada with a street value of over $60 

million. Through successful collaboration with Canadian law enforcement, a high-level target was sentenced in May 2014 to 84 

months of incarceration. This individual was arrested in September 

2010 when attempting to export 97 kilograms of cocaine across the 

Lewiston Bridge Port of Entry from New York into Canada. The 97 

kilograms of cocaine seizure is to this day the largest seizure in the 

history of the Port of Buffalo. 

In conclusion, ICE remains dedicated and committed to this mission, and we look forward to continuing to work with this Committee on these efforts. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I would 

be pleased to answer any questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Spero. 

I have been informed that Mr. Wagner does have an opening 

statement. Would you like to give that now, or would you like to 

wait until the very end? 

Mr. WAGNER. I thought I was off the hook. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Oh, no. Would you like to give it now or 

would you like to—— 

Mr. WAGNER. I will give it now if that is OK. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK, sure. Mr. Wagner. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN WAGNER,1 DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF FIELD OPERATIONS, U.S. CUSTOMS AND 

BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Mr. WAGNER. Thank you. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member 

Carper, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today on behalf of CBP’s Office of Field Operations 

to discuss our security and facilitation efforts at ports of entry 

along our Northern Border. 

The U.S. international boundary with Canada delineates two 

friendly nations with a long history of social, cultural, and economic ties that have contributed to a high volume of cross-border 
940 

trade and travel, amounting to $2 billion a day. CBP ensures that 

our Northern Border operations protect and secure the vital flow 

of commerce through trade and travel between our two countries. 

The United States and Canada are connected by more than 120 

land ports of entry, 750 daily flights by commercial aircraft, and 

numerous commercial and recreational vessels that cross the maritime border, ensuring the security and efficient flow of cross-border 

activity. CBP has more than 3,600 CBP officers and 190 agriculture specialists stationed on the border, ensuring dangerous 

goods, contraband, and individuals are intercepted and legitimate 

travelers and cargo are expedited. 

At many Northern Border ports of entry, we continue to invest 

in and deploy radio frequency identification technology. This technology, along with the 2009 implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), which requires a passport or other 

secure document to enter the United States, allows CBP to query 

nearly 100 percent of travelers against law enforcement and terrorist screening databases. We also continue to deploy next-generation license plate readers, large-scale and small-scale imaging technology, as well as a variety of portable and handheld technology, 

including radiation portal monitors. 

Additionally, DHS and Canadian agencies are collaborating to 

develop, advance, operationally test, and use technologies to enhance cross-border operations. As part of this effort, we have also 

made significant investments in infrastructure. Since February 

2009, the U.S. Government has invested over $400 million to rebuild and improve more than 30 ports of entry along the Northern 

Border. 

Our northern ports of entry experience a very high volume of 

international trade and travel. Each year, approximately 72 million 

travelers enter the United States through the border with Canada 

for business, tourism, school, and to visit family and friends. Many 

of our initiatives to facilitate lawful international travel at the 

Northern Border simultaneously increase security. Likewise, CBP 

develops effective and efficient security operations designed to be 

contributors to travel facilitation, not barriers. 

Security measures vitally protect travel and tourism from the 

damaging effects of terrorists and other security incidents. Identifying and separating low-risk travelers from those who may require 

additional scrutiny is a key element in our efforts to facilitate and 

secure international travel. 

The volume of trade crossing the Northern Border is equally significant. In 2014, the combined two-way trade and investment between the United States and Canada totaled $759 billion. The 

United States and Canada are each other’s largest export market, 

with roughly 16 percent of all U.S. exports destined to Canada. 

CBP is committed to a coordinated approach working with our 

Federal, private sector, and Canadian partners to facilitate the secure flow of trade and travel, reduce transaction costs, and promote 

economic growth along the Northern Border. 

In 2011, the United States and Canada signed the Beyond the 

Border Initiative. CBP is the primary lead on 15 of the Beyond the 

Border Initiatives and has significant interest and participates in 
941 

seven others. I would like to highlight just a few of our accomplishments to date. 

We have completed the first two phases of the entry-exit pilot, 

which involves an exchange of entry records of travelers at ports 

of entry along the U.S.-Canadian border in such a manner that 

land entries into one country will serve as the exit record from another. 

We have launched a cargo pre-inspection pilot to test the feasibility of conducting primary cargo processing in Canada to reduce 

wait times and congestion. Phase I of the pilot was completed in 

Blaine, Washington, and Surrey, British Columbia; Phase II at the 

Peace Bridge between Buffalo and Fort Erie, Ontario, also recently 

concluded. 

On March 16, DHS concluded negotiations of a new preclearance 

agreement for land, rail, marine, and air modes of travel. We have 

also expanded the NEXUS trusted traveler program to over 1.1 

million travelers, an increase of approximately 80 percent since 

2011. 

Canada and the United States are striving to provide a secure 

and trusted global supply chain that allows for safe, timely, economically prosperous movement of cargo into and between the two 

countries. A key means of achieving this objective is through the 

Integrated Cargo Security Strategy, which seeks to address risks at 

the earliest opportunity. We conducted pilots in Prince Rupert and 

Montreal, testing the ability to use advance data and adopt common standards for security screening and inspecting inbound marine cargo at the first point of arrival in North America. 

Canada and the United States continue to align and harmonize 

their Tier 1 trusted trader programs—in Canada, the Partners in 

Protection (PIP) Program, and in the United States, the Customs 

Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C–TPAT) program. We are 

expecting to launch a fully automated harmonization process allowing a joint application for the cross-border highway carriers in the 

PIP and C–TPAT programs by fall of this year, and this will allow 

companies interested in joining both programs to submit a single 

application and to manage only one partnership account instead of 

two. 

We have also engaged with local entities and authorities to increase security through public-private partnerships. For example, 

CBP and the DHS Domestic Nuclear Detection Office have 

partnered with Buffalo and the Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority 

to replace 18 radiation portal monitors at the CBP primary inspection lanes in northern New York. This agreement was reached in 

November 2014 and was just recently completed. The enhancements will increase security and efficiency by supporting new calibration procedures that will reduce radiation nuisance alarm rates 

by over 50 percent. 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, Members of the 

Committee, thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, 

and I am happy to answer any of your questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Deputy Commissioner. 

Our next witness is David Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez began his 

career with the U.S. Customs Service in 1970. From 1973 to 1997, 

Mr. Rodriguez worked at the Drug Enforcement Administration 
942 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez appears in the Appendix on page 1002. 

(DEA). In 1997, he was selected as the Director for the Northwest 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (NW HIDTA) program in Seattle, Washington. In 2010, the NW HIDTA—you get used to acronyms in this business—received national awards for its interdiction 

program on the U.S.-Canada border. Mr. Rodriguez. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID RODRIGUEZ,1 DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST 

HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREA, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Chairman Johnson, distinguished Members of 

the Committee, my name is Dave Rodriguez from Seattle, Washington. We coordinate and do joint operations with more than 115 

international, Federal, local, and State agencies throughout the 

Northwest. We help these agencies to identify drug threats as well 

as to implement strategies to address them. 

The transnational criminal organizations operating on both sides 

of the U.S.-Canada border continue to move proceeds from illegal 

drugs sold in the United States and Canada, as well as drugs, 

weapons, and bulk cash. These organizations include Caucasian 

groups, ethnic East Indians, Asian Organized Crime groups, and 

members of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club. Also of prominence 

are the Mexican National drug-trafficking organizations, particularly those headed by Consolidated Priority Organization Targets, 

which have gained a strong foothold in the Pacific Northwest. 

These include but are not limited to the Sinaloa cartel, the Knights 

Templar, and the Beltran-Leyva organizations. 

Washington’s topography and location render it susceptible to 

drug smuggling and production. The Washington section of the 

U.S. border is approximately 430 miles long, with 13 official ports 

of entry. A significant portion of the international border is located 

in secluded, dense forest. Remote expanses of public lands are susceptible to many types of drug-related criminal activities, and particularly to large-scale cannabis cultivation. 

Public lands that are adjacent to the U.S.-Canada border also 

serve as routes for drug and currency smuggling. Most of the area 

on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border is sparsely populated and 

encompassed by densely forested public lands where crossing the 

border can be accomplished without detection. 

Other threats to the U.S. Northern Border include illegal alien 

entry, human trafficking, money laundering, firearms trafficking, 

maritime and air smuggling, and threats relating to terrorist activities. 

The I–5 corridor is the main transportation route into the Pacific 

Northwest and into British Columbia, Canada. Multi-agency investigations show that Drug-Trafficking Organization (DTOs) continue 

to exploit remote areas along the Washington border, often throwing duffel bags or hockey bags containing drugs directly across the 

border. In some areas, we just have a ditch that separates the 

United States and the Canadian part of the territories. 

DTOs and transnational criminal organizations in the eastern region of the State take advantage of the remote areas of the border, 

the lack of cross-border detection equipment such as radar, and the 
943 

lack of critical infrastructure cell towers to increase the use of 

these rural routes. 

Narcotics are often concealed in legitimate cargo onboard commercial trucks, cars, concealed truck compartments, and commercial and private trailers. Helicopters, airplanes, and boats are used 

to smuggle drug loads into and out of Canada. While cocaine and 

marijuana seizures along the Northern Border and Idaho declined 

in 2014 compared to previous years, there was a demonstrated increase in the quantity and frequency of methamphetamine loads 

being smuggled into British Columbia. 

MDMA seizures totaled over 48 kilograms in 2014. MDMA, or 

Ecstasy, smuggled from British Columbia to Washington State will 

continue as Canada is a primary source of MDMA in North America. The precursors are smuggled from China into Canada where 

it is processed. MDMA in tablet form remains a standard; however, 

recent investigations in the Northwest indicate that MDMA is also 

being smuggled in powdered form. 

Cocaine continues to be smuggled north into Canada, but seizures have been on the decline; 101 kilograms were seized on the 

Northern Border in the State of Washington, compared to over 800 

kilograms that were seized in 2008 and 2009. Shipments are also 

known to be sent directly to Canada from areas outside the United 

States via air and maritime conveyances. Bulk cash seizures in 2013 totaled $3.1 million, and the year before that it was less than half a million. In 2014 it was approximately a million, demonstrating the fluctuation seen in bulk cash 

seizures year to year. 

Our efforts are guided by the 2012 Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy updated in 2014, which articulates the U.S. 

framework for the ongoing effort to reduce the threats on both 

sides of the border. The strategy addresses joint efforts in the areas 

of intelligence collection, information sharing, interdiction at and 

between ports of entry, as well as in the air and maritime domains; 

investigations and prosecutions; disrupting and dismantling drugtrafficking organizations. 

Northwest HIDTA participates fully in the Northern Border programs and will continue to foster cooperation among Federal, 

State, local, tribal, and international law enforcement agencies 

along the Washington-British Columbia border. We also believe we 

share in and participate in an important role in intelligence sharing and enforcement initiatives, training, interdiction, and analytical support. 

To conclude, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be 

able to testify here today. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. 

Our next witness is Richard Hartunian. Mr. Hartunian is the 

U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York, which covers 

300 miles of the U.S.-Canada border. Mr. Hartunian sits on the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee where he serves as the CoChair of the Border and Immigration Subcommittee in which he 

leads the Northern Border Working Group. Prior to this, he served 

as the Assistant U.S. Attorney and as the Northern District’s Narcotics Chief and Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force 

Coordinator. Mr. Hartunian. 
944 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Hartunian appears in the Appendix on page 1019. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN,1

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW 

YORK, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. HARTUNIAN. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, 

and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to speak with you today about securing our Northern 

Border. 

The U.S. Attorneys for the 16 Federal judicial districts along the 

Northern Border know well that border security is a critical component of our national security and work with Federal, State, local, 

and tribal law enforcement agencies and our Canadian counterparts to combat the transnational crime that threatens it. 

The four districts with the largest volume of border crossings and 

significant border-related criminal activity are western Washington, eastern Michigan, western New York, and my district. The 

Northern District of New York shares a 310-mile international border with Canada and includes 8 of New York’s 11 ports of entry. 

A huge volume of people and goods pass through the Northern District from the major population centers of eastern Canada by road, 

rail, forest, field, and waterway. The territory of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, or Akwesasne, straddles the border, with portions in 

New York, Ontario, and Quebec. Smugglers exploit the circumstances at Akwesasne, the Seaway, and the large rural areas 

to cross the border surreptitiously. 

All along the line, criminal organizations try to take advantage 

of the nature of the border, the volume of traffic, the bi-national 

commitment to accelerate the legitimate flow of trade and travel 

and jurisdictional divisions. 

The prevention of terrorism remains, of course, our No. 1 priority. My family and I have personally felt the impact of terrorism, 

having lost my 21-year-old sister, Lynne, in the skies over 

Lockerbie in the December 1988 bombing of PanAm 103. The terrorist threat is current and real, as dramatically illustrated by the 

Canadian convictions last month of two men for conspiracy to murder for the benefit of a terrorist group. They plotted to derail a passenger train traveling between New York and Toronto, but were 

thwarted by a joint investigation that included undercover work by 

an FBI agent. 

U.S. Attorneys’ Offices work closely with the 12 Joint Terrorism 

Task Forces operating at and beyond the border and their Canadian counterparts to spot and stop terrorism, understanding that 

our vigorous enforcement of the Federal criminal code—prosecuting 

human traffickers, child exploiters, and those who smuggle drugs, 

guns, illegal immigrants, and cash—reduces the threat of another 

attack. 

Our national effort to combat transnational crime includes initiatives promoting coordination and collaboration, such as the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams, the Border Enforcement Security Task Forces, and Shiprider, all led by DHS, and DEA-led drug 

task forces. Each of the four busiest districts has a BEST, and 

Shiprider is expanding eastward after establishing regular operations on the maritime borders in Washington and Michigan. 
945 

Drug organizations use boats, helicopters, snowmobiles, and vehicle compartments to cross the border without detection of their 

illicit cargo—Ecstasy or high-potency marijuana moving south, and 

cocaine, firearms, and cash moving north. For example, in northern 

New York, we recently dismantled a ring that regularly transported hockey bags filled with 100 to 250 pounds of Canadian marijuana across the Seaway through Akwesasne for distribution in the 

Northeast and seized 16 handguns headed for Canada. 

Another group we dismantled obtained Ecstasy in Montreal and 

regularly delivered 50,000 pills to wholesalers in New York and 

Boston, returning with cash and several kilos of cocaine. 

In the fight against human trafficking, a joint investigation by 

RCMP and HSI into the smuggling of young Romanian women 

through the United States to Montreal for prostitution recently resulted in charges in Canada and the United States. 

We cooperate to combat child exploitation, like the case where a 

defendant was charged in Canada when he tried to bring in child 

pornography but did not show up for trial. So we took the case, and 

the defendant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 

225 months for transporting nearly 4,000 images and over 100 videos of graphic child pornography. 

As these cases illustrate, the existing enforcement teams and 

task forces have had significant successes, but their structure, composition, and mandates have left them short of true integration. 

The Beyond the Border declaration in 2011 included the commitment ‘‘to build on existing bilateral law enforcement programs to 

develop the next generation of integrated cross-border law enforcement operations.’’ With our Canadian counterparts, we are addressing the issues associated with integrated enforcement. Meanwhile, the vital work of advancing border security goes on, and now 

includes the Border Operations Leadership Team (BOLT), which 

brings together operational leaders from law enforcement and prosecution agencies with border missions for their insights and action 

on measures to enhance our efforts to eradicate cross-border crime. 

We are confident that our bilateral commitment to border security, our mutual respect for national sovereignty, and our shared 

tradition of protecting both public safety and individual rights will 

strengthen our efforts to achieve more integrated cross-border enforcement. We are committed to continued vigilance, using the full 

range of investigative tools and laws available to us. With BOLT’s 

operational charge, the Northern Border U.S. Attorneys and Federal law enforcement agencies are poised to capitalize on the historic opportunity to forge bonds with our Canadian counterparts 

that increase our effectiveness. 

Thank you for the opportunity to describe for you the challenges 

we are facing on the Northern Border. I look forward to answering 

your questions. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Hartunian. I thank all the 

witnesses for your testimony. 

Certainly one of the purposes of this hearing is to try and give 

some sense for where our main problems occur. We have limited 

resources, but we have the Southern Border, we have the Maritime 

Borders, we have the Northern Border. So I would like to go to you, 

Chief Fisher, and first just talk about in general the basic extent 
946 

of the problems. The stats I have are that on the southwest border 

we had 480,000 apprehensions of people crossing into this country 

illegally; on the Northern Border, a little over 3,000. Obviously 

even though we have a much larger border, the bigger problem in 

terms of illegal immigration is coming through the Southern Border. 

In testimony, we have had contradictory testimony on this. That 

apprehension rate, according to the Customs and Border Protection, is about 75 percent, is what we believe we are apprehending. 

We have had some BP agents say it is somewhere between 30 and 

40. Again, I realize it is very difficult to get that number. 

Do we have some sense of what the apprehension rate is on the 

Northern Border? 

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, the effectiveness rate is primarily 

used on the Southern Border because at that point along the 

Southern Border, years ago we have defined the threat, among 

other things, as flow, flows of people. On the Northern Border, that 

is not necessarily the case. The threat is defined in different ways. 

So using an effectiveness rate like we do on the Southern Border 

to the Northern Border really does not make a lot of sense to us. 

What we do do when we take a look at our strategy and looking 

to where should we deploy our finite resources, we looked a few 

years ago, and if you take a look at approximately 90 percent of 

the Canadian population lives within 100 air miles of the border, 

and then you take that 4,000 miles and look where the density of 

population areas are where transnational criminal organizations 

and potential people seeking entry between the ports of entry need 

to operate, it is very concentrated in some of those areas. Our 

resourcing deployments and redeployments try to match those 

areas, and it is driven primarily by intelligence. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK, but, again, is your sense that we really 

do apprehend a higher percentage on the Northern Border versus 

the Southern Border or less? Again, I would ask anybody else who 

would want to chime in on that one. 

Mr. FISHER. We do not measure that in terms of the effectiveness 

rate, sir. My sense would be it is at or higher than the Southern 

Border, primarily because the flow rate is so low. 

Chairman JOHNSON. What about in terms of drug trafficking? Do 

we have any statistics in terms of the total number of tons coming 

from the Southern Border versus the drugs being trafficked 

through the Northern Border? Is it 10 percent? Is it 5 percent? 

Mr. FISHER. I do not have the percentage off the top of my head, 

Mr. Chairman, but I will tell you it is considerably less in terms 

of the smuggling that occurs between the ports of entry on the 

Northern Border than what we see on the Southern Border. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, we have had testimony from General 

McCaffrey, for example, on the Southern Border, estimates somewhere between 5 to 10 percent of all drugs are interdicted, which 

means, 90 to 95 percent are getting through. Would we have a 

similar type of interdiction rate on the Northern Border? Anybody 

want to answer that that might have some sense of that? Or do we 

simply not know? 

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with the General’s 

methodology on that. Generally when we look at seizure rates 
947 

along the Northern Border versus the Southern Border, we do not 

measure that in terms of the comparison to differentiate threat. 

Chairman JOHNSON. In terms of the drugs that are flowing 

through, we have had, again, contradictory testimony on the Southern Border. We have had one witness saying that the majority of 

those drugs flow through the actual ports of entry. Other witnesses 

say, no, they go around the ports of entry. Do we have any sense 

on the Northern Border where the primary drug trafficking is occurring? Are they smuggled literally through the ports of entry 

with lack of detection? Or are they coming through the vast, 

unmonitored parts of the border? Anybody want to answer that 

one? Mr. Spero. 

Mr. SPERO. Yes, Senator. One of the things that I would say 

about the flow of drugs on the Northern Border is it is certainly 

bi-directional. So certain drugs are coming in from Canada, certain 

types of drugs are still coming in from Canada, and other drugs are 

being exported from the United States and going from the United 

States into Canada. 

As far as the difference between whether or not we are making 

investigations at drugs being interdicted either at the port of entry 

or between the ports, we are seeing both, just in some cases different drugs. 

The case that I spoke about during my oral statement was a case 

where the tractor-trailer that was being used by the drug-smuggling organization to get cocaine from the Ontario-California part— 

or where the drugs were being stored at the warehouse was actually being transported across the United States and through the 

port of Buffalo and was supposed to be delivered to Canada. That 

particular method was in a trap or a concealed compartment. It 

was actually under the floor boards of the tractor-trailer. Had that 

particular delivery been successful, that would have been a case of 

drug smuggling going into Canada through the ports of entry. 

But, likewise, we still see smuggling—I believe it was Mr. 

Hartunian and Mr. Rodriguez who were talking about the hockey 

bags coming across in between the ports, whether those are hockey 

bags with marijuana or some other kind of drug. We get referrals 

from both the Border Patrol who make those interdictions between 

the ports as well as we do from the Office of Field Operations who 

are making those interdictions at the ports. So we are seeing a mix 

from Homeland Security Investigations, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. One huge difference between the borders, 

south versus north, is the cooperation of the bordering country. We 

obviously have far greater cooperation between the United States 

and Canada than we have with the United States and Mexico, 

which makes our job a whole lot easier. On March 16, 2015, we entered into or signed an agreement on land, rail, marine, and air 

transport preclearance, which is going to require legislation on both 

sides of the border here. But, Chief Fisher, can you just speak to 

the difference between the cooperation we have with the Mexican 

Government versus the cooperation we have with the Canadian 

Government and what an enormous difference that makes? 

Mr. FISHER. Well, information for us is the key to be able to reduce any vulnerabilities, regardless of what border we are talking 

about. And in particular with Canada, what we have found over 
948 

the years is the information sharing is really good. It gets better. 

I had the opportunity to have three Border Patrol agents that are 

embedded with the RCMP in Canada, with a fourth to come along 

shortly this year. And having a Border Patrol agent in Canada 

working with the RCMP only bolsters our ability to understand the 

evolving threats and helps us secure the border on both sides. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So that type of model that we have with 

Canada, if we could implement something similar in Mexico, it 

would make a tremendous difference? 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it would. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Thank you, Chief Fisher. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I think the question the Chairman raised is a 

really important one. A really important one. And to the extent 

that we can grow, strengthen our relationship with Mexico, improve our confidence in the information that they can provide them 

and that they can provide us, it will only help. I think maybe one 

of the best force multipliers on the Canadian border is our relationship with Canada. 

I want to just dwell on force multipliers for a while. At least one 

of you, maybe a couple of you, in talking about force multipliers, 

mentioned the assets that we are able to deploy between the ports 

of entry. We have drones on the border of Mexico; we have drones, 

a couple at least, up on our border with Canada. We have fixedwing aircraft down along our border with Mexico; we have fixedwing aircraft up along our border with Canada. 

We had an Inspector General’s report come out a couple of 

months ago, and it raised some real serious questions about the efficiency, the effectiveness of the drones that we are using on our 

Southern Border. They already have problems. We know if the 

wind above a certain velocity, they cannot fly, they cannot operate. 

And in certain kinds of weather, they cannot operate. They have 

not always had the Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation Radar 

(VADER) systems on board which make them far more effective in 

terms of a sensory platform. 

We saw some aircraft used along the Mexican border, fixed-wing 

aircraft, that we just sent them out with binoculars as opposed to 

having something like a VADER system on board. 

Let us talk just a bit about how effective some of those force multipliers are, not so much along the Southern Border, but let us talk 

about how effective they are on the Northern Border. And what can 

we do to make sure that they are even more effective? I do not 

know that we need to add a whole lot of people. We have added 

a lot of people on the Northern Border. We certainly added a lot 

of people on the Southern Border. What we need to do is be able 

to deploy them more effectively. 

Mr. FISHER. Senator, you raise a really interesting point and 

very important point in terms of our strategy along the Northern 

Border. You are right, a lot of times people look at the Northern 

Border deployments with an eye toward the south and say, ‘‘How 

come you are not deploying that way?’’ 

I will tell you, in terms of technology, whether it is handheld 

sensing equipment, unattended ground sensors, remote video surveillance systems, the type of technology that we deploy along the 
949 

Southern Border is the same along the Northern Border. Our enforcement posture in response to some of those tips and cues may 

be different; however, our ability to increase that situational 

awareness is the same in terms of our strategy of the implementation. 

What is, at least for us, very exciting on the Northern Border, 

because of the vast terrain, because of the remoteness of some of 

these locations and our inability to access the immediate border, 

whether it is because of lack of infrastructure or roads, or because 

of the impediments which the terrain provides, we have and will 

start this year the collection effort that we are doing along the 

Southern Border, which, in fact, we started back in March 2013, 

and utilizing the unmanned aerial systems, utilizing additional 

VADER technology and synthetic aperture radar. We have targeted 

over this past year about 80 percent of the Northern Border from 

the field chiefs identifying those very remote locations for us to 

start doing collection against those areas to be able to do a before 

and after picture. 

And so think of it in terms of a 30-mile stretch along the Northern Border, and the unmanned aerial system will go out and deploy, and it will take a series of videos along those remote areas. 

Twenty-four hours later, that unmanned aerial system, along with 

the same technology, will do the same flight. 

Now, those before and after videos will then be sent into a computer at what we call a processing exploitation and dissemination 

cell, and there, very smart and very talented analysts will take a 

look and see if there has been any change, incursions, if you will, 

across that border from the first picture to the next picture. 

That gives us a sense on whether or not, one, we have incursions; 

two, whether those areas are emerging threats; or, equally important, what we find along the Southern Border, areas where there 

is no activity for a variety of reasons, which is equally important, 

where not to deploy technology and Border Patrol agents so that 

we can focus on those areas that we know, based on intelligence, 

based on experience, where those crossings are more likely to 

occur. 

Senator CARPER. OK. I was talking earlier in my opening statement, I mentioned that we have a 4,000-mile border with Canada, 

plus another 1,500 miles with Alaska and Canada—5,500 miles. 

Any idea how many drones we have up there? 

Mr. FISHER. We currently have approximately nine unmanned 

aerial systems within the CBP inventory. There are currently two 

that are assigned to North Dakota. That does not necessarily mean 

we can only fly to there. We do what is called ‘‘federated flights,’’ 

so we can move those unmanned aerial systems from the Northern 

Border to the Southern Border based on identified threats. And because of the capability to run federated queries, we also have 

through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) the Certificates 

of Authorization to be able to move across from the Northern to the 

Southern border based on threats. 

Senator CARPER. So at any given day we might have two or three 

or four drones along our border with Canada? Does that sound 

about right? 
950 

Mr. FISHER. Primarily it would be two. In the event we needed 

to plus that up for a variety of reasons, we would be able to augment that. 

Senator CARPER. And how often do we have them up in the air? 

Mr. FISHER. That I do not know, sir. Again, as you indicated, 

weather permitting, just like any other manned system, whether it 

is a helicopter or fixed-wing, the weather is going to be a limiting 

factor and the readiness rate on when those can fly. 

Senator CARPER. OK. I am going to ask you to answer that for 

the record, if you would, please. 

Mr. FISHER. I will do that. Yes, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. Let me ask each of you, starting with you, Mr. 

Hartunian, giving us good advice. What should we be doing more 

of in our roles that would be helpful to you in the work that you 

do? And I must say I am very impressed by the work that you are 

all doing. But just give us some—for the legislative body here, we 

are going to be taking up appropriations very soon. 

Mr. HARTUNIAN. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Anything that you would especially bring to our 

attention that could be helpful. 

Mr. HARTUNIAN. Well, Senator, thank you for that question, 

which is important. The first thing I think you are doing, which is 

to call attention to the Northern Border, and we are grateful for 

the Committee’s attention on this issue. There are a lot of challenges we face up there, but as you could tell, I think we are doing 

some good work. We have great geographic challenges, a lot of big 

space. But, as I think about some of the things that could be helpful to us in our work with the Canadians, we have had great challenges that have come about in recent years as a result of the explosion of requests for information, formerly the MLAT requests. 

And we are seeing more and more of those. Information in investigations is frequently needed from computer systems and e-mails, 

and while we are taking great steps to improve our informal information-sharing efforts and protocols, we are still seeing an explosion in MLAT requests. And so support for perhaps our Office of 

International Affairs in that effort, Congress working with us. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Let me just ask the other witnesses to respond to the same question, if you will, for the record. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes, for the record. 

Senator CARPER. For the record, please. 

Chairman JOHNSON. We have other Senators. 

Senator CARPER. And thank you for that response. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thanks, Senator Carper. Senator Booker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOOKER 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, Chairman, and I want to thank the 

Chairman and the Ranking Member for working with my team in 

hosting this very important hearing. I am grateful for it. 

I want to thank the panel for your extraordinary service to our 

country. Your dedication and your leadership is essential to our 

safety and security as a Nation. 

It is clear, as was stated already by the Chairman and Ranking 

Member, that the scale differences in the challenges and threats 
951 

between the Northern and Southern Border, it is just not the same 

scale on the Northern Border, and we understand that. This Committee has held numerous hearings that have tended to focus on 

the Southern Border, and I am happy that we are having one here 

because there are still, as you all have enumerated in your various 

written testimonies, there is still tremendous threats along our 

Northern Border. And the fact that it is so porous—and I asked for 

that picture to be put up there, this vast, over-5,000-mile border, 

with incredibly diverse terrain, has areas that are tremendously 

porous, as this picture right here demonstrates how easy it is to 

cross undetected, really illustrates the need for—the urgency for 

the threat. 

Now, I for one obviously am not calling for any fence, but also 

what I am really looking for is a proportionate focus on our Northern Border threats. And, Mr. Hartunian, you illustrated a lot of the 

terrorist nature of these threats, whether it is the recent train incident—we can go back to numerous ones, In 1997, Gazi Ibrahim 

Abu Mezer was convicted of conspiring to detonate a bomb in the 

New York City subway station. In 1999, the Millennial Bomber, 

Ahmed Ressam, was stopped at Port Angeles, Washington, with 

components to be used to produce a bomb. 

The list, as you all know as well as I do, of terrorist threats and 

incursions from the Northern Border are real, are substantive, and 

should be taken seriously. And so we have tremendous cooperation, 

and I have been grateful for our northern Canadian borders. Our 

governments really work well together. But I am also concerned 

that that cooperation is not going as far as it could be. For example, Canada does not share its no-fly list information with us, 

which to me raises some concerns for people that they have put on 

their no-fly list. 

So I want to maybe ask that question specifically about the nofly list. What efforts are we taking to obtain that information from 

Canada and to ensure the safety and protection of Americans from 

terrorists who may try to enter our country across that Northern 

Border? And that can be answered by anyone. 

Mr. HARTUNIAN. Well, Senator, I cannot speak to that issue directly, but I can tell you, your point is well taken, and that is, public safety and the threat of terrorism, that is our No. 1 priority. We 

ought to be mindful of that. We are very concerned about it every 

day. And to address it, I think we have been working closely with 

the Canadians. 

One of the things that we have been doing is to integrate more 

closely with the Canadian prosecution teams, and we have been 

talking to them more frequently, meeting with them and sharing 

information, not just between the agencies, with the agents and 

with the prosecutors. So it is a very important point that you 

make. 

Senator BOOKER. But would not that list, just knowing who they 

have put on a list to stop them from flying, it seems like something 

that would be common sense to share with us, the people that they 

might have concerns about. 

Mr. HARTUNIAN. Senator, I am not really familiar with their position on that, but I will tell you that in the realm of criminal cases 
952 

and criminal work, we have had good luck with interaction and 

sharing. 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Fisher, do you know about that issue, 

about the sharing of that information? 

Mr. FISHER. With respect, Senator, I believe John Wagner is prepared to answer that question. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, Mr. Wagner. 

Mr. WAGNER. Thank you, Senator. The FBI owns the watchlist 

for the U.S. Government, and as users of that watchlist or any 

other information they could glean from another country, we certainly as the operator would welcome that information. We do have 

fairly robust sharing procedures with our counterparts in Canada, 

the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). We have officers embedded in each of our different targeting centers where we go 

through airline reservation data and airline manifests to identify 

national security threats. And we have protocols to exchange information in cases when we see that. 

Now, most of the watchlisted individuals we see traveling are 

through commercial aviation still. The preponderance of 

watchlisted individuals is still coming via commercial aviation, and 

we have seen the incidents over the past number of years, focused 

primarily on commercial aviation, between the Underwear Bomber, 

the Shoe Bomber, et cetera. We do see a couple hundred a year, 

though, cross through the Northern Border as well. 

Senator BOOKER. Are the Canadians forthcoming with their 

watchlist or are we not getting that information? Because, again, 

not only do we have a Northern Border issue—and, again, proportionality between the Southern Border—but 40 percent of our socalled undocumented immigrants are coming from airplanes, airports, overstays on visas in general. So I would think that that 

would be important information to share. 

Mr. WAGNER. Yes, so we set protocols to exchange when each of 

us identify a threat through our commercial aviation targeting. We 

have the protocols established to exchange that information and request additional information from each other to do that, and that 

is where we have our liaisons situated and physically present at 

each of our different targeting centers to be able to facilitate that 

exchange of that information. 

We also do a lot of what we call rules sharing or joint rule creation where, as we sift through the reservation data in the airline 

information, we create rules on what we are looking for, what we 

would consider to be activity we would want to look closer at, and 

we sit down with the Canadian Government and actually come up 

with joint rules between the two of us so we can really go through 

a North American approach on how we do that. 

Senator BOOKER. Great. Just because I have limited time, I am 

going to submit questions I have for the CBP regarding racial 

profiling specifically, excessive force issues, which looks like I will 

not have time to ask here, but I would like to submit them and get 

those responses. 

But the last question I really want to ask is just again the resources we are applying to the challenges, and you all, again, are 

exhibiting extraordinary leadership and commitment and our Canadian partners, extraordinary partnership, the Canadians should 
953 

be praised. But I just really am concerned about the personnel 

challenges, including only 2,093 border agents stationed on the 

Northern Border compared to the 18,000, again, understandably, 

on the southwest border with the size of that challenge. But that 

really means that only about 2,000 border agents are responsible 

for roughly 300,000 people that cross the U.S.-Canadian border 

each day. 

Do you all share my concern that we need more resources targeting the security of the Northern Border given the vastness of 

the terrain and the large amounts of people that are coming 

through? Just in general, are we resource-short on our Northern 

Border? 

Mr. WAGNER. Yes, and we have articulated those needs in the 

administration’s 2015 and 2016 budget requests through a workload staffing model that measures the activity, at least at the ports 

of entry, and the workload and the volume and attributes a staffing 

number to be able to accomplish that. So we are happy to follow 

up afterwards on how that methodology works and what those 

numbers are. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you. 

Mr. SPERO. And if I may, Senator, one of the things that Homeland Security Investigations is looking at is that when there are 

plus-ups along either the Southwest Border or the Northern Border 

from either our sister agencies and our counterparts in Office of 

Field Operations at the port or between the ports under Chief Fisher, a plus-up in CBP, Border Patrol, or inspectors is logically going 

to result in more interdictions, which could also result in more referrals for the need for investigators and more investigative work. 

So we would ask that the Committee—and it would not just affect 

us because as we undertake more, invest in border-related or 

transnational criminal organization-related investigations, then 

that would affect Mr. Hartunian and the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) prosecutorial resources as well. 

So we would ask the Committee to look at it as integrated agencies, how each one affects the other. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Booker. Senator Sasse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SASSE 

Senator SASSE. Thank you, Chairman Johnson and Senator Carper, for hosting this hearing. Thank you to all of you for making 

time for us. 

Chief Fisher, I would like to talk about the term ‘‘operational 

control.’’ In 2011, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

found that CBP had operational control of 32 miles of the Canadian 

border. We have since abandoned that definition. I wonder if you 

can explain what ‘‘operational control’’ meant then, why we abandoned it, and if we had the same metric today, would we be at 32 

miles or would we be in a lot healthier place? 

Mr. FISHER. Thank you, Senator. That is an excellent question. 

First of all, ‘‘operational control’’ was defined back in 2004 in our 

previous strategy as the extent to which we were able to identify, 

develop, track, and bring to a law enforcement resolution all entries along the border. The fundamental premise within the 2004 
954 

strategy was predicated on deterrence. So you wanted to prevent 

the entry in the first instance all across the board. 

And so we started getting additional technology like border mile 

fence, which, by the way, we measured in a linear fashion, and we 

started deploying Border Patrol agents in the same manner and 

technology in the same manner. 

Operational control as a default equaled the amount of technology deployments that we were doing. In other words, if you had 

5 more miles of fence and cameras, it was acceptable based on our 

internal definitions of the levels of control to be able to count that 

as operational control. The difficulty came in two different areas. 

First and foremost is we were actually measuring the inputs. We 

were not necessarily measuring the outcomes as a result of those 

deployments. And, second, at some point in time, which it did, 

those resourcing capabilities ran out, and so we could not as an organization then come back to this Committee or others and say, 

‘‘Well, we cannot gain any more operational control based on our 

definitions unless you give us more stuff.’’ 

And so we abandoned it because it did not measure what we 

needed it to measure, and we switched to a risk-based approach to 

then take a look at measuring the probability of individuals coming 

across the border versus just the mere possibility, which the previous strategy was predicated to be able to secure the border in 

that fashion. 

Senator SASSE. If we had a lot more than 6 minutes, I would 

want to unpack whether or not the last point you made, which I 

completely concur with, that we want a risk-based approach, 

whether or not that is really reconcilable with it sounds like you 

are saying we have a kind of baseline budgeting approach around 

here—many of us are new, and so Gary Peters can ask ‘‘new guy’’ 

questions—whether or not really you think that the threats are 

driving your budget requests or whether or not year over year what 

would the Congress tolerate is what drives the request. And I think 

that Senator Booker asked a lot of great questions about the relative threats between Northern and Southern Border, and I wonder if that is a place to pivot to the radiological concerns. 

In 2009, Secretary Napolitano testified that DHS had deployed 

radiation detection equipment across all northern ports of entry. 

Yet 2 years later, in 2011, the same GAO report found that it 

would not be difficult at all to get nuclear material across the 

northern ports. I wonder if DHS is still using the same equipment. 

I wonder if that technology should be called a failure from that 

point because of the experience of 2009 to 2011, and if better technology exists today, is that something you are requesting of us? 

Mr. FISHER. Senator, again, I would defer the answer to that 

question to John Wagner, who is responsible for the port of entry 

operations. 

Mr. WAGNER. Thank you. Yes, that equipment is still in place, 

and we are working with the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office as 

part of DHS to look at the recapitalization of that and what is the 

right equipment to purchase and design and build and deploy to be 

able to do that. We are looking at the calibration settings of the 

equipment, reducing what we call the ‘‘nuisance alarms,’’ to really 
955 

better focus on what the threats are and what our operational protocols in response to them are. 

Senator SASSE. And so what would you say to the GAO 2011 report that it would be easy—or ‘‘not difficult’’ I think was their term, 

to get nuclear material across the Northern Border? And is that 

the case today as well? 

Mr. WAGNER. I do not necessarily agree with that. 

Senator SASSE. What would give you comfort—— 

Mr. WAGNER. The equipment functions as it was designed to do. 

It looks at detecting what it was designed to do. I am not familiar 

offhand with the report or how they drew that conclusion; to say 

it would be easy to do, whether it would be open or concealed or 

how it would be detected, I would really have to go back and look 

at that. 

Senator SASSE. OK. I think we will follow up with a formal question on that as well. 

When you think about the sources of Canadian threat, one way 

to think about the problem is what can we deter at the border. Another is: Is the nature of potential terrorist threats originating in 

Canada changing? So you could have illegal immigration into Canada, you could have legal immigration into Canada, and you could 

have homegrown terrorist threats inside Canada. After the Ottawa 

attacks, the Canadian Government said that they thought homegrown terrorism in Canada was a real and potentially prevalent 

problem. 

How do we respond strategically after the Ottawa threats and 

potential threats in the future if there were another instance of domestic terrorism inside Canada? Strategically inside DHS, where 

would that threat be assessed and how would it change our behavior? 

Mr. FISHER. Well, Senator, in my experience as the Department 

has matured since 2003, what we have heard so far this morning 

in terms of integrated planning and execution, sharing of intelligence and information, the more as time goes on, the more dependent all of us are fighting the same fight on each other to be 

able to do this. No component within the Department of Homeland 

Security owns the corner market on protecting America. We are so 

dependent, and each and every day it becomes clear when John 

and I sit up and we get our intelligence briefing every morning 

about the evolving threat. And that is a really key thing as a 

takeaway. 

This threat changes all the time, and we have to be able to be 

as responsive and perhaps more predictive as we start seeing those 

changes, which is the reason why a couple of years ago CBP 

transitioned into integrated counternetwork operations as a strategic philosophy, which basically means we are not just going to 

put Border Patrol agents every 25 meters and fence in front of 

them and then cameras behind them and, again, try to deter somebody from coming across. Pragmatically, again, in my 28 years’ experience, that does not work for a couple of reasons. 

One, as a strategic objective, if you have deterrence as a goal, 

one, you are always going to fail because somebody will always 

come through. And, No. 2, it is very difficult to measure. So if you 

are trying to figure out if you are deterring more people this year 
956 

than last year, it gets very difficult to really understand. At least 

I get mired up in all the statistics to try to understand whether, 

in fact, we are winning. 

And so when we look at the intent and capability which defines 

the threat of those adversaries, be they transnational criminal organizations or terrorism or, as the 2011 strategy to combat 

transnational organized crime introduced, the convergence of TCOs 

and terrorism, those are the things that our organization within 

the Department of Homeland Security are trying to get better each 

and every day. 

Senator SASSE. Thank you. We are at my time, but I will follow 

up with some more strategic questions by letter. Thanks. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Sasse. Senator Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

hosting this hearing, which is so important for the Northern Border, along with Ranking Member Carper. I think from Michigan we 

are at the center of an awful lot of trade between Canada and 

transactions across our borders. In fact, if you look at the volume 

of trade that goes across ports of entry, of the top five in the country, Detroit is No. 2, and Port Huron is No. 4. So we are definitely 

the tip of the spear, so to speak, when it comes to border control. 

So it is a very important issue for my State as well as for the economy, and that is why I certainly want to thank Senator Johnson 

for his cosponsorship of the amendment that I put forward in the 

recent budget bill to make sure that we are fully funding our ports 

of entry to make sure that they have the security that they need 

and the ability to process trade and travel efficiently. And that is 

why I am going to make a brief pitch to make sure that we continue to get funding for the international border crossing, particularly with our new bridge that we are constructing between Detroit 

and Windsor, and Port Huron. Port Huron does a great deal of traffic. They have been promised improvements in that Customs Plaza 

which have not occurred, and we need to have those. And it is vitally important to our economy. 

And I want to thank all of the panelists here. This is an interesting hearing, and you have an extremely difficult job in the fact 

that you really have dual purposes, particularly when I look at my 

border crossings in Michigan. We are asking you to keep us safe, 

and we are also asking you not to delay us while we cross the border so that we can move trucks for just-in-time delivery for our 

manufacturing facilities which rely on that. We have substantial 

agricultural interests, crops on those trucks that cannot rot. They 

have to go across very expeditiously in order to get to the markets. 

And so that is a conflicting role, one that you do well, but we are 

asking you to do even more when it comes to moving traffic more 

efficiently. 

So I want to ask Mr. Fisher and Mr. Wagner, you have mentioned in your testimony a number of things that are happening to 

expedite some of the movement of goods in trade. What is working 

and what is it that you need for you to do your job of protecting 

us while also making sure we can make sure trade is moving efficiently? 
957 

Mr. WAGNER. Thank you, and it is a couple of programs that we 

have that we really need to push and further get participation in. 

In the trade environment, it is our trusted trader programs; it is 

linking it to the Canadian programs; it is getting more companies 

and more businesses and more trucking companies enrolled in 

them. But it is also building the infrastructure then to support the 

crossings and allowing us to deliver on the promise that we can expedite those low risks or secure supply chains, and it just cannot 

be over, say, the bridge structure or through the border crossing. 

You have to have the resulting highways to feed into that, to support that. And it is, getting a higher percentage of transactions into 

those programs. 

On the traveler environment, it is the NEXUS program. It is getting more travelers into those NEXUS lanes, getting preapproved 

so you can go back and forth much easier. It is less time we spend 

on these ‘‘enrolled populations,’’ as we call them. It allows us to 

better focus on everyone else. So getting those percentages up, but 

also having the infrastructure to support, and allowing us to then 

deliver on the promise that we make them of this facilitated or expedite crossing to do that. 

And then it is working closely with the Canadian Government, 

looking at ways to increase the use of facilitative technology, most 

notably like the Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID)-enabled 

traveler documents, looking at can we get a higher saturation of 

those types of documents, because those save us time at the border. 

They save us resources because we do not have to physically handle the card and read it through the reader. It reads automatically. 

We have seen great strides on the U.S.-Mexico border by getting 

a higher saturation of RFID-enabled lanes. It allows us to then do 

the watchlist queries automatically as the car pulls up. And then 

building the infrastructure and segregating the traffic according to 

risk and/or facilitative technology, you know, just like the toll 

booths do with E–ZPass, Exact Change, and everyone else. NEXUS 

is the E–ZPass lane or the SENTRI is the E–ZPass lane. The Exact 

Change is something we call the ‘‘Ready Lane,’’ and that is somebody with an RFID document, but not necessarily vetted and 

preapproved like the trusted traveler program of NEXUS or 

SENTRI. 

And then everybody else goes over to the side, and there might 

be a longer wait there because, we know less about them or they 

have—a travel document does not allow us to facilitate their crossing. So it is really just pushing that and getting more people enrolled, and then the infrastructure to support it. 

Senator PETERS. Well, we continue to have delays both in Port 

Huron and Detroit, and I know you are making great strides to expedite that. And it costs money. It costs a lot of money with the 

delays based on how the system works now. 

Are there additional resources that you need, or is it just a matter of time to implement these systems? 

Mr. WAGNER. No, it is additional resources also. Like I mentioned earlier, we have a workload staffing model that takes all of 

the activity an officer does at a port of entry, takes the average 

time it takes to do it, takes how many times a day it is typically 

done, and comes up with the amount of hours to run a port of 
958 

entry, and divide that by the available work hours of an officer, 

and we come up with the staffing number of what we need to run 

based on the workload for that port of entry. 

Now, we can mitigate that need for new staff by some of our 

business transformation improvements that we make. One of our 

current efforts is the trucks pull up and are still paying cash, a 

couple of dollars in change, to pay the user fees to cross the border 

rather than buying the decal. So we are looking at ways could they 

pay that in advance online so we are not collecting cash in that primary booth and making change to deliver back to them, and the 

resulting savings and the workload savings and the time saving, 

that translates in to staff at some point. 

Then the facilities piece, we recognize the facilities are extremely 

expensive just between the facility itself, the staffing and the 

equipment needed, and then the highways to connect it. So a lot 

of coordination needed, we would like to see a lot of regional planning to look at crossings as a system of crossings rather than individual bridges or tunnels or crossings that sometimes compete with 

each other for traffic and for toll revenue. We would really like to 

see regional planning efforts that take them as a system of crossings, working with our Canadian counterparts to move that traffic 

north and south on both borders. 

Senator PETERS. Great. I am running out of time, Mr. Chairman, 

but I do have questions also related to racial profiling and the Justice Department’s exemptions of the CBP for racial profiling and 

with some of the Border Patrol’s activities in Michigan as well that 

a number of my constituents have raised. I will do that in writing, 

and I look forward to your response to some very serious concerns 

that have been raised to me, and I would like to hear your response. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Peters. Senator 

McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank the witnesses for being here. 

Chief Fisher, last month, Congressman Salmon and I introduced 

legislation that would provide Border Patrol with access to Federal 

lands to conduct routine patrols and install needed surveillance 

equipment to detect illegal entries across the border. GAO testified 

that Border Patrol’s access to some Federal lands has been limited 

because of certain land management laws. For example, the Organ 

Pipe National Monument, they did not approve—the land manager 

did not approve of the Border Patrol’s request or plan to install detection equipment, in this case a tower. But we see this time after 

time where the land manager is making the final decision on the 

installation of this equipment as opposed to the Border Patrol. 

Can you explain to me why that should be—one, if it is true and, 

two, why that should be? 

Mr. FISHER. Well, Senator, I do not know for a fact that is true. 

I am not going to dispute your report and what GAO may have 

found. I can imagine in some locations along all of public land 

there are decisions that are made within the Department of the In-
959 

terior, Fish and Wildlife, that perhaps are antithetical to the policies and/or the approach that we would take in terms of the border. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, then it seems to me there should be a 

clear definition of who the final decisionmaker would be, which it 

seems to me should be your organization, not the land manager. 

During a hearing, Chief Fisher, a month ago, General Kelly, who 

is the Commander of the U.S. Southern Command, issued a warning about the threat that budget sequestration poses to security 

along our Southern Border. General Kelly warned that the potential threat of terrorists crossing our Southern Border ‘‘is extremely 

serious’’ and called the budget cuts under sequestration ‘‘a catastrophe which could effectively put me out of business.’’ 

Mr. Wagner and Chief Fisher, do you agree with General Kelly’s 

assessment of the effect of sequestration on your ability to control 

our borders? 

Mr. FISHER. Senator, I would agree with the general’s assessment in terms of how the assessed threat is really serious in terms 

of identifying risk along our border. I think that is accurate. 

Senator MCCAIN. How about being able to carry out your duties? 

Mr. FISHER. There are challenges—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Under sequestration. 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, sir. There are challenges each and every budget 

cycle with or without sequestration. We have finite resources—— 

Senator MCCAIN. So it does not matter to you? 

Mr. FISHER. No, sir. It does matter to me. 

Senator MCCAIN. Then tell me, for the record tell us whether it 

matters or not. 

Mr. FISHER. Senator, it does matter, yes. Thank you. 

Senator MCCAIN. And how serious is the impact? 

Mr. FISHER. At times it can be very serious. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. Mr. Wagner. 

Mr. WAGNER. I concur with the Chief. It is something we manage 

through. It is an additional challenge that can be distracting from 

the mission. It can have detrimental—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Or you can just manage through it, right? 

Mr. WAGNER. We manage through—well, we have to. We have no 

other choice. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, again, am I not making myself clear? I 

want to know the effect of sequestration on your ability to do your 

job. 

Mr. WAGNER. It makes it more difficult. 

Senator MCCAIN. How much more difficult? 

Mr. WAGNER. The entire process, getting a budget 6 months into 

a fiscal year, makes it more difficult; looking at cuts arbitrarily 

across the board makes it more difficult. 

Senator MCCAIN. How about your ability to secure our borders? 

Mr. WAGNER. We do the best we have with the process that we 

go through. 

Senator MCCAIN. I am asking how it affects your ability to enforce our borders. What is the matter with you today? This is a 

pretty straightforward question. I want to know what sequestration—how it affects your ability to enforce our borders. 

Mr. WAGNER. I said it makes it more difficult and more challenging. I do not have a number that I can put up. 
960 

Senator MCCAIN. OK. Chief Fisher, General Kelly also said, and 

I quote, ‘‘Terrorist organizations could seek to leverage those same 

smuggling routes to move operatives with intent to cause grave 

harm to our citizens or even bring weapons of mass destruction 

into the United States.’’ That is General Kelly, the Commander of 

Southern Command’s testimony last month before the Armed Services Committee. Do you share that view? 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, Senator, I do. 

Senator MCCAIN. Would you elaborate? 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, Senator. I had mentioned earlier in terms of the 

2011 strategy to combat transnational criminal organizations, and 

in particular the convergence, wherein that strategy looked at the 

possibility of organized crime and terrorism basically coming together to be able to exploit vulnerabilities along our border, and 

other areas as well. And we see that as an emerging threat. Our 

shift to taking a look at risk and risk mitigation as opposed to just 

putting Border Patrol agents and fence everywhere, was the reason 

for that as well. 

Senator MCCAIN. Are you seeing apprehending people coming 

across particularly our Southern Border but also our Northern Border that are not from the traditional countries that we usually see 

immigrants? I am talking about Mexico, Central America. Are you 

seeing people coming from many other parts of the world that you 

are apprehending? 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, Senator. On average, over the past 3 years 

along the Southern Border in particular, just because of the volume, we see individuals that are represented from over 140 different countries. 

Senator MCCAIN. 140 different countries? 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, Senator. 

Senator MCCAIN. And could you give us some examples the kind 

that would surprise the average citizen? 

Mr. FISHER. Although the vast majority is still with the contiguous countries of Mexico, obviously on the Southern Border, Central and South America, I think we saw some of that increased activity predominantly from countries like Guatemala, El Salvador, 

and Honduras in particular. 

Senator MCCAIN. Chinese? 

Mr. FISHER. I beg your pardon? 

Senator MCCAIN. Have you seen Chinese come across the border? 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa? 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, sir. North Africa. Like I said, I have the list of 

144. I do not have them with me right now, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Would you please submit that to the record and 

the numbers of those from these—part of this obviously is international human-smuggling operations, but also it could be disturbing to all of us to see how far away many of these illegal immigrants are coming across the border, obviously. Does that concern 

you as well? 

Mr. FISHER. It does, Senator. I would be happy to provide that 

list to you. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 
961 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, are you expecting another large number 

of children showing up on our border, on our Southern Border, in 

the next couple of months? 

Mr. FISHER. Senator, I am confident at this point that, based on 

where we are, halfway through this year, that we will not see the 

level of unaccompanied children and levels of family units that we 

saw last year. 

Senator MCCAIN. But you will see a significant number? 

Mr. FISHER. Again, if you are defining ‘‘significant’’ as—if you 

compare that to 2010 and 2011, it will be up above those levels. 

But it is going to be down over the preceding 2 years. 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank the witnesses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator McCain. Senator Ernst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I appreciate you being here today, and thanks for your service in protecting our great country. 

Today we have heard a lot of testimony about shared efforts between Canada and the United States, and I do believe that they 

are a strong partner for us. I know Senator Booker had mentioned 

sharing the no-fly list information. That would be very important. 

But are there any other specific initiatives that we need to look at 

as far as joint activities with Canada, anything that in your mind— 

and maybe, Chief Fisher, if you could address this, or Mr. Wagner, 

but specific initiatives that we really do need to take a hard look 

at and implement? 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, Senator. I would say I briefly mentioned the 

IBET teams where we are working very closely, embedded in many 

cases physically in space where we can share information, and, 

equally important, not just the sharing of the information, is then 

being able to figure out what we collectively are going to do about 

that information on a particular threat. And if you take a look at 

the two countries and the different jurisdictional authorities and 

associated authorities that go with that, we are a lot stronger in 

doing that. And to the extent that we can expand not just the concept but those teams in some of these regional concepts, I think we 

will be better for doing just that. 

Mr. WAGNER. Yes, continuing to work with CBSA and other colleagues in Canada as they develop additional targeting and information-sharing systems. They are working on a system much like 

our ESTA system for visa waiver travelers, their preapproval of 

that, and working with Canada to build a similar system really so 

we have a North American approach and consistent targeting and 

identification of national security factors; and then sharing and exchanging the ways and the protocols on how we can address those 

at the earliest possible opportunity. 

Senator ERNST. OK. Yes, go ahead, Mr. Spero. 

Mr. SPERO. Thank you, Senator. Just to expand on Chief Fisher 

and Commissioner Wagner’s answer, one of the things that I would 

like to call attention to is, we had talked about—and I believe it 

was Mr. Hartunian who talked about a lot of the leadership committees and collaboration that is going on, whether it is the Beyond 
962 

the Border executive group or the Cross Border Crime Forum 

(CBCF) or BOLT. Those are, as I said before, are great ways for 

us to strategize, identify the threats, both interacting with our Canadian partners. 

But one of the things I want to expand on what Chief Fisher said 

was, in addition to the IBETs, our HSI Border Enforcement Security Task Forces are doing—they are making a big difference. They 

are the operators on the ground who are actually out doing the— 

conducting the investigations, making the search warrants on both 

sides of the border, and making the arrests and identifying and disrupting and dismantling the transnational criminal organizations. 

It is a great model. It is a model where we are allowed to—or 

we give our Title 19 cross-designation or essentially deputize Canadian law enforcement, local Canadian law enforcement as customs 

officers, and that way they can come into the United States and actually conduct a side-by-side with us, joint investigations under our 

close supervision, but to have that connectivity investigator to investigator, agent to agent, coordination, collaboration, and just 

working the cases together has proven to be a very successful 

model. 

Senator ERNST. OK. And these are all initiatives that Canada is 

open to, and they are working well with the United States. Is that 

a correct assessment? 

Mr. SPERO. Yes, Senator, they are. 

Senator ERNST. OK. Are there—yes, sir, go ahead, please. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I would just like to highlight some of the other 

work that is going on in the Pacific Northwest, specifically Operation Shiprider. Basically it is an RCMP–U.S. Coast Guard initiative in which different officers are cross-designated to operate in 

each other’s waters. 

I also wanted to highlight the fact that the State of Washington 

and the Province of BC do a yearly meeting with their law enforcement and trade representatives to share issues, problems, and resolutions on our cross-border trafficking. And so I think those are 

unique to how we operate. 

We also engage in mutual discussions with them on a quarterly 

basis in our joint management team, which has the oversight of the 

BEST and the IBET programs. And we have a yearly meeting coming up—it is called ‘‘Project North Star’’-—in Spokane, in which we 

will, again, sit down with our Canadian colleagues as well as our 

State and local officials and Federal agencies, again, to strategize 

and to implement those strategies in the near future. 

Senator ERNST. That is great. I appreciate the collaboration that 

we have with our neighbors to the north. Through this process, 

have you seen any joint initiatives where the Canadians have actually pushed back or they do not wish to collaborate with U.S. authorities? Are there any of those instances out there? Anybody? 

None that you have experienced? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No. I would say the only reticence sometimes is 

in the sharing of targeted information. They have certain privacy 

rules which they have to abide by, and so sometimes that can be 

a little bit difficult. I think we talked about the MLATs and the 

information that is provided via that type of format. But I think 
963 

those are overcome in the field with operational matters and between the different agencies. 

Senator ERNST. OK. 

Mr. HARTUNIAN. Senator, from a prosecutor’s perspective, we 

have made great efforts and I think great strides to bring our prosecution teams together to address some of the challenges that we 

face when we do cross-border operations and investigations. Sometimes there can be challenges sharing information. We have to 

make sure we are in compliance with the rules of each country. 

Sometimes we have to make charging decisions. Who are we going 

to charge and in what jurisdiction are we going to charge them? 

And there are different considerations that come into play based 

upon the law of Canada or the law of the United States. 

So I think we have come a long way in bringing our prosecution 

teams together, bringing the Canadian provincial prosecutors and 

Federal crown prosecutors together with our U.S. Attorneys to 

work some of those differences out. 

Senator ERNST. That is very good. I appreciate it. It is good to 

know what works and then if there are challenges out there as 

well. Thank you, gentlemen. My time has expired. 

Senator MCCAIN [presiding]. Senator Heitkamp. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Chairman Johnson for the introduction and for the opportunity to talk about a border that we do 

not talk a lot about in this Committee, which is the Northern Border. And it is interesting Senator McCain is still here because I 

think one of the challenges we have both on the north and on the 

south border is, as we have put and deployed more resources at the 

points of entry, we have opened up rural America, whether it is on 

the Northern Border or the Southern Border, to mischief. Things 

that used to happen through the port of entry now could—in fact, 

are happening on the Southern Border in very remote locations, 

which creates huge disruption to local communities, to rural America. 

I recently hosted Ali Mayorkas, the Deputy Secretary, in North 

Dakota, and I want to applaud blue and green. We gave them a 

great look at how cooperation works in North Dakota. And your 

folks have been just absolutely fabulous on the Northern Border in 

cooperating with local law enforcement, cooperating with Canadian 

officials, cooperating with local chiefs and sheriffs. It is seamless. 

And the applause is all around, but there are challenges. 

In Minnesota, the challenges are wooded. In North Dakota it is 

open prairie, miles and miles. If I took you up there, farmers are 

farming around the boundary posts. So this is not what you see 

typically on the Southern Border. 

One of the big challenges we have is getting staff in remote locations, and I think you both can say the challenge—I think we are 

down a number of Customs and Border Protection officers in 

Pembina, and we continue to struggle to get Border Patrol to stay 

on the Northern Border. 

And so my question to you is: What are you doing within the Department of Homeland Security to secure additional incentives for 

workforce to stay on the Northern Border? 
964 

Mr. WAGNER. Thank you. So we recently commissioned an internal work group to look at exactly that. We have a lot of places that 

are hard to fill and hard to retain staff at. So we are looking at 

what are the options at our disposal now as far as relocation incentives, retention bonuses, paid moves, promises of, limited assignments there of a couple of years, and then looking at what is the 

right options to offer at the different ports of entry. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Are you meeting with any resistance internally in making pay adjustments or incentive adjustments to secure staff on the Northern Border? 

Mr. WAGNER. No, we have not. It is just a matter of finding the 

budget funds to do it and figuring out what is the right approach 

at each one of the locations. 

Senator HEITKAMP. So once again we are back to budget constraints giving us a less secure border, I think is the point Senator 

McCain was trying to get at. 

Mr. WAGNER. Well, we have—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. I know you do not want to say that, but—— 

Mr. WAGNER. No. I am happy to say that, because, I mean—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. OK. We would like it if you would say that. 

Mr. WAGNER. We have submitted the staffing needs as part of 

the annual budget for the last couple years. We did receive 2,000 

more CBP officers 2 years ago, and we are in the process of hiring 

them, but the need still remains for 2,624 more, and it is just finding ways to pay for that, and these would be distributed among 

with the workload staffing model to do that. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I think we would be foolish to say that lack 

of—or that we can manage the borders, either the Northern Borders or the coastal borders, which we have not yet talked about, 

or the southern land border without additional resources, be it additional aircraft that can monitor the border, basically transport 

folks—in North Dakota we do not have any capacity for detention, 

and we have a huge number of what I would tell you are undocumented workers who are working in construction in North Dakota, 

who are pulled off roofs and pulled off construction projects, only 

to be on those construction projects the next day. 

And so I understand the lack of capacity, but I also think that 

we have to be realistic about the squeeze that we are putting on 

rural borders. We are trying to take care of it, whether it is San 

Diego, McAllen, or El Paso. We see the problems there, and we ignore Cochise County and Pembina and to the west. 

And so you guys have to help us work through this because, as 

we push the envelope and put more and more restraints on those 

border crossings, we are going to move the bad guys to rural America, whether it is on the Southern Border or the Northern Border. 

The other question that I just want to broach quickly, because 

I think the focus here is all people coming to this country, but we 

have a fair number of people who are crossing into Canada from 

this country, and that causes concern for Canadian officials. 

Mr. Wagner, I was interested in your exchange with Senator 

Booker because it seemed like we were maybe two ships passing 

in the night. Do the Canadian officials not share their watchlist 

with us? 

Mr. WAGNER. I do not believe we get their actual watchlist. 
965 

Senator HEITKAMP. Why is that? 

Mr. WAGNER. I do not know. 

Senator HEITKAMP. OK. Is that because we will not give them 

ours? Or is it because they have privacy regulations that we cannot 

work through? 

Mr. WAGNER. The FBI manages it for us, and we are users and 

consumers of it, and we contribute to it. But we are not the owners 

of that—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. But what I heard all of you talking about is 

this extraordinary cooperation you get from the Canadian officials. 

Sometimes laws do not allow it to be seamless, but I can tell you, 

as a former Attorney General from my State, when we used to do 

intel briefings on the Northern Border with local law enforcement, 

whether it is break-ins, burglaries, drugs, the Royal Canadian 

Mounted Police were always at those events. And so I can tell you 

locally it works very well, and it sounds like you believe that it 

works pretty well kind of country to country. 

If you were going to make any changes in that relationship, what 

would you recommend? Any of you. 

Mr. WAGNER. It is really strengthening the information exchange 

and the access to the information that you have internally within, 

your organization or your country. We exchange a lot of information with the Canadian Government. At the land border our entry 

records are serving as their exit records and vice versa, so we can 

start the exchange and the identification of who is overstaying, and 

we can also see then who left the country. 

In the commercial aviation environment, we are doing joint rules 

creation and joint targeting efforts to look at threats to North 

America, not just necessarily the United States or Canada in between. But it is what access do they have to be able to then share 

with us, which brings up the watchlist. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Are we sharing lists of folks who are on the 

list for deportation with the Canadian officials? 

Mr. WAGNER. I am not aware of—I do not know. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I will submit some additional 

questions. But I do want to once again give you a high five for all 

the great work that is done in North Dakota with constraints on 

resources and for the extraordinary cross-border cooperation and 

local government cooperation. You guys are doing a great job up 

there. Your folks should make you proud. 

Chairman JOHNSON [presiding]. Well, thanks, Senator Heitkamp. 

I wish I would have been here for your questioning, because I know 

this obviously affects your State quite a bit, what is happening on 

the border. 

Chief Fisher, I do want to go back a little bit to the question from 

Senator McCain in terms of what is going to happen this year with 

the unaccompanied children. We should not be minimizing this. 

Yes, it is down from last year, but last year was a humanitarian 

crisis. I do not know what you call a 60-percent level or where are 

we at in terms of the total number that are coming as compared 

to last year? We are somewhere around 60, 70 percent of last year’s 

problem, correct? 

Mr. FISHER. Well, Senator, just so I am clear, it was not my intent to minimize that flow, what happened last year, by any 
966 

stretch. And just looking at it—because it is more of a statistical 

anomaly last year. For us, it is people coming across the border for 

a variety of reasons. When we see what happened, for instance, 

last year in South Texas, what the Department of Homeland Security did this year—and, by the way, I should also mention each and 

every year over the last 3 years we have seen increases from individuals from Central America coming between the ports of entry. 

What changed last year was not necessarily the seasonal trends. 

That continued almost exactly the way it has been over the years. 

What did change was the volume, and what we tried to do and 

what we did do with the Secretary’s leadership is start looking at 

after July when the numbers started going down, as really looking 

back and say, one, how can we be better prepared not just to react 

to it, but really to better predict it? 

At least it was interesting for me to see and how the Secretary 

approached this is the Department of Homeland Security was one 

of three departments that had equities and jurisdictional authority 

to respond to this. When you take a look at Health and Human 

Services (HHS), that is a very big piece when it comes to unaccompanied children. If you look at the Department of Justice in terms 

of not just the prosecution but what do we do across the board between the three different departments, that I think was the first 

time in my experience we started seeing peaks of volumes along 

the border—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. I just have to stop you. You used the words 

that was a ‘‘statistical anomaly.’’ No, it was far more than a statistical anomaly. It was a humanitarian crisis—— 

Mr. FISHER. I do not disagree with that. 

Chairman JOHNSON [continuing]. And it was one that was fueled 

by the actions of this government, this administration. I do not 

have the chart here. We have used it in other hearings. But we 

have a chart that shows really the number of unaccompanied children coming from Central America declining at, I guess call it, a 

manageable level, I think under 10,000. I do not know the exact 

numbers. I do not have the chart. You had Deferred Action on 

Childhood Arrivals and that just shot up. It was cause and effect; 

it was very clear. 

And, by the way, in our trip down to McAllen, Texas, I want to 

commend the Customs and Border Protection and the really tremendous effort that they put forward to address that humanitarian 

crisis. But it continues at—what?—a 60-or 70-percent level. It is 

still a problem. 

Just having met with General Kelly—and I do not want to put 

words into his mouth, but I think he is certainly confirming what 

is my sense, that no matter what Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals says, no matter what the Deferred Action on Parents, no 

matter what those memoranda, those Executive Actions say, it is 

what is the reality. And the reality is if you are a parent or a child 

in Central America and you send your child or you come up and 

you get into America, the bottom line is you are staying. That is 

what the coyotes are telling them; even though we have a countercommunications strategy to say, no, this does not apply to you, the 

reality is it does apply. 
967 

I have to admit, as I have delved into this problem—and I know 

you are Custom and Border Protection—the conclusion I am really 

coming to is you could almost be renamed ‘‘Custom and Border 

Processing,’’ because that is certainly what I saw in McAllen, 

Texas. And as long as we continue to apprehend these individuals, 

as long as we have these incentives for people to come into this 

country—because they realize if they get here, they are going to be 

able to stay. As long as we detect them, apprehend them, and then 

process them with a notice to appear, and then disperse from 

around America into the shadows, we are going to continue to have 

that problem. 

So we need to recognize that reality, and we need to start addressing it. I guess this is pretty good staff work here. They have 

given me my chart, which pretty well shows the reality of the situation. So this is far more than a statistical anomaly. This is something that our immigration laws, Executive actions, actually 

caused. And until we are actually willing to admit that reality, we 

are not going to stop it. We are going to continue to have this 

human crisis occurring—maybe it is only 60-or 70-percent level, 

but it is still a humanitarian crisis from my standpoint. 

Do you want to respond to that at all? Tell me if I am wrong. 

Mr. FISHER. Well, Senator, I do want to thank you for complimenting the men and women in Rio Grande Valley and Greater 

South Texas. I, too, have been down there and am very proud of 

the work that they do each and every day to protect this country. 

Thank you, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. I do want to really get back to the 

Northern Border and the drug trafficking there because, again, if 

you really take a look at the root cause of so much of our border 

insecurity, it is the insatiable demand for drugs in this country and 

what that has spawned over the last 50, 60 years. Really, our demand has caused so much of this problem, so much of this crisis. 

So I want to get some kind of sense of what is happening on the 

Northern Border, where it is flowing. Listen, I go every year up 

fishing to Canada. I have gone through those ports of entry. Pretty 

calm, a bunch of folks with fishing boats. But I also understand 

how porous that border is as well; just hop in a canoe and all of 

a sudden you are a camper, and who knows what you are transporting. 

So understanding we do not have the statistics—which is part of 

the problem, by the way, in evaluating how to provide greater security of the border. We do not have the information, and there is a 

real disparity in information, whether Customs and Border Protection is talking about a 70-, 75-percent apprehension rate versus 

agents on the ground saying it is only 30 or 40 percent. 

I want to get, again, some sense of what is happening on the 

Northern Border specifically, as best as people can tell. And I realize you do not have exact information, but is the drug smuggling, 

is the human trafficking—would the potential terrorists that we 

are concerned about, are they going to come through the ports of 

entry? Or are they going to be coming through the areas in between the ports of entry? Can anybody address that basic question? 

Mr. Spero. 
968 

Mr. SPERO. Yes, Senator, thank you. From our investigations— 

and, again, we get a lot of referrals. A lot of our casework does 

come from referrals from either the ports of entry, the OFO, or between the ports from the Border Patrol. But not all of our investigations are referrals. Some of them are from our own confidential 

informants or from other Federal, State, and local partners. 

We understand that one day the vulnerability could be at the 

port. One of the ways that we look at national security is that it 

is our job to make sure that we are investigating criminal fraud 

cases when it comes to people either pretending or appearing, making themselves appear that they are eligible for an entry visa to 

come into the country, whether that is a student who is coming in 

under a different name or does not intend to go to school; or whether it is a worker who claims that they are going to be working at 

a particular job in a particular industry and purchased that visa; 

or whether it is in the interior where the fraudsters are trying to 

go to one of our other sister agencies, Citizenship and Immigration 

Services, to obtain a permanent residence or maybe even eventual 

U.S. citizenship by any kind of fraud. 

So through our Document and Benefit Fraud Task Forces, 

through our participation on the Joint Terrorism Task Forces, HSI 

can bring our Title 8 civil immigration authority, our abilities to investigate fraud, or our Title 19 customs fraud. We are looking at 

all types of vulnerabilities. We are not just focusing on one. So 

whether that is people who are flying directly into the country, 

right into the interior, but maybe on a fraudulent visa, or applied 

for asylum with some sort of fraudulent application, that is a big 

vulnerability, and that is something that we take seriously. 

But also some of our other national security strategies are to 

make sure that sensitive technologies are not—we use our export 

enforcement and our counterproliferation program to make sure 

the sensitive technologies are not getting outside of the country. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Again, I think what I am not getting, 

what I am not hearing is some sense for how much of the problems 

are coming through our ports of entry and, whether we have to 

beef up personnel or improve—fund them in a deficit-neutral fashion, or whether they are coming in between the ports of entry. And 

how do we ever get that information? I realize it is not the volume, 

so we are not, I guess, calculating percent apprehensions or anything else. 

Chief Fisher, would it make sense to utilize what drone flights 

we have, would it make sense to have what detection capabilities 

we do have, would it make sense based on the anecdotal arrest and 

apprehension rate to do some level of statistical sampling, some 

kind of measurement to get some kind of information so that policymakers, who are going to be tasked with allocating those scarce 

resources, have some sense of where the problem does lie on the 

Northern Border? Do you understand the issue, the information I 

am looking for here in terms of where the problem lies and what 

we need to do to really assess the extent of it and direct proper solutions? 

Mr. FISHER. I believe I do, Senator, and one of the things that— 

and certainly for the sake of time, I would offer up a briefing to 

you or your staff. As was mentioned earlier, it is not as simplistic 
969 

just to say, well, it is just happening at the ports, or it is just happening at—the metrics that we use in terms of between the ports 

of entry, there are 12, and we take a look at trends, not just on 

the Southern Border; we take a look on the Northern Border, and 

we get, for instance, with John’s folks and try to figure out—say, 

for instance, in a place like Swanton, what is the dynamic there 

in Swanton? What is the business model of the illicit networks that 

operate in Canada that are exploited on the U.S. border? 

That scenario in terms of that threat is likely to be different than 

Blaine, Washington, or in Detroit. And so for us to just—at least 

for me, to simplistically say, well, it is just at the ports of entry 

or between the ports of entry, it really depends on the area of the 

border, and we do have methods to be able to inform our judgments 

on where those redeployments should go. And we would be happy 

to sit down and explain—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. First of all, I am not asking for simplicity 

here, because I realize it does not exist. 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. This is incredibly complex, and it is sector 

by sector, and it is area by area and State by State, and even beyond that. Again, I realize the Montana border is completely different than the boundary water canoe area up in Minnesota and 

Lake Superior and Detroit. I mean, this is a vast border and all 

kinds of differences. 

So I guess what I will ask you, yes, let us do a briefing. I want 

to understand the complexity. I want to understand exactly what 

you do know about anecdotally where have we—I mean, have people loaded up canoes? Are they flying in in small planes? Are they 

catapulting drugs across the border like they do on the Southern 

Border, with cannon, I mean, it is just unbelievable, as I have 

delved into this situation, the number of methods, the ability to 

avoid detection, the use of the drug cartels, blocking off the bridges 

to these kids so that they can funnel them and put pressure, overload the system over here so they can divert Customs and Border 

Patrol so they can smuggle the drugs over someplace else. Trust 

me, I understand the enormous complexity of the situation. But I 

do not have the information. OK? I know it is complex, but I really 

do not know how complex. I am not sure anybody does. But if we 

are going to start crafting solutions to provide better border security, we need to better understand the complexity of it. 

So, again, I would look forward to a briefing. 

Mr. FISHER. I agree. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I was kind of hoping—Senator Ayotte wanted to come here and ask some questions. If she does not get here 

in time, let me first offer all of you the opportunity to make a final 

point. This is something Senator Carper has done. I learned from 

it. Certainly if I was a witness, I would be sitting here going, ‘‘I 

want to make this point.’’ So here is your opportunity to make that 

final point. If Senator Ayotte gets here, we will let her question. 

Otherwise, we will close the hearing. 

Chief Fisher, we will start with you. 

Mr. FISHER. Senator, thank you for the consideration and obviously the opportunity to be here today. It was brought up a couple 

of times this morning alluding to some of the effectiveness of re-
970 

porting in terms of what my office reports versus what may have 

been in the recent past articulated specifically by Mr. Cabrera. I 

know there have been a lot of questions, and for the sake of brevity, let me just say this: 

One, I have seen what Mr. Cabrera mentioned in terms of a host 

of things: the effectiveness rate, what he is hearing, what the policy is based on presumably what I have directed to the workforce 

in the field, among other things. Let me state for the record that 

none of that is based on truth. It is true, however, that Mr. 

Cabrera is entitled to his opinion. He is not, however, entitled to 

his own set of facts. And I would—not now, but with your staff— 

be able to clear that and tell you, in fact, what the policy is by my 

handwriting, what the transition has been over the last couple of 

years, and what I expect from each and every Border Patrol agent 

in uniform as it relates to data integrity and reporting, if, in fact, 

there are any allegations of misconduct. But thank you again for 

the opportunity, Senator. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I appreciate that. Again, I have a keen understanding of how difficult it is to get this information. This is not 

like a manufacturing setting where you can study it, and it is all 

right there. This is enormously difficult and enormously complex. 

So we are just trying to wade through that and trying as best as 

possible to describe the reality and trying to ascertain the truth 

here, knowing that you are never going to get the full reality or the 

full truth. 

So, again, we certainly do appreciate your service to the Nation 

and doing what you can to grapple with a very difficult situation. 

Deputy Commissioner Wagner. 

Mr. WAGNER. Thank you. It is really just a recognition of some 

of the economic activity that crosses that Northern Border, what it 

means to the economy of the United States and to Canada, looking 

at—within the Office of Field Operations, we have a huge workload 

of not necessarily just enforcement work. There is the regulatory 

functions. There is the processing, like you mentioned, of the commercial vehicles that cross the border, welcome our citizens home, 

welcoming visitors, tourists, business travelers into the United 

States, ensuring their compliance with all the laws and regulations. 

But, the majority of the transactions we do conduct, remember, 

every truck, every piece of cargo, every person, every train, every 

boat, everything has to be seen by a CBP officer and admitted and 

released by a CBP officer. The great majority of those transactions 

are good, law-abiding companies and good, law-abiding citizens and 

visitors. And it is layering our enforcement processes on top of that 

without stopping or hindering that movement back and forth and 

really ferreting out those bad actors and bad things from coming 

in. And that is where we try to apply a really dedicated and targeted effort based on intelligence, based on our analysis, based on 

our cooperation with our foreign partners and our partners within 

the governments at the Federal, State, and local levels to be able 

to best do that so we do not stop that commerce, because that will 

be just as devastating as an attack. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I agree. Thank you, and thank you for your 

service. Special Agent Spero. 
971 

Mr. SPERO. Thank you, Senator. I guess for my final point I 

would just like to add that I understand your frustration with our 

ability to necessarily pin down exactly or identify exactly where the 

threats are, because from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement or a Homeland Security Investigations point of view, we are 

aware our focus is to attack transnational criminal organizations, 

no matter what they are doing, because what we are finding at HSI 

is these organizations are smuggling guns, drugs, people, weapons. 

It is the roots that we are trying to identify and attack, and the 

organizations. That is why we feel like our illicit path attack strategy puts us on the right path. 

We are not focusing on the individual committing the crime. 

When we stop that seize, we make that big seizure, or we get a referral, that is the beginning of the investigation for us. That is not 

the end. It does not stop there. And what our strategy is is to attempt to identify the whole scope of these global organizations, 

whether it is terrorist organizations or other criminal organizations. So that is, reaching back and using our international footprint to identify the bad actors or members of the organization in 

the source countries, in those transit countries, here in the United 

States if the United States is the ultimate destination country, but 

also working with our Canadian partners. 

So, we are kind of changing the way that we measure success. 

I understand that the old methods of straight indictments, convictions, and arrests and seizures and comparing them to the previous 

years or matching up with what the resources are is not necessarily the best way to determine success. So we are moving toward a model, we have implemented a model where we are looking 

at, what are the cases that we are doing that are having the biggest impact on border security, public safety, and national security. 

So I absolutely want to thank you for holding this hearing and 

bringing attention to the Northern Border and certainly for giving 

me the opportunity to represent the men and women of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Homeland Security Investigations. I know that they are out there every day trying to do the 

best they can to enforce the immigration and customs laws of the 

United States. 

Chairman JOHNSON. We thank them, and we thank you for your 

service. Mr. Rodriguez. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Senator. I just wanted to make a 

couple of notes from an operational perspective. Again, when we 

talked about additional resources for the Northern Border, I want 

to make sure we do not overlook our intelligence capabilities and 

the challenges that we face. And to that aspect, I think our most 

critical support that we provide our partners is with intel analyst 

support. And so I know we talked about agents, investigators, but 

I do not want to leave that component out as far as the need for 

intelligence analysts. They play a critical role in our investigations. 

Second, I just want to point out a few gaps that my partners 

wanted to make sure I mentioned, and that was radio interoperability along the border. It still continues to be a problem, especially in those remote areas that you are familiar with, as well as 

our radar coverage, especially over the Cascades where we have 
972 

these deep canyons and we cannot get radar to look down in there. 

And so that also is one of the gaps we still need to address. 

And, finally, as far as looking at specifically drug-trafficking organizations, we measure our success with the numbers that we dismantle and disrupt, and, again, a third of our numbers are multinational polydrug organizations that are impacting not only our 

Southern Border but also the Northern Border, because we are seeing more and more of our Southern Border DTOs coming up and, 

again, as I mentioned, trafficking more meth and cocaine through 

the United States into Canada. 

Chairman JOHNSON. They are businesses, and they are looking 

for additional product lines, and they are looking for additional 

markets, and they are finding them, and they are growing them, 

and they are metastasizing. It is an enormous problem. 

I also want to comment on the radio interoperability, what we 

hope is complete interoperability. It is consistently mentioned to us 

as a problem. It is probably not the sexiest technology here, but it 

is an incredibly important one. So we have definitely heard that 

message as well. Mr. Hartunian. 

Mr. HARTUNIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would agree we 

face all the threats that you have described, and it can be frustrating—threats from potential terrorists, drug smugglers, alien 

smugglers, human traffickers, you name it, and those are the 

threats that we face. I think we should think about it in terms of 

how we address those threats, and we do it in a couple of ways. 

First, we have to have really robust prosecution regimes, and I 

think our U.S. Attorney’s Offices along the Northern Border, I 

know them all, I know their offices. They work hard. They bring 

good cases. And now that we are staffing back up after some of the 

lean budget years that we experienced, I think that things are 

looking up and the future is bright for us. Robust enforcement is 

certainly very important. 

The second thing that we need is close collaboration between our 

law enforcement agencies and with our Canadian counterparts. 

And we could use some assistance perhaps with some of our DOJ 

law enforcement agencies having resources to work within some of 

these task force formats, ATF and DEA in particular. But we have 

to work toward integration, I think, with our Canadian counterparts, and we are taking steps to get there. 

And then, finally, as you described—and this was a very important point—we have to address some root causes, and I think we 

have to take a comprehensive approach to the drug problem that 

we have and to the crime problem that we have. And that means 

to do other things other than just prosecute and incarcerate people. 

We cannot just do that. We have to take a more well-rounded approach. We have to spend effort on reentry and on prevention. And 

I think the Attorney General’s Smart on Crime Program is well designed to take a comprehensive approach toward our crime problem. 

So thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I appreciate 

it. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, thank you. We are actually working 

on right now a field hearing on high levels of incarceration rates— 
973 

we will probably do that in Milwaukee—somewhat talking about 

the issue you raised there. 

I did want to ask you a question because coming as a district attorney in the Northern Border sector, when we were down in 

McAllen, we just did a Sunday drive, just driving around with people during off-hours, and local law enforcement was telling me that 

the fight over prosecutorial jurisdiction is not the fight that I would 

have expected. Normally I am hearing people, they want the collar; 

they want to be able to prosecute that criminal. That is not the 

case on the Southern Border because it is so expensive to prosecute 

and people’s budgets are strained. Basically they are fighting over 

not having to prosecute individuals, and as a result, anecdotally we 

were told that unless, for example, there is at least 500 pounds of 

marijuana, they just do not even bother with prosecution. Now, 

that is on the Southern Border. As long as you are district attorney 

on the Northern Border, what are the jurisdictional battles? What 

are the types of prosecution thresholds, the discretion that you use? 

Mr. HARTUNIAN. We do have thresholds, and, typically the larger 

drug quantities are prosecuted in Federal court primarily. We work 

very closely with our local district attorneys, particularly along the 

Northern Border, the four-county border area in the Northern District of New York. And when we have a case that perhaps does not 

rise to the level of a Federal prosecution, we will consult with our 

State counterparts, and the case may end up being prosecuted in 

State court. 

I think we work collaboratively with them. I would not say that 

there is a competition or a desire to hand cases off. My experience 

is that we work very well, that we have particular interests and 

needs and priorities, and I think we can meld those together quite 

well. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I have got 4 minutes left to vote. You have 

already voted, so will you close out the hearing? Is that okeydokey? I am kind of a rookie here. OK. 

Let me just say again thank you all for the time you took. I read 

the testimony. It is all very thoughtful. I know there is a lot of 

work and detail that goes into it, so thank you for taking that time 

and taking your time here to come and testify, your very thoughtful 

answers to our questions, and I want to thank all my colleagues. 

This was a very well attended hearing which I think indicates really how importantly we view this problem. But it also speaks to the 

complexity. There is an awful lot of questions that need at least 

some answers, and I know those answers are very difficult to get 

to. 

So, again, I want to thank you, and I will turn it over to our 

Ranking Member, Senator Carper. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you all for hanging in here with us. At this point in time, the Finance Committee 

has been in a markup—we call it a ‘‘business meeting’’—on the 

trade legislation, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Trade Promotion Authority, so I am trying to be in two places at once and not doing 

it too well. And we are voting, so it is a full morning. 

I want to ask a question that goes back to something that—I do 

not know, Chief, if you said it or Mr. Wagner said it, but somebody 

said it, and you mentioned—maybe, Mr. Hartunian, it was you. But 
974 

the matter of Native American lands was mentioned that is actually on the border between our country and Canada. And we have 

a similar situation along the border with Mexico. And at times I 

have heard from the Mexican border that sometimes drug smugglers, human traffickers—use that land as a conduit to get through 

and try to get the cooperation of the folks who own that and live 

on that land. 

Whoever raised this, would you and others just chime in about 

how this is of interest to us on the northern as well as on the 

Southern Border? Mr. Spero. 

Mr. SPERO. Yes, Senator, thank you. That is true; there certainly 

are some complexities when conducting investigations of crime on 

the Native American reservations. One of the complexities certainly on the Northern Border in the area of the Akwesasne Mohawk Indian Reservation that Mr. Hartunian and I share jurisdiction with is just plain the geography, sir. It is tough terrain up 

there, and it is ripe for smugglers to exploit in all seasons. And 

then certainly you have that added—the winter months—— 

Senator CARPER. I am sure you said this. Which country is it in? 

Mr. SPERO. The Akwesasne Indian Reservation actually has territory both on the Canadian side and on the United States side, 

and the geography itself poses a lot of challenges toward law enforcement. 

On top of the geography, in addition to the geography, there is 

some political sensitivities with the Native population wanting to 

maintain as much sovereignty as they can, so sometimes it is difficult for us to conduct—we have to overcome that challenge of 

gaining their trust. In some cases, it is a very close knit, small population, and that again poses some issues or challenges for us that 

are somewhat unique. 

But, on the other hand, one of the things that is getting better 

from our standpoint and we are making a lot more progress is our 

Massena BEST up there. 

Senator CARPER. I am sorry? 

Mr. SPERO. Our Massena Border Enforcement Security Task 

Force. We actually have the Akwesasne Mohawk Police Service 

representatives on that—participate on the task force, as well as 

the St. Regis police officers on our task force. There are members 

that have been cross-designated with Title 19 authority, so essentially they are deputized customs agents, and they are working 

those cases with us to help reduce those vulnerabilities. 

In reality, we know all of the challenges I met. The smuggling 

organizations know what they are, too, and they try and do their 

best to exploit everything. So we are trying to do a better job with 

our outreach on the Indian reservation, our close coordination and 

collaboration with the Native American police force on that reservation, and working together to do everything we can to mitigate 

that threat, sir. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Others on this point, please. Anybody? 

[No response.] 

Chief, Mr. Wagner, let us go down to the Southern Border with 

Mexico. Do we have a similar situation in some areas along the 

Southern Border? And how do we figure out how to work with the 

Native Americans to be able to secure that portion of the border? 
975 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, Senator. As described in the Akwesasne, on the 

Tohono O’odham Reservation on the southwest border, which the 

geography takes on the western portion in Arizona, both in Tucson 

and what we call the ‘‘West Desert,’’ that tribe does extend in the 

United States and into Mexico, and so part of their—when we look 

at the border in terms of trying to identify likely routes of entry, 

over the years as we have built both primary pedestrian fence and 

vehicle barricades, it is always challenging to try to work with the 

tribe, work with the leadership in the tribe, and letting them know, 

if they will allow us to put some impediments along the border, or 

bring infrastructure or technology to help increase our situational 

awareness, early in those discussions years ago it was very difficult 

to make the case, until the infrastructure and technology started 

to manifest around the reservation, which obviously the path of 

least resistance came through the Tohono O’odham Nation. 

As a matter of fact, up until the middle of 2013, the vast majority of trafficking across the Southern Border came through Arizona, 

and the vast majority of that traffic came through the West Desert 

through the Nation. They realize the vulnerability, and we are 

working a lot better with them. 

As a matter of fact, we are currently in the process of developing 

integrated fixed towers. The first phase of that, as you well know, 

was in Nogales. In late summer, we are in the process going to 

transition into Phase 2, and we currently have authorization from 

the tribe to be able to move into deployment of integrated fixed 

towers to cover a vast region of that reservation. So that will be 

for us something that has been a long time in coming, sir. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. Thanks very much. 

The last question I will present to all of you here today goes back 

to something I oftentimes say. I like to say: ‘‘Find out what works, 

do more of that. Find out what does not work, and do less of that.’’ 

And the advice was actually presented to the Finance Committee 

a couple years ago when I was serving on it at a hearing by Alan 

Blinder. Alan Blinder, when he was asked what should we do on 

deficit reduction, what should we do on deficit reduction with respect to health care, reining in health care costs, he said, ‘‘I am not 

an expert on this stuff. I am not a health economist. But here is 

what I would do: Find out what works, do more of that.’’ And I 

said, ‘‘Do you mean find out what does not work and do less of 

that?’’ He said, ‘‘Yep.’’ 

So with that spirit and with that thought in mind, could you all 

just take maybe a minute or so apiece and just talk to us again 

about what is working on the Northern Border, that appears to be 

working, that is replicable particularly along our Southern Border? 

Maybe you could each just pick one point, something that is working along the Northern Border that is worth replicating and can be 

exported to the Southern Border, and maybe some of the best practices from your experience, your observations on the Northern Border that we would be smart to try on the Southern Border. 

Mr. Hartunian, do you want to go first? 

Mr. HARTUNIAN. Yes, thank you, Senator. Great question. What 

is working? Robust enforcement. And that is not to say that is not 

happening on the Southern Border. I think our U.S. Attorney’s Offices all along the border are working very hard. Their people, their 
976 

AUSAs, are really working hard to get the job done. But it is certainly a critical component. 

I think what works on the Northern Border is close collaboration 

with the Canadians, and while that might be a bit more challenging in Mexico, I think it can be done, and close collaboration 

between the prosecutors of both nations, and that is something that 

we are seeing happen more and more. We are working to improve 

that, make that happen more frequently, and I think that that is 

certainly an important approach that we can take. So I would highlight those two things. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. Is one of the reasons why 

maybe we work better with the Canadians in terms of sharing information is we have less concerns about that information finding 

itself in the wrong hands in Canada? 

Mr. HARTUNIAN. Well, I think that there is cooperation with the 

Mexican authorities. I think in all cases we have to be careful how 

we share law enforcement information. That is certainly not a barrier that cannot be overcome. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Good. Thank you. 

Mr. Rodriguez, please. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. All right. From my—— 

Senator CARPER. You were in DEA for a while, weren’t you, for 

a number of years? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. For 27 years, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. That is great. Thank you for that as well. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. From my perspective, it is just not the one meeting, the one event, the one policy discussion. We have a number of 

conversations both with our Federal partners on the border as well 

as with Canadians year-round. It could be case specific. It could be 

program specific. And if we have to, we then follow up on these discussions where we will put a working group together to work on 

maybe some Shiprider issues or some intel issues that we need to 

look at specifically MDMA, or Ecstasy. 

And so I think those are the best practices that work well for us 

on the Northern Border and that makes us unique, and that we 

need to keep going and hopefully we can eventually have those 

types of processes in place on the Southern Border to help there. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. 

Mr. Spero, same question, please. 

Mr. SPERO. Senator Carper, I appreciate the question. I actually 

had a little bit of extra time to formulate my answer, and I guess 

the best way for me to describe it or the way I look at it is that 

it is not necessarily how do we take what is working on the Northern Border and bring it down to the Southern Border. But it is an 

exchange of best practices across both borders as well as the interior of the United States. And I use the Border Enforcement Security Task Forces, as an example. The BEST was originally created 

in Laredo in 2005 to combat the violence associated with the 

transnational criminal organizations that were affecting specifically 

the Southern Border. 

That model, the success of that model, with the collaboration and 

cooperation and working together on the cases was then brought up 

to the Northern Border, and now we have four Northern Border 
977 

BEST task forces. I happen to oversee two in my AOR of Buffalo, 

the Port of Buffalo BEST as well as the Massena BEST. 

But at the same time, it does not just stop there. We do not bring 

what we have learned from the southwest border and bring it up 

to the Northern Border. We had a framework, a great framework 

to start with, but then we take that to the next level, so our abilities to expand those BESTs, we actually have over 40—just about 

43 members now of our BEST team in Massena. So our abilities 

to incorporate our Canadian law enforcement counterparts at all 

levels, whether it is the RCMP or the CBSA, but the Surete du 

Quebec or the regional police offices, and having as much—not just 

information sharing, because, of course, information sharing is extremely important, but we are able to actually take the information 

in those collaboration sessions and put them to use in our investigations. And that is how we complete that last piece of identifying, disrupting, and dismantling the transnational criminal organizations that are the biggest threats to the homeland. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. Mr. Wagner. 

Mr. WAGNER. Senator, at the ports of entry, really we focus on 

the risk segmentation of the workload and looking at ways to better utilize the physical infrastructure that is there and getting the 

most efficiencies we can out of it. 

Now, how we define something as lower risk or higher risk is all 

dependent on what access to what systems we have, the analysis 

and the targeting capabilities. That is also enhanced by what our 

foreign partners are sharing with us. We have very good data exchange, information exchange with the Canadian Government and 

the Mexican Government. They have different capacities as to what 

access they can get, what information they collect, and then within 

their own privacy constraints what they can share with us. But it 

is a little different within both countries, but we do a very robust 

information exchange with the Mexican Government as well as the 

Canadian Government that helps us make that risk segmentation 

determination. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Chief, my time has expired, and my colleagues are back. Would you answer that question for me for the 

record, please? 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, Senator. You mentioned it briefly. I think it is 

the institutionalization of what we see on the Northern Border in 

terms of shared information, integrated percentage and execution, 

which then you have a degree of sustainability in that effort. We 

can do a lot better on the Southern Border in that regard. 

Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Great job. 

Chairman JOHNSON [presiding]. Thanks for holding down the 

fort. I found somebody on the Senate floor there. Senator Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. He just runs around the Senate floor picking up 

Senators. 

Thank you all for being here. I appreciate it. And, representing 

New Hampshire, the Northern Border is pretty important to us. 

And I am not sure if you have been asked this question yet, the 

Director of National Intelligence (DNI), James Clapper, has identi-
978 

fied drug trafficking obviously as a major transnational threat. In 

my State we are seeing a heroin epidemic, and I know a lot of that 

is coming over the Southern Border. 

So what are the biggest issues that we are facing on the Northern Border? And can you help me understand how is the information sharing with Canadian authorities? Because that is where my 

local law enforcement and my State police and even the Federal officials that work in New Hampshire would be working with on the 

Canadian side. Whoever is best to take that question. 

Mr. SPERO. Thank you, Senator. Well, with specifics to heroin, 

you are right, we are seeing heroin that is coming up through Mexico, and the intelligence that we are developing from our ongoing 

criminal investigations and our closed investigations is that, we are 

seeing either precursor chemicals or heroin coming from China. It 

is being imported into Mexico under the control of the cartels. The 

cartels are using the existing smuggling networks to get them into 

the United States through the southwest border, and whether the 

smuggling networks are used to smuggle anything, so whether it 

is people or whether it is drugs, the cartels have control of the networks and the pathways, and they are using that to get heroin into 

the country for either ultimate consumption here in the United 

States or in some cases on into Canada as well. 

One of the things that we were talking about was our ability and 

our need to make sure that we do everything that we can across 

all levels of law enforcement, whether it is Federal, State, or local 

law enforcement, or in my particular neck of the wood, even travel 

law enforcement, and international law enforcement as well, particularly with our Canadian counterparts on the Canadian side of 

the border. 

Where we have the biggest issues in my particular AOR, the 

Massena or Rouses Point area, we use our Border Enforcement Security Task Forces as a mechanism to share information back and 

forth with our Canadian counterparts. 

So we actually have cross-designated—we have given essentially 

Title 19 or customs authority basically making State and local law 

enforcement designated customs officials, but also we are able to do 

that with Canadian local law enforcement officials as well. And 

then they can come and work the networks on this side of the border. 

So the idea here is to open up information sharing, work the 

cases together, instead of—not only trying to remove the U.S.-Canadian border as a potential barrier to law enforcement, or in some 

cases we are even actually able to use it to our advantage. So we 

understand that it is a problem. Heroin seems to be on the rise. 

But one of the things that we think is the best way to identify, disrupt, or dismantle these transnational criminal organizations, no 

matter what commodity they smuggle, whether it is heroin, whether it is cocaine, or whether it is marijuana—or firearms, for that 

matter—is to identify the scope of the organization in the source 

countries, the transit countries, the destinations countries, and 

work together with law enforcement at all levels to share the information and work the cases. 

Senator AYOTTE. So I get all that, just thinking about how do we 

drive up the price of heroin? Because one of the problems we have 
979 

right now with heroin is it is so cheap. Obviously, the more we can 

make it tougher for them to transport this stuff over—it is so cheap 

that some people are addicted to prescription drugs. They go over 

to heroin, and it is really fueling this huge public health epidemic, 

not just in New Hampshire. It is across this country. Do we need 

to give you bigger tools? What do we need to give you to help you 

to drive up the price to really come down on the people transporting heroin? 

Mr. SPERO. One of the things that we look at in any of the drug 

trade, whether it is heroin, and I should have also mentioned before that, the newer trends that we are seeing with respect to heroin is the heroin laced with fentanyl, which is really the deadliest—— 

Senator AYOTTE. Yes, and it is like heroin on steroids, basically. 

Mr. SPERO. Absolutely, ma’am. As with any business model, I 

think that, if we can be more effective at reducing the supply, then 

that would be one way to drive up the price. 

Another thing that we are trying to do is with almost every enforcement program that we have at Homeland Security Investigations, there is also a public outreach or a public service announcement message that goes along with it. So if we do have a particularly big search warrant, where there is a big seizure or a big arrest or a big sentence, we try and get out to the public that, hey, 

if it is the kids that are using the heroin laced with fentanyl, to 

get out there and say, look, there are some—you do not know what 

you are using or what the impacts are on you. So not only did we 

just conduct this investigation and make this arrest, but, parents, 

kids, this is why it is important that you do not use it because you 

do not—— 

Senator AYOTTE. Yes, we have to do a better job overall with 

that. 

I have a question about in terms of Canada, as I understand it 

right now—and I am not sure, whoever the best person to answer 

the question, I will just field it. Right now, as I understand it, Canada does not have a system in place to screen inbound airplane 

passengers against the terrorist watchlist, and so they are moving 

toward the capability. Is this true? And if so, those on the terrorist 

watchlist can presumably enter Canada on an airplane? Is that 

true? Who knows about that, and can you help me understand 

that? Because I am really worried about, we have these foreign 

fighters that have gone to obviously Syria, Iraq, Yemen. Some of 

them are Canadians. We have had some Americans, too. But, Canada is fairly—we have a great relationship with Canada, and so if 

you can get to Canada, it is really not that hard to get to the 

United States of America. So what are your thoughts on this problem? 

Mr. WAGNER. I do not know if they have direct access to the U.S. 

Government watchlist and that they screen against that directly. 

But they have a similar system that we do of screening airline passengers against the airline reservation systems and the airline 

manifests before that person comes into that country. We work 

very closely with them, and we identify similar approaches to how 

we screen that. We call them ‘‘rules,’’ and we set rules against how 

we scrub that data and how we identify national security or any 
980 

other types of concerns. We do joint rule creation. We do rules exchanges, and we have certain protocols in place that when certain 

rules fire, we will exchange information and ask each other country 

about additional information. 

Senator AYOTTE. Do you know if they have the equivalent of our 

terrorist watchlist? What are they checking their passenger list 

against? Do you know the answer to that? 

Mr. WAGNER. It is against their own systems and their own list, 

so they do, I believe, have a national security list. They have customs records. They have immigration lookouts. They have access to 

the Interpol lost and stolen database. 

Senator AYOTTE. So can I ask you a question? Just when you are 

thinking about a friendly neighbor like Canada, why couldn’t we 

join forces on some of that in terms of terrorist watchlist information? I know we do information sharing, but it seems to me that 

if we cannot trust the Canadians, we are in trouble. Any thoughts 

on that? 

Mr. WAGNER. We do not own that information, so it really would 

not be ours to exchange with them. But as consumers and users 

of it, we would certainly welcome access to any additional sources 

of information. 

Senator AYOTTE. Maybe I am asking that of the wrong person, 

but I am the Chair of the Aviation Committee, and I think this is 

perhaps a question I should direct to TSA. 

Mr. WAGNER. Just one final point. If somebody does fly into Canada and drive across the border, we run the same database checks 

and the same watchlist checks at the land border as we do in commercial aviation. They are the same systems and the same databases we are checking. 

Senator AYOTTE. Good. So you would catch it there. 

Mr. WAGNER. Correct. 

Senator AYOTTE. Catch an individual there if they presumably 

were on our list, even if Canada did not catch it. 

Mr. WAGNER. Correct. 

Senator AYOTTE. OK. Great. Thanks. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. That is a really 

good point. My understanding is the same as yours, that they are 

not using our watchlist, and that is something I think we need to 

press to see what we can do to cooperate between two governments. 

Senator AYOTTE. Especially since it is between two governments 

that have a friendly relationship. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Correct. So, again, thank you for coming. 

Again, thank you all for your time, your efforts, and your testimony. 

This hearing record will remain open for 15 days until May 7 at 

5 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions for the 

record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(981) 

A P P E N D I X 
982 
983 
984 
985 
986 
987 
988 
989 
990 
991 
992 
993 
994 
995 
996 
997 
998 
999 
1000 
1001 
1002 
1003 
1004 
1005 
1006 
1007 
1008 
1009 
1010 
1011 
1012 
1013 
1014 
1015 
1016 
1017 
1018 
1019 
1020 
1021 
1022 
1023 
1024 
1025 
1026 
1027 
1028 
1029 
1030 
1031 
1032 
1033 
1034 
1035 
1036 
1037 
1038 
1039 
1040 
1041 
1042 
1043 
1044 
1045 
1046 
1047 
1048 
1049 
1050 
1051 
1052 
1053 
1054 
1055 
1056 
1057 
1058 
1059 
1060 
1061 
1062 
1063 
1064 
1065 
1066 
1067 
1068 
1069 
1070 
1071 
1072 
1073 
1074 
1075 
1076 
1077 
1078 
1079 
1080 
1081 
1082 
1083 
1084 
1085 
1086 
(1087) 

SECURING THE BORDER: FENCING 

INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY FORCE 

MULTIPLIERS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2015 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:22 p.m., in room 

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

Present: Senators Johnson, Lankford, Sasse, Carper, Tester, 

Booker, and Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. This hearing will come to order. Our Ranking Member is still a few minutes out, so we will get underway 

here. When he gets here, I will express again the fact that we are 

very glad that Senator Carper’s stop was in Wilmington. He was 

actually on the train that derailed, and, of course, our thoughts and 

prayers are with the families and victims of that tragedy. And our 

thoughts and prayers are also with all of our law enforcement officials that step out on their doorstep every day and risk their lives 

for our public safety. And rather than me say it, I cannot say it 

better than what Secretary Jeh Johnson said in a letter, and I 

would just like to read this. 

‘‘Dear Colleagues: This is National Police Week. This week, we 

honor the sacrifice and commitment of men and women in our law 

enforcement. We pay special tribute to those in law enforcement 

who have given their lives in the line of duty, and we offer our support to their families.’’ 

‘‘Last year, our Department lost two Border Patrol agents in the 

line of duty: Alexander Giannini and Tyler Robledo. This week, 

Agents Giannini and Robledo’s names will be added to the National 

Law Enforcement Officers (NLEO) Memorial in Washington, DC.’’ 

‘‘I am also mindful of Border Patrol Agent Javier Vega, Jr., who 

last August was killed during a robbery while fishing with his family in Texas.’’ 

‘‘Wherever you are this week, I encourage you to honor those who 

have chosen the law enforcement profession.’’ 

I guess I would just ask everybody here in the hearing room, in 

light of and in honor of those individuals that Secretary Johnson 

was commending, as well as all of our law enforcement officials 
1088 

1The prepared statement of Chairman Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 1129. 

2The joint prepared statement of Mr. Alles appears in the Appendix on page 1131. 

that have given their last full measure, just if we recognize a moment of silence. 

[Moment of silence.] 

Thank you. I can actually ask consent to have my opening statement read into the record.1

I guess what I would like to do is get right down to testimony. 

It is the tradition of this Committee that we swear in witnesses, 

so if everybody would 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. ALLES. I do. 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. I do. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I do. 

Ms. DUONG. I do. 

Ms. GAMBLER. I do. 

Mr. GARCIA. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Please be seated. 

Our first witness is Assistant Commissioner Randolph Alles. 

Randolph Alles is the Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Air 

and Marine (OAM) with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). OAM is the 

world’s largest aviation and maritime law enforcement organization. Before joining OAM, Mr. Alles served in the U.S. Marine 

Corps for 35 years, retiring in 2011 as a Major General. Assistant 

Commissioner Alles. 

TESTIMONY OF RANDOLPH D. ALLES,2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF AIR AND MARINE, U.S. CUSTOMS AND 

BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Mr. ALLES. Thank you, sir, and good afternoon. It is good to see 

you again. You may recall we last visited our P–3 and the unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) site in Corpus Christi in January, 

so thank you for coming down to see that. And I would always just 

encourage any Members of the Committee to come visit our sites. 

I think that is very beneficial in understanding what we do better. 

As you noted, CBP’s Office of Air and Marine is a critical component of our layered border strategy. OAM’s 1,272 law enforcement 

personnel operate 257 aircraft, 283 vessels, and a sophisticated domain awareness network across the United States, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands. OAM’s critical aerial and maritime missions fall into four core competencies: domain awareness, investigation, interdiction, and contingency operations/national taskings. 

We not only contribute to the security of our land border but facilitate efforts, along with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), to secure 

the Nation’s 95,000 miles of coastal shoreline through the coordinated use of integrated air and marine forces. 

Since the consolidation of air and marine assets within OAM 11 

years ago, we have transformed a border air wing composed primarily of light observation aircraft into a modern air and maritime 
1089 

fleet with sophisticated surveillance sensors and communications 

systems. 

We are working to increase the connectivity and networking 

among all our air and marine assets. We are also continuing the 

effort to reduce the number of our aircraft types and position our 

assets for highest utilization, which will increase both the efficiency 

and effectiveness of our operations. 

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a few of our key 

assets and describe how technology is a viable force multiplier that 

furthers CBP’s efforts to identify, monitor, and appropriately respond to threats to our Nation’s borders. 

First is our MQ9 Predator UAS. It continues to play a critical 

role in advancing CBP’s comprehensive border strategy and management by increasing situational awareness of the air, land, and 

maritime environments. It just returned from a deployment in El 

Salvador where it contributed to seizures of $362 million of contraband, so a very effective deployment force. 

Second is our Multi-Role Enforcement Aircraft, which is a highly 

capable aircraft with sophisticated technology systems that enable 

it to be effective over both land and water. These are replacing several of our older aircraft, single-mission aircraft inside CBP, so it 

will be a very beneficial force. 

Beyond that, we use our CBP—beyond our borders, we use our 

P–3 Long-Range Tracking and Airborne Early Warning Aircraft, 

which have been central in countering narcotic operations in the 

transit zone and also against transnational criminal organizations 

that are moving drugs out of the source zone through the transit 

zone and in toward the United States. 

We work in conjunction with aviation assets, interceptor vessels 

to operate in coastal waters to combat smuggling, and protect U.S. 

ports from acts of terrorism. And then, finally, we have our Air and 

Marine Operations Center (AMOC), which is a national task force 

that focuses on criminal use of non-commercial air and maritime 

conveyances approaching, crossing, or operating inside the borders 

of the United States and Puerto Rico. 

So, Chairman Johnson and the Ranking Member when he comes 

and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to discuss OAM’s capabilities and our efforts in securing our borders. I look forward to taking your questions and, of 

course, look forward if you can come out to our sites. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Assistant Commissioner Mark Borkowski. 

He is the Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition (OTIA) with the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection of the Department of Homeland Security. He is responsible for ensuring technology efforts are properly focused on mission and well integrated across CBP. Mr. Borkowski also serves as 

CBP’s Component Acquisition Executive. Prior to his appointment, 

Mr. Borkowski served as Executive Director of the Secure Border 

Initiative Program Executive Office. Mr. Borkowski. 
1090 

1The joint prepared statement of Mr. Borkowski appears in the Appendix on page 1131. 

TESTIMONY OF MARK BORKOWSKI,1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ACQUISITION, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Thank you, Chairman Johnson and Senator 

Booker. I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here today. 

I represent the acquisition community, and our responsibility is 

to deliver the stuff that the operators need. We buy it. I know there 

is some question about the distinction between us and, for example, 

DHS Science and Technology (S&T), so let me highlight that a little bit to start. 

DHS S&T makes sure there is stuff there, because it is not always ready. We do not always have systems, technologies, software 

that we need. So it first has to be there. Once it is there, we have 

to figure out how best to get it, and that means we have to know 

what the options are. We have to do the business case analysis. We 

have to figure out how many to buy. And we have to understand 

why we are buying it. And for that, of course, we ask the people 

in uniform, the green, or the tan, or the blue uniforms, the folks 

sitting to either side. They are the ones who describe what we 

need. It is our job then in Acquisition to somehow put that in practice and actually deliver capability that those operators can use to 

produce mission outcomes. 

Our focus, the thing we have gotten the most attention on recently, has been the technology for surveillance between the ports 

of entry. As you know, there is a past program called the Secure 

Border Initiative-network (SBInet), which was a very challenging 

program, and although it eventually delivered very effective capability, we concluded it was not the right system to go across the 

entire border, and it was much too expensive. 

So we scaled down our ambitions somewhat and selected a much 

more modest portfolio of systems that the Border Patrol selected 

and tailored to each area of the border. We focused that on Arizona 

because that is where the action was at the time. We are in the 

throes of completing that plan, which we call the ‘‘Arizona Technology Plan,’’ and it consists of everything from small—you can 

imagine handheld, long-range, binocular-like sensors, to more complex systems on high towers with radars and cameras that are connected in a command and control center. And the purpose of those 

systems is to give the Border Patrol better information about what 

is on the ground, what the threat of that activity is, whether it is 

a migrant or it is somebody carrying a weapon, and more options 

for how to respond. 

Outside of Arizona, obviously, the Border Patrol has indicated to 

us that there is activity, that there is migration. As we have done 

things in Arizona, traffic has migrated or for a variety of other reasons. South Texas, as you know, is an area. 

What we have done is because we were successful in the Arizona 

Technology Plan, at least in saving money, we have been able to 

divert resources to South Texas, and largely that has been based 

on the Department of Defense (DOD) reuse. Congress has been a 

strong advocate of us partnering with the Department of Defense 
1091 

1The joint prepared statement of Mr. Vitiello appears in the Appendix on page 1131. 

to use what was already taxpayer investments, to leverage those 

for our capacity, and we have been very successful with that in 

South Texas. For example, we are flying aerostats now, and we 

now have surveillance that we probably would not have had until 

2018 or 2019 with budget realities. 

So that is a quick summary of our progress and what Acquisition 

does, and I very much look forward to answering your questions as 

we go forward. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Deputy Chief Ronald Vitiello. He is the Deputy Chief of the Border Patrol. Deputy Vitiello has served as an 

agent and in supervisory roles at the Laredo Sector, Tucson Sector, 

and as Chief Patrol Agent of the Rio Grande Valley Sector. Deputy 

Chief Vitiello. 

TESTIMONY OF RONALD VITIELLO,1 DEPUTY CHIEF, OFFICE 

OF BORDER PATROL, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. VITIELLO. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Senator Booker. It 

is a pleasure for me to be here to appear before you to discuss how 

technology and tactical infrastructure act as force multipliers toward the U.S. Border Patrol’s border security enforcement efforts 

between the ports of entry (POE). I am pleased to represent for 

Border Patrol agents the crucial contribution they make to CBP 

and the Homeland Security Enterprise (HSE) in DHS. 

This is a special week in Washington, culminating in the National Police Officers Memorial on Friday on the South Capitol 

Lawn. 

Earlier today, we observed Chief Fisher, the Commissioner, the 

Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Secretary, and the Secretary 

commemorate the valor of CBP’s fallen, specifically in the unveiling 

of two new names on the CBP Valor Memorial, Border Patrol 

Agents Giannini and Robledo. We honor them and the 115 other 

guardians of the Nation’s lost in 2014. 

While the basic Border Patrol mission to secure the Nation’s borders from illegal entry of persons and goods has not changed in the 

past 90 years, the operational environment in which we work and 

the threats we face have changed dramatically. 

Today our mission includes deterring acts of terrorism, detecting 

and intercepting human and drug and weapons smuggling and 

trafficking, and preventing and responding to other criminal activity. The effective deployment of fixed and mobile technology and 

tactical infrastructure is critical to Border Patrol operations. With 

these resources, our front line is more informed, more effective, and 

safer. 

The Border Patrol works closely with our operational intelligence, technology development, and acquisitions colleagues within 

CBP and DHS to develop requirements to test, evaluate, and ultimately deploy technology and infrastructure. 

The deployment of tactical infrastructure, including fencing, 

roads, and lighting, is a critical component of our security efforts. 

It denies, deters, and slows down illegal entrants, providing more 
1092 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Duong appears in the Appendix on page 1147. 

time for agents to respond. Detection technology supplements physical barriers by extending the visual range and awareness of 

agents. Ground sensors alert agents to movements and activity 

while mounted cameras and sensors on aircraft, fixed towers, and 

on Border Patrol vehicles can be controlled remotely to verify targets. 

All of this technology and infrastructure works together and ultimately enables the Border Patrol to gain situational awareness, direct a response team to the interdiction location, and forewarn of 

any danger otherwise unknown along the way. 

The Border Patrol continually evaluates our situational awareness posture and adjusts our capabilities to secure our borders. We 

work closely with OTIA and CBP and DHS’ Science and Technology 

Directorate to identify and develop technology such as tunnel detection and monitoring technologies, small unmanned aircraft systems, tactical communication upgrades, and border surveillance 

tools tailored for the southwest and northern borders. 

There is no doubt that technology is a critical factor in the Border Patrol’s Strategic Plan, which implements a security approach 

based on risk. The strategy going forward will emphasize joint 

planning and execution, advancing counternetwork approach, and 

a DHS-wide unity of effort. 

Thanks again for the opportunity to testify how technology and 

tactical infrastructure help us secure the border. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Director Anh Duong. Director Duong is the 

Director of Borders and Maritime Security Division in the Science 

and Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security, where she focuses on developing technologies to put into operational use along our sea, land, and air borders and ports of entry. 

Ms. Duong came to the United States as a refugee of war from 

Vietnam and spent 25 years working in Naval Science and Technology, directing all of U.S. Navy explosives research and development. Ms. Duong. 

TESTIMONY OF ANH DUONG,1 DIRECTOR, BORDERS AND MARITIME SECURITY DIVISION, DIRECTORATE OF SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Ms. DUONG. Good afternoon, Chairman Johnson and Senator 

Booker. Thank you for this opportunity to testify along with my colleagues from Customs and Border Protection with whom we work 

closely. 

The Science & Technology Directorate’s, mission is to deliver effective and innovative insight, methods, and solutions for the critical needs of the Homeland Security Enterprise. 

Under the leadership of Under Secretary Brothers, S&T has refined our strategic direction and defined our visionary goals which 

are driven by the 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review 

(QHSR), White House policy, congressional guidance, and Secretary 

Johnson’s Unity of Effort Initiative. These goals are: 

Screening at Speed: Security that Matches the Pace of Life; 
1093 

A Trusted Cyber Future: Protecting Privacy, Commerce, and 

Community; 

Enable the Decision Maker: Actionable Information at the Speed 

of Thought; 

Responder of the Future: Protected, Connected, and Fully Aware; 

And Resilient Communities: Disaster-Proofing Society. 

Three of these goals are directly relevant to border security: 

Screening at Speed, Enable the Decision Maker, and Responder of 

the Future. All three require a common enabler—namely, situational awareness—in order to screen people and goods with minimum disruption to the pace of life, enable decisionmakers at various levels, and arm responders with information to keep them safe 

and fully aware. 

From an operational standpoint, given our broad border against 

a multitude of ever changing threats, the need for total situational 

awareness is paramount. S&T employs technology as a powerful 

force multiplier to improve situational awareness, which in turn 

enables risk-based security, a key DHS strategy. 

Considering both S&T visionary goals and today’s operational 

needs, we are pursuing an enterprise capability to provide improved situational awareness across the Homeland Security Enterprise called the ‘‘Border and Coastal Information System,’’ (BACIS). 

This work includes integrating and federating existing stand-alone 

data sources, developing new sensor systems to create new data, 

developing and integrating decision support tools and analytics to 

translate data into actionable information, and sharing information 

with partners. 

Development for the BACIS is ongoing for the maritime environment. Work for our land borders started in fiscal year (FY) 2015, 

and work for our ports of entry is planned for fiscal year 2017. Toward blocking gaps in border situational awareness and providing 

new data sources, numerous S&T-developed systems are undergoing operational assessment while providing interim capability. 

Examples include a buried tripwire system in Arizona to detect illegal border crossers, a tunnel activity monitoring system in Texas, 

a Canada-U.S. sensor sharing pilot, and a prototype system for detecting and tracking small dark aircraft in Washington. In operational use in Texas is a scanner that scans small aircraft for contraband. 

Technology is an essential ingredient of effective border security. 

S&T will continue to collaborate with our components and partners 

to bring technology to operational use and help enhance border security. 

I thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity to testify 

on this very important subject. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Rebecca Gambler. Ms. Gambler is the Director of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) Homeland Security and Justice Team where she leads GAO’s work on 

border security, immigration, and DHS management. Prior to joining GAO, Ms. Gambler worked at the National Endowment for Democracy’s International Forum for Democratic Studies. Director 

Gambler. 
1094 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Gambler appears in the Appendix on page 1153. 

TESTIMONY OF REBECCA GAMBLER,1 DIRECTOR, HOMELAND 

SECURITY AND JUSTICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. GAMBLER. Good afternoon, Chairman Johnson and Members 

of the Committee I appreciate the opportunity to testify at today’s 

hearing to discuss GAO’s work reviewing DHS efforts to acquire 

and deploy various technologies and other assets along U.S. borders. 

DHS has employed a variety of assets in its efforts to secure the 

southwest border, including various land-based surveillance technologies, tactical infrastructure, which includes fencing, roads, and 

lighting, and air and marine craft. GAO has reported on DHS’ 

management and oversight of these assets and programs, including 

numerous reports on surveillance technologies under the former Secure Border Initiative and the current Arizona Border Surveillance 

Technology Plan. GAO has also reported on fencing and other tactical infrastructure with about 652 miles of pedestrian vehicle fencing currently in place along the southwest border. 

My remarks today will reflect our findings in three areas related 

to DHS’ efforts to secure the border: one, DHS’ efforts to implement 

the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan; two, CBP and 

the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) efforts to 

modernize radio systems; and, three, CBP Office of Air and Marine’s mix and placement of assets. 

First, CBP has made progress toward deploying programs under 

the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan, including fixed 

and mobile surveillance systems, agent portable devices, and 

ground sensors, and these technologies have aided CBP’s border security efforts. However, we have also reported that CBP could do 

more to strengthen its management of the plan and technology programs and better assess the contributions of surveillance technologies to apprehensions and seizures along the southwest border. 

For example, CBP has experienced delays in some of its surveillance technology programs, and CBP’s planned dates for initial and 

full operational capabilities for the integrated fixed towers, for instance, have slipped by several years. 

We have also previously reviewed CBP’s schedules and life-cycle 

cost estimates for its highest-cost programs under the plan and 

compared them against best practices. Overall, the schedules and 

estimates for the plan’s programs reflected some but not all best 

practices, and we found that CBP could take further action to better ensure the reliability of its schedules and cost estimates by 

more fully applying best practices. 

Further, CBP has identified the mission benefits of its surveillance technologies such as improved situational awareness and 

agent safety. CBP has also begun requiring Border Patrol to record 

data within its database on whether or not an asset such as a camera assisted in an apprehension or seizure. These are positive 

steps; however, CBP needs to develop and implement performance 

measures and analyze data it is now collecting to be able to fully 

assess the contributions of its technologies to border security. 
1095 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Garcia appears in the Appendix on page 1175. 

Second, with regard to radio systems, earlier this year we reported that CBP and ICE had taken action to upgrade their tactical communications infrastructure. For example, CBP and ICE 

completed various modernization programs for their tactical communications such as upgrading outdated equipment and expanding 

coverage in some areas. However, agents and officers who use the 

radio systems reported experiencing challenges such as coverage 

gaps and interoperability issues which affected their operations. 

We also found that CBP and ICE could take further steps to 

strengthen and record training on upgraded radio systems provided 

to officers and agents. 

Third, with regard to air and marine assets, in 2012 we reported 

that the Office of Air and Marine could better ensure that its mix 

and placement of assets were effective and efficient by, for example, more clearly linking deployment decisions to mission needs and 

threats, documenting analyses used to support decisions on the mix 

and placement of assets, and considering how deployments of border technology affect requirements for air and marine assets. We 

found that these steps were needed to help CBP better determine 

the extent to which its allocation decisions were effective in addressing customer needs and threats. 

In closing, we have made recommendations to DHS in all of 

these areas and others to help the Department in its efforts to 

manage and implement technologies, infrastructure, and other assets to secure the border. DHS has agreed with some of these recommendations and has actions planned or underway to address 

some of them. We will continue to monitor DHS’ efforts in response 

to our recommendations. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify, and I would be 

pleased to answer any questions at the appropriate time. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Michael Garcia. He is a Legislative Attorney 

for the Congressional Research Service (CRS) where he has worked 

since 2003. In this capacity, Mr. Garcia has focused on issues related to immigration, border security, international law, and national security. Mr. Garcia. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL JOHN GARCIA,1 LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, U.S. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member 

Carper, and Members of the Committee. I am honored to be testifying before you today regarding the legal authorities and requirements related to the deployment of fencing and other barriers 

along the U.S. borders. 

The primary statute governing barrier deployment is Section 102 

of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 

Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, which I will refer to as ‘‘the 1996 act.’’ Section 102 was amended in 2005, 2006, and 2007. These revisions, 

coupled with increasing funding for border projects, resulted in 

hundreds of miles of fencing being deployed along the southwest 
1096 

border. However, it appears additional fence deployment largely 

halted after 2011. 

Section 102 has three key features: Section 102(a) expressly authorizes DHS to deploy barriers and roads along the borders to 

deter illegal crossings. Section 102(b) provides that fencing shall be 

installed along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border, but 

fencing is not required at any particular location when DHS determines that other means are better suited to obtain control. And 

Section 102(c) allows the DHS Secretary to waive any legal requirement that impedes the expeditious construction of border barriers 

and roads. 

In recent years, attention has primarily focused on Section 102(b) 

and 102(c), so I will focus my comments on those provisions. 

Prior to the most recent amendments to the 1996 act, Section 

102(b) required DHS to construct double-layered fencing along five 

specific stretches of the southwest border. The current version of 

Section 102(b) no longer requires fencing to be double-layered and 

provides DHS with discretion regarding where fencing should be 

installed. 

Although Section 102(b) is sometimes characterized as requiring 

700 miles of fencing, the provision actually states that fencing shall 

be deployed ‘‘along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border.’’ In other words, the requirement prioritizes the amount of the 

border covered by fencing as opposed to the amount of fencing used 

by DHS. Last year, DHS stated that fencing had been deployed 

along roughly 652 miles of the southwest border. 

There may be questions regarding the firmness of the 700-mile 

language. Section 102(b) states that, notwithstanding its requirements, DHS is not required to construct fencing at any particular 

location where it deems fencing inappropriate. This clause could be 

interpreted to mean that while DHS must deploy fencing along 700 

miles of the border, it is not required to deploy fencing at any discrete point. 

A broader reading of this clause might permit DHS to construct 

fencing along less than 700 miles of the southwest border if the 

agency believes fencing is only appropriate along a lesser mileage. 

However, there are a number of challenges to such a reading. As 

an initial matter, the notwithstanding clause does not say that 

DHS may construct fencing along a lesser mileage of the border. 

It says that fencing is not required at any particular location. If 

DHS may construct only the amount of fencing it deems appropriate, it is unclear why Section 102(b) would state that fencing 

shall be deployed along not less than 700 miles of the southwest 

border. 

The legislative history of Section 102(b) along with several 

courts’ description of the provision also seem to give greater support for understanding the 700-mile requirement as a firm one. 

DHS officials have seemingly taken differing interpretations of Section 102(b) over the years. A court’s consideration of this issue may 

depend upon whether the meaning of Section 102(b) is seen as ambiguous and DHS’ construction is deemed reasonable. 

In any event, there is no statutory deadline for when the required fencing must be completed, and it is also unclear who would 
1097 

have standing to bring a legal challenge against DHS’ fencing 

strategy. 

Turning to Section 102(c), this provision grants the DHS Secretary the power to waive legal requirements that may impede the 

construction of border roads and barriers. Waiver authority has 

been used to facilitate both the construction and the upkeep of border projects. But this authority could not be used to waive constitutional requirements. Thus, for example, just compensation needs to 

be given to private property owners whose land is condemned for 

purposes of barrier installation. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer 

any questions you have. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. 

I am kind of interpreting your testimony that Congress might 

have passed a law that was not crystal clear? I guess I would be 

shocked. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOOKER 

Senator Booker, I guess you are going to have to leave here, so 

I am happy to turn it over to you for the time being. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity. I really just want to direct one question. 

I just want to say I will be leaving here and then preparing some 

remarks for the floor in regards to the train accident we had. I 

know Senator Carper was on that train and got off early, and I am 

very happy to see that he is here and well, and I just want to express my sympathies for the loss of life and the more than 100 people who are in the hospital right now recovering from their injuries. 

I just want to ask just one question before I have to run. Ms. 

Gambler, from the notes that I have, Customs and Border Protection spent about $2.4 billion to complete roughly 670 miles of border fence. The vast majority of it was a single layer of fence, one 

line of fence designed to keep pedestrians, vehicles, and such from 

crossing. 

If Congress were to implement the double layer of fence, that 

would require more land acquisition, more supplies, more labor to 

build, and manned by Border Patrol. I am trying to understand the 

payoff and the cost-benefit analysis in your estimation. 

According to the GAO, undocumented entries into the United 

States during this time of erecting this fence actually fell 69 percent between 2006 and 2011, which is pretty impressive. But the 

drug and contraband seizures nearly doubled. 

So you are an expert looking at costs and benefits and challenges 

associated with border fencing and technology. If Congress eventually approves another 700 miles of double-layered barrier fence as 

a part of the border bill, do you share my concern in sort of understanding the cost-benefit analysis and what, in your opinion, would 

it be as that 700 miles is put into place? 

Ms. GAMBLER. So I think that is a very important question, Senator, and it goes to something that GAO has reported on both as 

it relates to fencing but also as it relates to other assets as well 

to include technology, which you mentioned, which is really being 

able to assess what we are getting out of different investments that 
1098 

we are putting in place along the border, whether it is fencing or 

technology. And what we have found and reported on is that DHS 

could do a better job of collecting data and developing measures 

and metrics to assess what contributions they are getting out of different investments, whether that is fencing or whether that is technology or other assets. 

And so what we have recommended is that DHS take steps to 

better collect the data, and better develop performance measures 

and metrics, so that we can be able to answer the question you just 

asked, which is: What are the contributions that we are getting out 

of the different infrastructure and technologies that we are putting 

in place? 

Senator BOOKER. So it is a radical proposition. In other words, 

before we throw a whole bunch of money at the problem, try to figure out what is going to get us the best results for the money that 

we spend, given the ultimate array of decisions we have between 

assets like technology, drones, or fencing. 

Ms. GAMBLER. And DHS certainly has some data now that would 

allow them to assess, particularly on the technologies front, what 

contributions they are getting out of the technologies they have deployed to seizures and apprehensions, for example, for the towers 

that have already been deployed, they are starting to collect that 

data now, and what they need to do is start using that to actually 

analyze and assess the performance and progress they are making. 

Senator BOOKER. And so before politicians make decisions, you 

really think that this should be a data-driven decision through 

thorough analysis. Is that what you are saying? 

Ms. GAMBLER. We certainly think it is important for them to assess the performance of the systems and how that is contributing 

to their efforts to secure the border, both as it relates to fencing 

technology and other assets they might put in place. 

Senator BOOKER. Ms. Gambler, thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

We would like to turn it over to our Ranking Member. Again, we 

are all very pleased on the Committee that you got off in time. So 

if you would like to say a few words and give us your opening 

statement? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, and I want to thank the folks on 

our Committee and, frankly, a lot of my colleagues and people 

around the country who have expressed just personal feelings 

about what those of us who were riding that train last night from 

Washington up to New York are feeling and thinking. I ride the 

train a lot, and I get to know the people, like the crew on the 

trains, and, frankly, I ride with a lot of the same people and never 

imagined when I got off the train last night that six people from 

that train would be dead this morning. We pray for all of them, 

and particularly for the—and also just a real prayer of thanksgiving for the first responders who turned out late at night in difficult circumstances. A lot of folks were heroes and heroines last 

night. They were not just the first responders or just the crew or 

just the Amtrak employees, but a lot of passengers who just did ex-
1099 

traordinarily heroic things with their lives. So let us keep them in 

our thoughts and in our prayers. 

I used to be an Amtrak board member. When I was Governor of 

Delaware, I was an Amtrak board member, so I have been involved 

in train accidents as a board member, and sometimes with loss of 

life and sometimes just a lot of damage. And it is never easy, and 

this one is especially hard, as you know, but I appreciate all the 

feelings that people have expressed very much. 

I want to also express to all of you our heartfelt thanks to you 

for being here and for what you do with your lives and trying to 

make our lives in many instances a lot safer and a better quality 

of life. So we are grateful for that. 

I want to express my thanks to the Chairman for holding this 

hearing and letting us participate in its preparation and putting together, I think, just a really good panel of witnesses. 

The Chairman and I and Senator Ben Sasse went down to the 

border not too many months ago, Chris will recall, and we had the 

opportunity to meet with people from all walks of life in South 

Texas. And one of the questions we asked them is: What do we 

need to do more of or less off in order to better secure our borders? 

And we heard a lot of things, but one of the phrases we heard over 

and over again is, ‘‘Technology is the key to securing the border.’’ 

We heard that a lot. ‘‘Technology is the key to securing the border.’’ 

I could not agree more. And I look forward to hearing more from 

our panel today about the technologies and other tools that can 

serve as what I call ‘‘force multipliers’’ for our agents on the 

ground. I am sure my colleagues and our witnesses would agree 

that we need smart, targeted border security investments, and to 

me, this means placing a priority on acquiring advanced cameras, 

sensors, and radars so our agents have real-time situational awareness along our borders. For example, I have been very impressed 

with the Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation Radar (VADER) technology on our drones and the mobile surveillance towers that I 

have seen along our borders. 

It also means working with the Department of Defense to reuse 

equipment that is no longer needed in theater in places like Afghanistan, such as the aerostats, tethered aerostats, that now we 

use along the Rio Grande Valley. Finally, it means making sure the 

assets we do have are being used effectively. If we have an airplane, a helicopter, or a drone in the sky, we need to equip those 

assets with the right kinds of cameras and surveillance equipment 

to ensure that we are not just flying blind. I am an old P–3 guy, 

old Navy guy for many years, a retired Navy captain, and I remember many a day we used to chase Soviet nuclear submarines when 

we were not in Southeast Asia all over the world. And the idea of 

fighting nuclear submarines using binoculars, not so effective. 

Frankly, the idea of looking for people in a search-and-rescue mission using binoculars from a P–3 aircraft, not so effective. And 

when we send aircraft along the borders without the right kind of 

surveillance technology, we are wasting a lot of fuel and, frankly, 

I think the time of a lot of people if we are not careful. 

One of the things I would like to really hear from our panel 

today is about what technology is working along the border, what 

is working, so we can deploy more of that. Find out what works, 
1100 

do more of that; find out what does not work and do less of that. 

I would also welcome hearing from each of you today what is not 

working so that we can reduce our expenditure on those activities. 

I know DHS has struggled in the past with some technology deployments, so we hope to talk about some of those lessons learned. 

From what I understand, DHS—with the help from our friends 

at GAO—has already made many improvements to its acquisition 

policies, and we look forward to hearing more about that today as 

well. We applaud that. One lesson that I have learned over the 

years is that you cannot manage what you cannot measure. We 

talked a little bit about this here a minute ago. That is why it is 

vital that DHS continues to develop better metrics to measure its 

progress in securing our borders. 

Another lesson from the trips I have taken to the Mexican border 

is that things do change. Things do change, and we have seen that 

as they move away from California, away to some extent from Arizona, all the way down to the South Texas area over the last couple 

of years, and this last 2 years with a whole lot more young people 

coming up looking for a place to just find refuge. 

That may explain why, I think, our agencies have to be nimble. 

I am not a real big one for us being prescriptive, and I do not know 

that we have all the answers up here, but maybe together, working 

together, we can figure that out and be good listeners. 

We also need to listen to the many experts who have told us that 

border security cannot be won only at the border, and I do not 

think it can be won only at the border. We have to take some other 

steps to address some of the factors that bring so many people to 

our borders. To me, that means passing comprehensive immigration reform. It also means trying to make sure that we identify 

what are the factors that are causing tens of thousands of people 

every year to try to get out of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. What are they fleeing? I have said many times we are contributing to their misery by our addiction to methamphetamine and 

heroin and crack cocaine and so forth. So we have an obligation to 

help address their lack of hope, lack of economic opportunity. The 

President has proposed, I think, a good plan there, and the Vice 

President is sort of honchoing that, and it deserves our support. 

The other thing is I think we need comprehensive immigration 

reform. We made a good stab at that a couple of years ago. I hope 

we will come back and finish the job before long. 

So that would pretty much sum up what I want to say, Mr. 

Chairman. I will close with this: I think almost everybody on this 

Committee would probably be described as a fiscal conservative. 

And if you look at the size of our budget deficit, go back about 6 

years, the budget deficit peaked out at $1.4 trillion, and it has been 

coming down, and it is down by about two-thirds. But we still have 

a big deficit by historical standards, and we need to continue to 

work on that. 

There are three things I think we need to do: 

We need tax reform that lowers the rates, broadens the base, and 

helps raise a little bit of money for deficit reduction. 

We need entitlement reform that serves old people, poor people, 

does not savage old people or poor people, but, frankly, saves these 

programs for our kids, find ways to save money in those entitle-
1101 

ment programs so they will be around for our children and our 

grandchildren. 

The last thing we need to do is look at everything we do, and just 

ask this question: How do we get a better result for less money? 

Everything we do, including how do we secure our border in a costeffective way. 

So this is going to be a good hearing. I am delighted that you 

are here. Thanks very much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. You will enjoy 

our hearing next week talking about the 30-year deficit and those 

projections, and we will certainly address those issues you were 

just raising. 

As I was speaking to the witnesses—and, again, thank you for 

coming here, and I appreciate your thoughtful testimony and all 

the time you have put into it. If you are going to solve any problem, 

you really do need the information. That is really the basis of all 

these hearings, is to just lay out that record, lay out the reality. 

A number of times in testimony we have already talked about having the data. We have had a number of Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) reports. We had one on OAM, and we will get into that a little bit later. We just had one issued today on the lack of data driving decisions based on prosecutorial discretion and Deferred Action 

on Childhood Arrivals (DACA). 

Those are serious issues in terms of not having the information. 

I would say one of the things that is frustrating to me as this Committee has really delved into the whole issue of immigration reform 

and border security is just, especially as an accountant, as a guy 

from a manufacturing background, just not having good, solid information and data—recognizing, though, it is pretty difficult to obtain that. But we try and do it through testimony, from getting 

good opinions. 

Chief Vitiello, I do have to start out with a little housekeeping 

because we were made aware I think earlier today that one of our 

witnesses, Border Agent Chris Cabrera, received a notice to appear 

before CBP Internal Affairs for this Thursday. They want to talk 

to him about his congressional testimony. Now, my Lutheran catechism tells me to put the best construction on it, so I am hoping 

the reason Internal Affairs wants to talk to Agent Cabrera is that 

they are a little concerned about some of his testimony that might 

vary with some of the information we get from DHS in general, potentially talking about the fact that, he testified to us on the 

‘‘gotaways,’’ that there is a certain level of, I guess, informal, potential intimidation if they report more than 20 people coming through 

and they only apprehend 10 and all of a sudden a supervisor is 

there and providing a lot of scrutiny. 

So, again, I am highly concerned about that. We bring people before this Committee. We swear them in. We swear them in to tell 

the truth, and I do hope that this is an effort to understand what 

his testimony was and try and determine whether there are some 

real distortions in terms of the information and the data that we 

are going to need to solve this problem. So I hope I have your commitment and the commitment of Customs and Border Protection’s 

management that this is not any kind of intimidation or retribution. 
1102 

Mr. VITIELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that observation. 

The question, it is, in fact—your impression is correct. We were 

very concerned about Chris’ testimony. We are very concerned 

about the numbers. We want you, we need ourselves to have the 

data to be as accurate as possible. And Chris, we work with him 

very well. We work with the National Border Patrol Council to the 

extent that we need to and have to. They are good partners. They 

have been for us, and we want their testimony to reflect accurately 

what happens in the field. And he left the suggestion and impression that there was intimidation or misconduct going on in regards 

to how the data is collected. That is not my impression. I am quite 

sure that the agents and their supervisors and the management of 

the area where Chris was discussing in McAllen are focused on 

doing the right thing for the right reasons. And so we did, in fact, 

refer the remarks to the Office of Internal Affairs for getting to the 

bottom of whether or not there was misconduct in that area. 

Again, it is my impression that that is not what our leadership 

and our managers do down there, but it helps for us to verify. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good. That is very good news, and we will 

be watching that. 

We were talking about all the technologies as a force multiplier. 

When we were down on the border in McAllen, certainly we heard 

the stats of Aerostats. They are only up 60 percent of the time, 

which means they are down 40 percent of the time. The same with 

the UAS. I will certainly give you a chance to respond to the Office 

of Inspector General report, but do we have any information in 

terms of what percent of individuals we are actually detecting? Or 

let me state it another way: What percent situational awareness do 

we have? We had Secretary Johnson here, I think it was 2 weeks 

ago, and he just made the blanket statement—and I appreciated 

the honesty—that, by the end of this administration we will not 

have achieved 100 percent situational awareness. I understand 

that. What percent are we at right now? Is there any estimate of 

that? Can anybody speak to that? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I cannot be precise as it relates to the situational 

awareness across the 2,000 miles of the southwest border. It is very 

well understood what activity levels are, where the hot spots for activities are, and how our deployments support that. And so, as appropriate for this hearing, the technology is very important. The 

data that we collect as it relates to that activity and our observations and the recording of the outcomes of those individual interdictions feeds information where the assets and the agents give us 

that real-time information. So in a place like downtown McAllen, 

where you visited, in downtown Brownsville, where we do have 

surveillance technology, a very robust deployment of agents in the 

downtown environment. So in real time, you can collect information 

about activity and the results of the activity, the results of our 

interdictions, which includes the people who were arrested, the 

people who ran back, and what we call ‘‘gotaways.’’ 

In other locations, we use other methods to try and do that. 

There is lots of space along that 2,000 miles where we do not have 

that kind of deployment, so we use things like change detection 

technology to help inform overall. 
1103 

There is also a piece of situational awareness that is having to 

understand what the capabilities of the criminal network are, how 

we interact with our fellow law enforcement agencies, our international partners, to understand what is happening on the other 

side of the border, and putting those pieces together along with the 

observations of people who live along the border that tell us this 

is out of the ordinary, this is not. 

If you start to put all of those things together, it gives you an 

idea of what is happening across the entire border. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. But, again, we are always looking for 

some kind of metric, and, certainly laws that we have passed call 

for a metric, call for a goal of 100 percent ‘‘situational awareness,’’ 

or ‘‘operational control.’’ So the question I have, since is certainly 

the idea behind some of these laws to specify that, are we not calculating that, are we not trying to track that metric now in anticipation of having potentially to comply with the requirement for 100 

percent situational awareness? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So we look at a suite of data that says ‘‘these are 

the arrests’’, we look at things like recidivism, there are other elements that we are trying to bring in the Secretary is focused on 

in the Southern Border and the Approaches Campaign, in the 

Unity of Effort, to tying the data together and giving us all a metric. We have struggled with the idea of defining situational awareness. I mean, I think it is one of those phrases or title that we 

seem to all understand, but when you get right down to it, how do 

you measure something that has a different connotation for different environments? 

Chairman JOHNSON. So would the position of the Department of 

Homeland Security be they would just really reject or certainly resist having a piece of legislation where you have got that metric, 

100 percent situational awareness? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I think we would all enjoy having a defined set of 

circumstances that says if you have these four criteria met, then 

you do have situational awareness. We think it is broader. Obviously, if you have technology, a piece of machinery that surveils the 

border in real time, 24/7, that is an element of situational awareness. There are other pieces to that. It becomes difficult to decide 

exactly where you are at and what the actual definition is. 

Chairman JOHNSON. While we are on this topic, before I turn it 

over to the Ranking Member, does anybody else want to comment 

on this? Ms. Gambler. 

Ms. GAMBLER. We have, as I mentioned, reported on the need for 

CBP to put in place measures to assess progress made in securing 

the border. You were asking questions about sort of estimating flow 

and things like that. Our understanding—and certainly Deputy 

Chief Vitiello can speak to this perhaps better than I can, but those 

are estimates when you are talking about things—like the Border 

Patrol does record apprehensions, but the other data points that go 

into estimating flow, turnbacks, and gotaways, as we discussed are 

estimated by the Border Patrol. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Senator Tester is on a 

little tighter timeline than I am. I have all the time in the world, 
1104 

so I am just going to yield my time to him for a while, and maybe 

I could pick up in a little bit. Thanks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Following up on the Chairman’s questions, do any of you have a 

concise definition for ‘‘situational awareness’’? 

[No response.] 

OK. That is good enough. I would just say I think before we can 

even talk about situational awareness and how important situational awareness is, we ought to know what the hell we are talking 

about. 

So the next question is: Is situational awareness a prerequisite 

to having a secure border? Chief. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I believe if we can come to terms on the definition 

for ‘‘situational awareness,’’ then you can constructively then go 

from there, recognizing what the data is, and say whether you have 

situational awareness or not, and then based on the activity levels, 

the capability that CBP and others bring to the border security environment, then you can leap from there or jump from there or 

work out from there to a secure border definition. 

Senator TESTER. All right. So moving forward here, I think we 

all want to have a secure border, but, look, if we want to get hung 

up on terminology, we can get hung up on terminology. Basically 

what we want to know is how many people are getting through and 

how many people are being apprehended and how secure is it, how 

safe is it. And are we spending the money in ways that make 

sense, whether it is on drones or radar or ground sensors of fences? 

And so the next question I have—and most of these are going to 

be to you, Chief, but, Mr. Borkowski, feel free to jump in if you feel 

a necessity to. Can you tell me, are drones used on the Northern 

Border? 

Mr. ALLES. I will answer that. Yes, sir, they are used on the 

Northern Border. 

Senator TESTER. Are they used in concert with the Canadians? 

Mr. ALLES. No. They are used in conjunction with the Border Patrol, sir. 

Senator TESTER. And so it is not a joint effort. It is you guys—— 

Mr. ALLES. No, sir, it is not on the Northern Border. 

Senator TESTER. How about radar on the Northern Border? 

Mr. ALLES. We do pull in all FAA radar feeds, DOD feeds. 

Senator TESTER. How about radar under 5,000 feet on the Northern Border? 

Mr. ALLES. The coverage is limited. 

Senator TESTER. OK. What about ground sensors? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Yes, on the Northern Border, and those feeds are 

directly shared across the international boundary. 

Senator TESTER. OK, that is good. How many miles would you 

say on the Northern Border ground sensors are utilized? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I could be precise to the record with some data to 

each of the sectors along the Northern Border. 

Senator TESTER. That would be fine. 

So when we are talking about technology, like drones and ground 

sensors in particular—less on radar, but on ground sensors and 
1105 

drones in particular—is there some reduction in manpower when 

they are utilized? Or is that not the case? 

Mr. VITIELLO. In making us more efficient? Is that how you 

mean? 

Senator TESTER. Yes. What I am saying is if you are using 

drones, do you need as many people on the ground? Or can you get 

by with less people on the ground and still have a safe border? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Correct. Both the sensors and the aircraft allow for 

us to do more with fewer people. 

Senator TESTER. With fewer people, OK. That is good to know. 

Can you tell me, other than sharing the ground sensor information—Canada is a pretty good ally of ours. Is there anything else 

you guys do, besides border crossings, in a joint way? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Yes. Under several frameworks signed by both 

leadership in the Department and at higher levels, we work with 

Canada in almost every area as it relates to border security, homeland security, and defense. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. VITIELLO. There are a lot of programs, a lot of interaction 

day to day. We have people assigned in Canada that work out of 

my office. 

Senator TESTER. OK. There is private land, there is public land, 

north and south, private land, public land, there are national 

parks, there are Indian reservations. Do your people go across private land without permission? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Typically we are on the border everywhere, both 

private and public land. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Mr. VITIELLO. In places where we know that land is private, 

there is a recognition from the landowner and that within 25 miles, 

as the job demands, we enter private land. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you for that. I mean, that is better than 

what I think I got for information last week, so I appreciate that. 

I want to talk about partnerships for a second. When I first got 

in this job, I think the Border Patrol did a pretty poor job as far 

as building partnerships with—and this has been 8, 9 years ago, 

so you have improved—with Highway Patrol, with local police 

folks, with ranchers, with farmers, hopefully with other agencies, 

too. I am talking about Federal agencies. How do you feel those 

partnerships are working? And is there anything we can do to 

make those partnerships work better? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I believe that we have recognized that that is part 

of how we are going to be successful in the environments that we 

work, having partnerships, leveraging each other’s authority, exchanging information so that people are recognizing where threats 

are. That is always going to be part of the future. We have adopted 

that as a way forward. 

We interact quite a bit with leadership in law enforcement, and 

the Stonegarden program that Congress gave us several years back 

after the Department was created is a very useful tool for us, and 

is very well thought of by State and local. 

Senator TESTER. Could you give me your assessment—you went 

where I was going. Can you give me your assessment of border security in the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, for example—I do not 
1106 

want to single those out, but if I said a reservation that bordered 

the Canadian border in Montana, that would be the one—compared 

to other areas on the northern border? Would you say it is equivalent, better, worse? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I am not aware of any deficiencies that we have 

specifically with Blackfeet. 

Senator TESTER. How about with the park, Glacier National 

Park? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Same. We have an ongoing working relationship to 

be present and understand their concerns as well as being present 

on the border and patrolling. 

Senator TESTER. So the need for additional tools—and I do not 

want to put words in your mouth. The need for additional tools 

when it comes to those lands—I mean, you have got it with Operation Stonegarden. You have it with your Park Service relationships, memorandums of understanding (MOU), whatever you might 

have. 

Mr. VITIELLO. Correct, we do. 

Senator TESTER. OK. That is good. 

Well, I just want to say thank you for your work, all of you. Most 

of the questions were to Ron because I like him. 

Mr. VITIELLO. Thanks. [Laughter.] 

Senator TESTER. But the truth is I appreciate all your work, and 

you have got some people behind you that also work very hard, and 

I appreciate them, too. 

I think the key is that, we have limited money here; at least I 

think that is across the board, but I am not sure it is across the 

board. So we have to make sure it is spent correctly and appropriately. And I know we might want a knee-jerk reaction to things 

when they happen, but the truth is that if we listen to you folks, 

I think we make better decisions. Thank you for your service. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just ask: How many of you have testified on this subject 

before, before either a House or Senate Committee or Subcommittee? Just raise your hand. OK. Mr. Garcia, where have you 

been during your day job? 

Mr. GARCIA. Testifying on other things. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Good enough. 

If you have been before this Committee, one of us has probably 

asked you to help us figure out what works so we can do more of 

that. What I am going to do is flip that question and ask each of 

you to give us an idea or two about some things that do not work 

and that we really should not do. What are some things you think 

that do not work? What are some things that we just ought not to 

do, you do not think they work, they are not worth the money? Mr. 

Alles. 

Mr. ALLES. Good question, sir. 

Senator CARPER. I am full of them. 

Mr. ALLES. What is that, sir? 

Senator CARPER. That is my best one today. 

Mr. ALLES. I am struggling with that one. Because most of the 

stuff, as I think through it, that does not work is stuff that we actually stopped doing. One of the things we went through in our 
1107 

own office was to analyze across all our offices which ones were 

most effective, most efficient, and then reorganize our structure 

based on that. So we actually look at that pretty regularly, year 

over year, to see what is not working and then try to adjust our 

organization and our assets to rid ourselves of those things. So we 

are in the process of downsizing aircraft. We are getting rid of 

about 40 or 50 aircraft. They are older aircraft, not good utility. We 

are organizing our offices along the north and the south so that we 

have our agents in the right places and getting—— 

Senator CARPER. I am going to have to—just hold it right there. 

I want you to take a couple minutes and think about that question. 

Think about some things that do not work that we should not be 

doing. 

Go ahead, Mr. Borkowski. 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Yes, sir, thank you for that question. There are, 

I think, a lot of lessons that we have learned about things we 

should not do. For example, we should not treat technology or any 

other capital asset as an end. It is a means to an end, and we often 

get attracted by the bright shiny thing, and we do not think about 

why or how it will help us do our jobs. 

Sometimes that is difficult because we do not always have 

metrics. That is because we do not have history. We are doing 

things that are new to us, and we have to understand that as well. 

We have to learn how to do things that are new to us and collect 

data and iterate on that. So that is one thing. Technology is a 

means to an end; it is not an end unto itself. 

We cannot impose technologies on people who use it. We have to 

involve them, and they have to invite us to bring technologies. That 

is a classic mistake. 

We cannot aspire to immature technologies before they are ready 

for us really to start to use them, and we do that very often. 

So those are all sort of acquisition lessons learned that I would 

say that we have done in the past that we need to remember not 

to do in the future. 

Senator CARPER. Those are good ones. 

Mr. VITIELLO. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Hold on just one sec. 

My phone just went off, and it says ‘‘Rahm Emanuel,’’ who used 

to be the President’s Chief of Staff. But he is now the mayor of Chicago. I do not think it is him calling. But whoever has his old job 

over there is probably calling, so we will figure out who that is. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I agree with my colleagues Assistant Commissioners Borkowski and Alles that this is a challenging question, 

and then I think we have learned—— 

Senator CARPER. Excuse me. I have got a phone call from the 

Chief of Staff boss, so I am going to ask you to excuse me just for 

a second. I will come back and try to reclaim my time. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I will take over. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks. I apologize. I am still going to ask 

that question. Excuse me. 
1108 

1The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 1190. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Let us talk about fencing. When we were 

preparing for this meeting, we got a chart1 up here showing the 

different types of fencing. But one of the charts I wanted to produce 

was I wanted to lay out the border, and I wanted to specify here 

are the different types of fencing along the lines, and I found out, 

well, I cannot show that because it is law enforcement sensitive. So 

I will first ask you, Chief Vitiello, why would the fencing and the 

quality of the fence and the type of fencing along the border be law 

enforcement sensitive? I mean, that is a secret that is not exactly 

a secret. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I really do not understand that as well. I think 

that the documents that we sent over, that we were trading back 

and forth, that we were trying to approve late in preparing for today’s testimony were marked. I am not sure of the origination of 

those markings. 

I agree with you. If you live in a community that has the benefit 

of fencing as—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. You kind of know where it is. 

Mr. VITIELLO. That people know where it is. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Plus if you are a drug smuggler, you definitely know where it is. You have got that all mapped out. 

Mr. VITIELLO. As you start to aggregate data like that or images 

like that, you start to show a picture across the southwest border, 

and it is easier to pick out some of the vulnerabilities. So that may 

be the origination of the markings. But we will certainly provide 

what we can. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Which is, of course, what I wanted, because 

I want to see where we have our strengths and where we have our 

weaknesses. 

Talk to me—and maybe—I am trying to think who would be best 

here. How effective can fencing be? And what has been the real 

problem in constructing it? We have environmental laws. We have 

eminent domain issues. We have lawsuits. We have passed laws 

that exempt ourselves from those. But what has been the real reality? Because, we have built close to 700 miles of fencing, but you 

can tell by the different types of fencing, there is some that works 

pretty good and some that, obviously might stop a truck, but certainly is not going to stop a human being. So just who is the best 

to just kind of walk about the history of, the multiple laws we have 

passed to build fencing, and then we relax them, set them up for 

discretion, they are not crystal clear, there is no time horizon on 

it. What has happened? We will start with Mr. Garcia, and 

then—— 

Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Chairman, if I understand, the first question 

you had was about possible impediments, legal impediments to 

fence construction. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Correct. 

Mr. GARCIA. When Congress first expressly authorized barrier 

deployment in 1996, although there was barrier deployment before 

that, it provided a waiver—DHS or I guess at that time the Immigration and Naturalization Service could waive two laws: NEPA, 

which concerns doing an environmental assessment, and the En-
1109 

dangered Species Act. Those two waivers—that waiver authority in 

many observers’ minds was insufficient. The INS was required to 

deploy—essentially complete a triple-layered fencing project in San 

Diego, and over the course of 9 years, that project was not completed because of impediments caused by other environmental 

laws. 

Congress responded to that pursuant to the REAL ID Act by providing DHS with very broad waiver authority to waive all legal requirements that may impede the expeditious construction of barriers and roads along the border, not simply in a specified place 

like San Diego, but anywhere along the U.S. border. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Did it work? 

Mr. GARCIA. That waiver authority was exercised in five instances, I believe between 2005 and 2008, and that certainly assisted Border Patrol in expeditiously constructing hundreds of 

miles of fence along the southwest border. There were legal challenges brought to halt certain border projects, but when DHS exercised waiver authority, courts would dismiss those challenges. 

In terms of that waiver authority, I will note that it is not absolute. Besides the constitutional limitations—you cannot waive the 

Constitution. Another thing is that it refers specifically to the construction of barriers and roads. There is certainly some question as 

to whether it would apply to tactical infrastructure that is not a 

barrier or a road, like sensors or cameras. 

DHS, when it has exercised waiver authority to border projects, 

it has often mentioned things like radio towers and cameras in addition to the fence. But whether waiver authority could be used exclusively for, say, a project to install towers or sensors along a particular stretch of the border, DHS has never done that, and that 

would raise a question: Is that a barrier? 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Chief Vitiello, why don’t you finish out? 

Then I will turn it back over to the Ranking Member. 

Mr. VITIELLO. So I think we have used fencing and it has been 

part of border deployments for my entire career, and the images 

that you are showing here in the top left, the landing mat, that 

was designed, procured, and developed mostly by Border Patrol 

agents, a lot of the National Guard deployments were used over the 

years along the southwest border to build that fencing. Effective for 

short-term, surge operations when you are adding other things, 

technology, et cetera, it did us very well. 

The fencing that was brought to us by the changes in the act and 

the mandate to do 700 miles are more the other images that you 

show there. 

And then the vehicle barrier, as also represented there, is strategically placed in locations where it is very difficult to get to the border afoot, and so it is not necessary to have a pedestrian fence in 

places where the infrastructure does not support people walking toward the border. 

And so all of them have contributed to higher levels of security. 

I think on the other side of the equation, it is a lot more expensive 

than we expected when we started, and it was much more difficult. 

I was in Texas as the Chief of the Rio Grande Valley in 2007 

through 2010, and so when I arrived on duty there in 2007, we 

helped validate and set a requirement for fencing—as I recall, 
1110 

about 75 miles. Most of that fencing was built, and it has made a 

difference. But it was not without lots of—excuse me? Most of it is 

in place, yes. It absolutely has made a difference. Yes, it has. But 

it was not without lots of challenges, difficulty with hydrology and 

flood control, et cetera, in South Texas, and lots of concerns about 

people who own that land, and we are still in cases in court about 

takings and condemnation, et cetera. That is part of the history. 

That is part of the lessons learned as we went through that whole 

project. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. 

Senator Lankford, I had to leave the room for a moment right 

in the middle of asking a question. I was asking a really good question, and I asked them, rather than talk about what is working so 

we could do more of that, I asked them to tell us what is not working so that we can do less of that. And Mr. Alles is still thinking 

about it. He is coming up with some ideas, and Mr. Borkowski gave 

us, I thought, some great insights. And Ron here was, I think, 

about to get into it, and I had to slip out of the room. So do you 

want to pick up where we left off? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So as I was saying, I was agreeing with both my 

colleagues. I think some of the lessons that we have learned with 

trying to fit technology in without the proper kind of awareness of 

all of its capabilities or lack of capabilities, I think one of the lessons we have learned is that as we move into this new version of 

the technology laydown, we have and are using field input for all 

of the installations. 

Senator CARPER. Give us some examples of that. 

Mr. VITIELLO. So we have this process, it is called ‘‘capability gap 

analysis,’’ and those in business are familiar with gap analysis. As 

a Border Patrol agent, it is something that is well known in this 

environment. It allows us to go to the field and do surveys and 

walk the ground and understand what threats are faced at a station level, so the agents on the ground who are challenged day to 

day and patrolling the border, where are their biggest problems? 

And what kinds of technologies that they either have or think that 

are available will help them solve those problems? And so we do 

that, a station-by-station look, that is rolled up into a sector picture, and then that is rolled up into the headquarters. 

We are in the process now of baselining the data. We have got 

about three-fourths of the workforce in the station-level data coming to us, and we will use that to help inform the plans that we 

have already made with OTIA, and then for unmet needs that we 

know are in the inventory, the things that work now that are being 

installed in places like Arizona will give us a hint of where to go 

next, what might be coming available that we can help do research 

on the DHS side. 

Senator CARPER. Ms. Duong, what country was your family from? 

Ms. DUONG. Vietnam, sir. 

Senator CARPER. I knew it. North or South? Whereabouts? 

Ms. DUONG. South. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Great to see you. 

Ms. DUONG. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. I served a little time over there. 
1111 

Ms. DUONG. Thank you for serving. 

Senator CARPER. Loved doing it. It was an honor. 

Ms. DUONG. Thank you for keeping me safe and free all those 

years. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. You are welcome. 

Same question: Give us an example or two of just what does not 

make sense and what we ought to be doing less of. 

Ms. DUONG. Yes, sir. From an S&T standpoint, I would say that 

the biggest challenge always has been how do we transition from 

a research and development (R&D) effort into acquisition. And it 

is a challenge that is not unique to just DHS. DOD has the same 

challenge, and it has been in existence a lot longer than DHS as 

well. 

Senator CARPER. Have you seen some instances where folks have 

overcome that challenge? Is there anything we can learn from that? 

Ms. DUONG. Yes, sir. When I say it is a challenge, it does not 

mean that nothing transitions. Of course, we have transition in a 

lot of things in DHS as well as elsewhere. What I am trying to say 

is it is a challenge in the sense that the way the budget is structured—for example, I will give you a very specific example. Mr. 

Mark Borkowski and my Division have been working very closely 

hand in hand, and we even co-fund a lot of technologies that I have 

just talked about in my opening remarks. These are undergoing 

operational assessment right now. 

So for the resource allocation plan cycle, which is for fiscal year 

2017 to 2021, our two organizations sat down and tried to put in 

the budget on my side the technology cost to complete the development of technologies that we think would be ready for acquisition 

within that timeframe and delivered that in time. And OTIA’s cost 

is the acquisition and maintenance of that. But we both do it because we know that it is the right thing to do, but I frankly doubt 

that the budget request that Mr. Borkowski put in will get approved just because of the way the budget is structured. 

Being an operational department, CBP has many urgent needs, 

and if OTIA comes up and asks for a budget for a possible technology that might or might not be successful 3 years from now, it 

does not come as a very strong argument against other very urgent 

needs. 

So the problem of what we call ‘‘wedging the budget,’’ if we do 

not do that, then, of course, there is no smooth transition. Even if 

I am successful, let us say, to deliver technology in fiscal year 2018, 

by that time, when we get to that point and we pass all the operational assessment, and let us say OBP asks Mark, yes, we want 

the technology, we want the technology, and if Mark does not have 

it in his plan, at that time then he would have to scrounge for 

money because we cannot wedge the budget. So that is the problem 

that does impact most of us who are trying to bring very innovative 

technology into acquisition. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. Gambler, where do you work? You do not work at GAO, do 

you? 

Ms. GAMBLER. I am. 

Senator CARPER. You probably never thought about the idea of 

what does not work, have you? 
1112 

Ms. GAMBLER. So I think two points, Senator, coming from 

GAO’s work on border security and acquisitions more broadly. 

One is determining what the user needs are up front before moving forward with deploying technology, and it is important—and we 

have reported on this as it relates to the surveillance technologies 

in Arizona—for CBP to better document the underlying analysis 

and justification for what it is deploying, where it is deploying it, 

and in what quantities. So we think that is important. 

And then the second piece of that is to conduct robust testing of 

what is being deployed to ensure that you are identifying any risks 

as early on in the process as possible so that CBP is best positioned 

to be able to address those risks before moving toward full procurement and full deployment. 

So I think those are two key themes emerging from our work. 

Senator CARPER. OK, good. Thanks. 

Mr. Garcia, do you have any ideas? I bet you do. 

Mr. GARCIA. Well, I should begin by saying that I am an attorney, not a policy analyst, so I would certainly defer to my co-panelists on that issue. And I would also be happy to put you in touch, 

if necessary, with any of the CRS border security experts. 

I could make an observation, though, and this is more in terms 

of the legislative role, and that is simply that a central issue for 

Congress has always been what is the appropriate level of discretion and what is the appropriate level of guidance that should be 

proffered to DHS through legislation. On issues of border security, 

sometimes Congress has been very specific; sometimes it has been 

very general. Sometimes it has re-evaluated things over times 

where it has provided a general authority and it later imposed a 

specific requirement; or other times it has had specific requirements that it has later deemed to be too onerous and provided a 

more general framework for DHS to operate with. 

So the two observations would be, No. 1, the appropriate level of 

discretion and guidance may be different in Congress’ view depending on the particular issue related to border security. And, No. 2, 

it is not necessarily guaranteed that just because Congress believes 

at a particular moment a certain level of discretion should be given 

or a specific amount of guidance should be given that they cannot 

change it at a later date. 

Senator CARPER. OK. That was good. That was very helpful. I 

will just close with this thought: I usually get a better result in the 

end if I am trying to figure out how to do something by asking a 

lot of other people, ‘‘Well, what do you think?’’ And at the end of 

the day, we usually come up with a better idea, and we also, even 

if we do not use their idea, I think people just feel good about having been asked. 

Mr. Alles, did I ever give you a chance to briefly comment? I 

know you tried to at the beginning, and you swung and missed. 

Mr. ALLES. Second chance, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Just real briefly, please. 

Mr. ALLES. One thing I think that we have struggled with in the 

past is when we procure new assets, it is making sure they are 

provisioned properly. So that has been an issue for us in the past, 

and it is one thing we do not want to continue in the future. So 

we want to make sure—that affects our readiness so that is key. 
1113 

Senator CARPER. Good. That makes a lot of sense. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Lankford. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Senator LANKFORD. Let me ask a couple general questions. Then 

I am going to drive down into some specifics as well. Mr. Vitiello, 

let me ask you, do you need more people or do you need more technology? And I understand it is a little bit of both, but if you are 

going to weigh up between the two, what are you needing more 

than others? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So you absolutely have to have the right mix, depending on the terrain, depending on the activity, the threats, et 

cetera. Right now I think our challenge is finishing what we started on the technology piece. I think that would do more for us. If 

you are just looking at the border environment, at the immediate 

border, the technology would be my priority, would be our priority 

for the agency. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. So let me ask this: The type of technology, as is most of our agencies—we met with an agency yesterday, and they have 207 different computer systems within their 

agency, and they do not all talk to each other. It has just kind of 

grown up organically over the years. At some point you realize it 

costs more to maintain all these different systems than it is to be 

able to just centralize to one system that we know that works. 

How many different systems do you have? And I want to give 

you a for instance. Helicopters, how many different types of helicopters are we using? 

Mr. ALLES. So that would be my area, sir. Goodness, I have to 

count the numbers: Hueys, A–Stars, Black Hawks, AC–120’s. 

About five. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Would it help us, are there one or two 

of those platforms that are more effective than others, that as we 

determine efficiency, effectiveness for what we are trying to accomplish with it? Maintaining the parts, maintaining the maintenance 

of five different types of aircraft on that has its own unique dynamic and cost on it. 

Mr. ALLES. So the direction would be to go to two aircraft, a light 

enforcement helicopter, and a medium-lift helicopter. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. What would it take to get there? 

Mr. ALLES. Basically procurements of new helicopters to replace 

the ones that are the odd types. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Is that something that we need to help 

with? Or is that something you all are in process with right now? 

Mr. ALLES. Part of it we are in process. With some of them we 

cannot entirely do with the budgets we have. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. You mean you cannot retire the old ones 

or you cannot replace those that need to be replaced with—— 

Mr. ALLES. I cannot replace all the ones that need replacing on 

current budgets. Some of it we can, some of it we cannot. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. So other technologies that are out there 

that we have multiple platforms of. Is there a need to be able to 

shrink down to one or two types that are more effective, that have 

been tried and tested? We have had five different types that are 
1114 

tried and tested. Now we need to zero in to a couple. Are there any 

efficiencies of scale that we can gather from that? 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Yes, actually we sort of went the other way with 

the ground-based technology, because what we had was this very 

large, very expensive system, which was overkill for a lot of areas. 

So it made sense to us to have a multiple number of these technologies from small to large. 

The way that we are handling that is we are designing a strategy 

where we can centralize our workforce that does maintenance on 

those so that we can take advantage of the economy of scale of the 

workforce. That is a work in progress. 

It does continue, though, to be a concern. If we have multiple 

kinds of radars, multiple kinds of cameras, downstream we may 

want to make the cameras the same on different systems. But that 

will be a plan going forward. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. So tell me a time period on that. We 

have tried to make those decisions because—again, I am in the 

same spot. The more people that we have on maintenance, the 

fewer people that we actually have on patrol, lack of a better term. 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Well, we do not use Border Patrol agents to do 

the maintenance, first of all. 

Senator LANKFORD. Well, dollars. 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Dollars, that is correct. And, by the way, I know 

this is counterintuitive, but the actual cost of sustaining the systems the way we are doing now has actually gone down because 

we are sustaining lower-cost systems. That does not mean we cannot drive efficiencies as we go forward and drive those costs even 

further down. But so far this has actually been a good trend. 

I think the way we would deal with more combination is in what 

we call ‘‘technology refresh.’’ As systems age in 3, 5, 7 years, what 

you replace those with, you would look for commonality. So that 

would be the timeline we would be talking about. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Currently, what are we detecting that 

we cannot address, that our technology, whether it be infrared, 

ground systems, aerial systems, that we are detecting what percentage that we cannot address then, actually get someone to them 

in a manner to actually interdict? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So the fixed and mobile technology does really well 

on ground targets, people crossing the border afoot or vehicles. Assets brought by VADER on the UAS has been very good at that. 

I think our biggest challenge collectively with Air and Marine and 

Mark’s shop trying to procure is this slow radar detection for 

small—what they call ‘‘ultra-light aircraft.’’ That has been a challenge for us. We have tried a couple of different systems, had some 

success, but not as far along as we would like to be. 

The other big challenge based on terrain and kind of conditions 

is tunnel detection. 

Senator LANKFORD. That is actually heading into my next question. So where are we technology-wise being able to pick that up? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So we have a system that we have borrowed from 

DOD, and we have done some testing with and had some success 

with. But the terrain varies so much along the southwest border 

that it has been very difficult to find a box or a machine, if you 

will, that will give us the kind of fidelity that you would like to see, 
1115 

the kinds of things we get with aircraft or fixed towers, mobile 

scopes, et cetera. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. What kind of interchange with ideas do 

we have with DOD and other folks to be able to swap what we 

have learned, what we have gained? How is that working? Are 

there impediments to that that we can help correct as far as communication? Are you finding any walls of separation? 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. I think we have a great and very extensive and 

actually increasing relationship with DOD at all levels, from the 

Secretary level down to the colonel and lieutenant colonel running 

the program. I have an office that does that, Chief Vitiello has an 

office that does, and Ms. Duong has an office that does that. So we 

are very much plugged in with the technology they do. We have all 

kinds of programs to bring that into our environment and check it 

out and test it, and in some cases actually use it to support operations. Very extensive. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. 

Mr. ALLES. One thing I would comment on, though, is we do have 

extensive collaboration. DOD has taken lately to wanting us to buy 

the systems from them, so before, excess military systems were 

passed over to us for use in homeland security. Now we are having 

to purchase those. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Are you getting Walmart prices or are 

you getting Saks Fifth Avenue prices from them? 

Mr. ALLES. It is not Saks Fifth Avenue. They do what they can, 

but there has been a big press to charge us for everything on the 

DOD side. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Let me ask you one more thing on aircraft, the aerostat and how that is working, our blimp. Am I using 

the right term on that? 

Mr. ALLES. So first I have to specify there are two aerostat systems. The system I work with is the Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS), high altitude 15,000 feet aircraft that works very well. 

It needs to be recapitalized. It is an older system. And then there 

is also—I will let Mark talk about the lower-altitude systems. 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Right, so the lower-altitude systems, the ones 

that we borrowed from DOD that they have used in Iraq and Afghanistan, those we call ‘‘tactical aerostats’’ that distinguish from 

TARS. We have five of them flying in Texas. They are relatively 

expensive. We are leasing them from DOD. But they have been extraordinarily effective there. So now we are in the process of deciding at that cost how often should we use them. That is where that 

is—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Is the cost actually the item itself or sustaining it? 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. It is the operations and maintenance and 

sustainment of it. So we are basically leasing the DOD crews that 

operate those. We have been able to get DOD to transfer us four 

of the small ones as well as some towers. So we have gotten transfers of them. But right now we are leasing systems, and we are 

paying for the operations and support. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. And then one more thing just to wrap 

up, if I may, just this. I want to come back to a percentage that 
1116 

I talked about before, percentage of people—and just a guess—that 

we can detect but we are not actually interdicting. 

Mr. VITIELLO. So one of the suite of measures that we collect is 

called ‘‘effectiveness,’’ and effectiveness is designed to get at how 

many people crossed the border last night and how many of them 

were apprehended. And so the data that we collect, again, as Anh 

talked about—this is an estimate, but the data for last year shows 

that we are in the 75-to 78-percent range on effectiveness across 

the southwest border. 

Senator LANKFORD. Those are individuals that we saw, that we 

were able to actually pick up? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Individuals and indications of people who crossed, 

either through a camera observation, an aircraft, an individual 

agent, or what we call ‘‘sign,’’ footprints in the desert, if you will. 

Senator LANKFORD. All right. 

Mr. VITIELLO. You wrap those all up, and we try to do a 24-by7 estimate of that activity across the southwest border. And then 

also that effectiveness ratio counts for the people who came in, the 

people who were apprehended, as well as the ones that ran back, 

what we call ‘‘turnbacks.’’ 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Lankford. 

Let me pick it up there, because that is, in terms of testimony 

before the Committee, there is a discrepancy there. Maybe that is 

the discrepancy. If you are looking at detections and measuring 

versus—how many people you detected versus how many you apprehended, it is 75 percent. But you are not detecting everybody, 

which is one of the reasons I asked the question about some level 

of understanding of what situational awareness is. So is there any 

sense of what percent you are not detecting? 

Mr. VITIELLO. At the departmental level, they are also attempting to look at the probability of apprehension, which would start 

to estimate the actual flow that will give you a scientific estimate, 

but still an estimate about the number of people who are crossing. 

When the technology and the deployment supports real-time information, you can be very confident in specific zones where there is 

enough agents and there is enough technology to show you what 

is happening in real time and record the responses in real time and 

the effect. So the effectiveness in those locations is very well documented. Again, not scientific because sometimes you do not see the 

people cross in real time. But you can use that camera data, you 

can use the agent data, and you can wrap those shift by shift, day 

by day, and you can start to look at trends across. 

In the places where we do not have that kind of deployment, we 

are using this change detection technology, for instance, something 

that hangs off of the UAS that can fly the border, take a digital 

snapshot, if you will, and then an interval later, maybe an hour, 

maybe a shift, maybe a day, and look at that land again, and you 

can start to recognize change based on the way the pixels look in 

the picture. And that can tell you and verify when you do not have 

threat or when you do not have crossings, and then it will give you 

a lead to find out if there is change in those specific areas to go 

and investigate what it is. 
1117 

So that has been very useful for us in these locations where we 

believe, based on the people who live there or based on our own activity levels, that there is not a lot of traffic, and we have been able 

to validate that, in fact, some of those locations do not see crossborder illicit traffic. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And, again, I will definitely acknowledge 

this is very difficult to wrap your arms around in terms of what 

the data is, what the information is, what the truth is. But, we 

started this series of hearings on border security, and certainly 

DHS is pointing to the number of apprehensions being down, which 

is, a quasi-metric for how effective we are securing our border. At 

the same time, we started our first panel, people on the border 

themselves, and to a person, they were very emphatic making the 

point that the border is not secure. And another pretty interesting 

metric, I think depressing metric, when we had General McCaffrey 

here, in his testimony before us, he said they were only interdicting 

5 to 10 percent of illegal drugs. So, I mean, there is a pretty big 

discrepancy, 75-percent apprehension rate of people coming into 

this country illegally, only 5 to 10 percent interdiction rate of 

drugs. As I grapple with that—plus Border Patrol agents talking 

somewhere between, people on the ground, say we have a 30 to 40 

percent apprehension rate. 

So, again, I realize this is very difficult to grapple with, but I 

really take a look at that interdiction rate of drugs as pretty indicative of how really not secure our border is. Can you just comment 

on that in terms of how that all relates? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I think as we get better with these deployments, 

as we start to fill out the Arizona Technology Plan, as we start to 

move into the other locations—the next for us is South Texas—we 

will get better in all categories. We will get more effective at the 

immediate encounters on the border, and we will get more effective 

at the drug interdictions. 

Looking at the worldwide estimate of production, which is an estimate, and looking at our seizure data, yes, there is a wide discrepancy. But if it is out there and our agents get wind of it, if they 

can follow it and track it down and make an interdiction, they are 

going to do that. Same for Air and Marine, same for the State and 

locals. There is a lot of help out there. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But do you dispute that estimate in the 5- 

to 10-percent range? Do you think it is higher? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I cannot dispute it. I am not familiar with how 

they do worldwide production, the aggregate of all the drugs that 

are produced. I assume we are in a small percentage of interdictions that are actually made. 

Chairman JOHNSON. The reason I really point that out is, again, 

as we really explore this problem—I am from a manufacturing 

background, and our Ranking Member always talks about root 

cause as well. If I were really to put a finger on the root cause of 

our insecure border, it is really our insatiable appetite for drugs, 

and the drug cartels that have spawned, the destruction of public 

institutions in Central America that that has been created, this is 

a huge problem. And the drug cartels aligning themselves with 

international criminal organizations, potentially aligning them-
1118 

selves with terrorists, this is an enormous problem, which is why 

we are spending so much time on it. 

Commissioner Alles, I really do owe you the ability to just respond to the Office of Inspector General’s report on the drone program. I know when we were down there in McAllen, I think you 

were pretty emphatic that you did not agree with that. So I just 

want to give you the opportunity to give us your perspective on 

that Inspector General report. 

Mr. ALLES. So part of what our discussion has been this afternoon has been on the whole issue of situational awareness or what 

we will call ‘‘domain awareness.’’ And I think that was one of the 

key things missing from the Inspector General’s report. The Predator UAS system that helps with domain awareness, it has sensors 

on it I never had before, we have never had in CBP before, that 

work over land and over water to detect movements of craft and 

also personnel, and they seem to have missed that for some reason. 

We had 18,000 VADER detections in the Tucson Sector alone in the 

year they did that report, 2013. So that is a pretty substantial detection rate for the technology. 

I think the other part of it is they did not consider the actual 

value of the system in terms of seizing contraband. I would just 

mention we just finished a deployment in El Salvador that netted 

us $370 million in contraband. I mean, that is pretty impressive 

considering for this half of a year that we have just completed with 

the system, it has got $370 million of seizures. For the year they 

did the report, we had a 444-percent return on investment versus 

their flight hour calculation, the cost per hour, versus what we returned in contraband. So I think it has been a very successful system for us overall, and I look forward to better performance out of 

it in the future. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I think one of the biggest problems cited in 

the Inspector General’s report really was just hours of operation 

and just the inability to get it up as often as possible to drive that 

cost per operational hour down. Can you speak to that at all? 

Mr. ALLES. So I do think this is an area we need to still work 

in. It is not achieving the number of hours I want it to achieve per 

year. Part of that had to do with the weather. But that is not all 

of it. There are other factors in there, too. We need to build that 

in the system in terms of personnel, maintenance, satellites, those 

kinds of things that we are working on. So we want to hit 6,000 

hours every year. I would like to get it up more toward 9,000. I am 

not looking for the numbers they put out, 23,000 hours. Frankly, 

as I had mentioned to you guys down at Corpus, the systems would 

wear out in a few years flying at those kinds of rates and not be 

available. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, Chief Vitiello, very quickly, because, 

again, this is detection, and then you are in charge of apprehension, so you speak a little bit to the UAS program and how useful 

that is going to be and what are the drawbacks, what are the advantages. 

Mr. VITIELLO. So I take the general description about VADER. 

This is something that we had never tried before, and there were 

people projecting on to it something that we were not even sure it 

was capable of doing. It turned out to be a very useful system, and 
1119 

we now are on our way to procure more of them. And so we think 

it is going to be part of the future. It is obviously something that 

makes the UAS much more capable, already a robust system with 

the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), et cetera. But 

having the VADER and being able to see moving targets in real 

time is going to help us, and has. We have learned a lot with it 

in Tucson. We are starting to experiment, if you will, and use operational tests in South Texas, and we look forward to its success 

there as well. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. And, again, we saw a pretty amazing demonstration of that, too, when we were down there. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. That was good to hear. Very encouraging. 

Maybe we could talk a little bit about effective budget cuts, and, 

Ron, if you and Mr. Alles and Mr. Borkowski would respond to this. 

It is my understanding that the House appropriators set discretionary spending levels for the Department of Homeland Security 

somewhere around $39 billion, maybe a shade over that. This 

amount is, I think, $350 million below this year’s appropriation, almost $2 billion below what the President requested for 2016. 

Let me just ask each of you if you can take a moment and talk 

to us about how these potential budget cuts will impact your work 

and the folks that you work with to secure our borders. Mr. Alles, 

do you want to go first? 

Mr. ALLES. Yes, sir. I think that is going to—it is obviously potential. I do not know exactly where they will fall out, but the first 

area that would be of concern is in the flight hours area. We would 

like to maintain ourselves flying the 95,000 to 100,000 hour area, 

which is what we are projecting here in the coming years. If we are 

cut back, obviously then that is going to suboptimize our force. We 

are really situated aircraft and people-wise to operate at those levels. If we do not, we are not really being as efficient or effective 

as we can be. 

A second part is I have very limited procurements. The only current procurement we are buying is a multi-role enforcement aircraft at two per year. If that actually—— 

Senator CARPER. I am sorry. What kind of aircraft? 

Mr. ALLES. Multi-role enforcement aircraft. It is built up here at 

Gaithersburg—I am sorry, not in Gaithersburg. In Hagerstown. 

Senator CARPER. You are talking King Air? 

Mr. ALLES. It is a King Air. It is a Beech King Air. That is our 

only procurement. If that would for some reason stop because of 

money, then more than likely that line would close. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Mr. Borkowski. 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Obviously—and I will leave it to the Chief and 

General Alles to talk about the operational impact, but in the acquisition system there is also a huge impact. First of all, obviously 

we cannot buy as much. Oftentimes that means we cut back on 

contracts. For example, what that can mean is I have an arrangement with industry. The arrangement is an up to but not necessarily all the way up to, and you can imagine what industry does. 

They project based on that, and they take some chances on the 

early part of it. Well, if I then cut some of that downstream effort 
1120 

out, they do not get the return on investment. Now I have got a 

tough relationship with them. 

The other thing that happens is all the competitions become winner takes all. They get very down and dirty and nasty. They increase protests. It delays the process. That also has a huge effect. 

It also affects their ability and their interest in investing in what 

they call ‘‘independent research and development,’’ which is investment that we all need to provide for the future. 

And then going to Ms. Duong’s point, it makes it all that much 

more difficult to do this long-term kind of wedge planning for the 

next system that allows us to have a smooth transition, including 

with industry, from the S&T arena into the acquisition arena. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Chief? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Senator, it remains to be seen where those cuts 

are. We are obviously very concerned. This gives us a chance— 

gives me a chance, anyway, to amend my answer about what not 

to do. One of the challenges we have in—— 

Senator CARPER. We do not get a lot of second chances in life, 

do we? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I appreciate that. 

Senator CARPER. It is good to get one. 

Mr. VITIELLO. So one of the challenges we have in CBP is that, 

corporately, CBP as a component, we have over 70 percent of the 

budget is applied to salaries. That is people. That is people in the 

field, almost everybody that is employed in CBP, the 65,000-plus, 

they are front-line people, a big mission support group here and 

smaller numbers in each of the field locations. But within the Border Patrol specifically, an enormous amount of money provided by 

you all and the taxpayer, but 93 percent of it goes to salary. So it 

becomes very difficult to decide what things you need to make that 

workforce capable that you cannot do with specific levels of cuts. 

That is our challenge, 93 percent labor, 7 percent that do everything else we have to do, all the cars and all the radios and all the 

phones and all the equipment that agents need to be capable, and 

that becomes a very difficult challenge for us. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks. 

A different subject, life-cycle costs, and this would be for you, Ms. 

Gambler, Ms. Duong, and if we have time, for some of these guys 

as well. But I think Congress—well, not just Congress but others 

as well, but we are often better about buying new technologies than 

we are at paying to get the full value of those investments. It does 

not make a lot of sense—for example, we talked a little bit about 

this already—to buy advanced surveillance technologies if we are 

not prepared to pay for their ongoing operation and the maintenance and replacement costs to keep those assets running well and 

at full capacity, make sure we have the right people trained to do 

that stuff. 

Could each of you comment, starting with you, Ms. Gambler, on 

whether this is a challenge for the Department in terms of border 

security investments? And what advice do you have for us, for Congress, on how to improve matters? 

Ms. GAMBLER. With regard to the Arizona Technology Plan, 

when we did our report last year on that plan, we did assess the 

cost estimates that CBP had in place for the plan and some of the 
1121 

highest-cost programs under the plan and found that CBP could 

take some additional actions to ensure that those life-cycle cost estimates better meet best practices. A key area that we reported on 

what the need for CBP to verify and validate its cost estimates 

against independent estimates to make sure that those estimates 

would be fully reliable and credible, and we made recommendations 

to CBP in that area to ensure that their life-cycle cost estimates 

more fully meet best practices. And we understand that—and Mr. 

Borkowski may be able to speak to this more—they are in the process of updating the life-cycle cost estimates for some of the technology programs under the plan going forward. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. Ms. Duong. 

Ms. DUONG. From the standpoint of technology that we in S&T 

are developing, we make sure that we do a good job at estimating 

the life-cycle costs before we submit that information to Mr. 

Borkowski, for example, for potential acquisition. And it is a process that we keep improving. 

As you know, before we start a project, we already consult with 

our operating component in estimating the return on investment, 

and when I say ‘‘return on investment,’’ it is on their investment, 

not my R&D investment. So we estimate that let us say if we pursue this particular technology, let us say we could find 10 more 

tunnels per year. Then what does that mean in terms—and we estimate throughout that it would cost X dollars to buy a new tunnel 

detection system that we are developing, then does that mean it 

would break even in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years? 

So first it is just an estimate, and as we move further into the 

development of the solution, then we try to come up with a better 

and better estimate. And in the end, when we get to operational 

assessment, that is when we try to come up with a much better return on investment estimate to help CBP make the decision. So it 

is not just about, oh, look what great things this capability could 

do for you, but if you were to buy one or three or five systems and 

we estimate it would help you find five or 10 more tunnels, just be 

conservative, per year, then what does that mean in terms of cost 

saving? So we try to do that from an S&T standpoint to help them 

make the right decision. 

The other part is about acquisition programs, and as you know, 

S&T does not—it is not in our responsibility to do acquisition. That 

is OTIA’s responsibility. However, the Department does employ us 

as an adviser, and we try to make investments to help acquisition 

programs better understand the implication of the maintenance 

costs, the tail of anything. Just like you pointed out, Senator, a lot 

of times the acquisition cost is actually the lowest cost. It is the 

easiest one that everybody looks at. 

So S&T always says that we want to be able to spend millions 

in order to save billions or hundreds of millions. So it is always a 

goal that we strive to achieve, and the Department has become 

more and more—in recognition of our role, and I am glad to say 

that S&T has become a trusted adviser for the Department along 

that line. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Well, my time has expired. Mr. Chairman, are we going to have one more round so I can let these guys 

answer that question? 
1122 

Chairman JOHNSON. I have got a couple more questions myself, 

also. 

Senator CARPER. Great. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Chief Vitiello, I have got a couple questions. 

I do want to go over this Office of Inspector General report that 

just came out today about the lack of the Department collecting 

data on prosecutorial discretion in Deferred Action on Childhood 

Arrivals. In the report it says that as of September 30, 2014, CBP’s 

Office of Border Patrol reported it had released 650 DACA-eligible 

individuals. So you are keeping track of that? In what organized 

fashion are you tracking that? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So in CBP specifically and the Border Patrol, when 

we process someone who is encountered by an agent and then we 

refer them either to deportation proceedings or in the case of unaccompanied children (UAC) to the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Service (HHS) system, and then all of the encounters that 

we make are documented in a system, the enforcement system, so 

if it is appropriate, fingerprints, biographical data, photos, et 

cetera. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But if you are apprehending somebody illegally crossing the border, how could they qualify under DACA? 

Mr. VITIELLO. They would not. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But you released 650 under that. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I do not know that that is a CBP number. I have 

not seen the report. We have had very few encounters with DACAeligible individuals in our context. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, yes, I mean, according to this report, 

you have released 650, ICE released about 12,750. So, I mean, your 

percentage obviously is quite low, but I was just questioning why— 

how could anybody qualify under DACA coming into this country 

illegally? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So we do have environments that we operate in 

such as checkpoints or people that are at the border that have not 

crossed the border and they are encountered by our agents, and 

they have eligibility under the standard. Not everybody we come in 

contact with obviously has crossed the border. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I believe the Department has basically 

agreed with the recommendations of the Office of Inspector General 

to collect more data. Have you already been contacted in terms of 

the kind of data they are looking for as it relates to prosecutorial 

discretion? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Specifically to that, I have not seen that. We are 

always looking for ways to identify where there are gaps in the system, and so the issue with the unaccompanied children last year, 

we struggled mightily with understanding how our data connected 

with the data that ICE keeps as it relates to the detention and 

then further on to removal proceedings within the Justice Department. That has been a struggle for us for a couple of years. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So do you deal much with just the 

prioritization of who we are going to try and remove the aliens that 

pose a danger to national security, those that violated immigration 

control, aliens, fugitives, otherwise? I mean, is that something you 

deal with, or are you just basically—you apprehend them and 

somebody else deals with those criteria? 
1123 

Mr. VITIELLO. So all the agents—there is a training regimen for 

everyone to understand what the priorities are as it relates to the 

memorandum, but obviously most of the work that we do—of the 

over 190,000-some arrests or apprehensions that were made so far 

this year, those are all recent border entrants, so they fall well 

within the priorities for action. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So those priorities really do not affect you 

as much as they obviously affect ICE or other—— 

Mr. VITIELLO. Correct. 

Chairman JOHNSON. The Department of Justice or HHS. OK. 

You did mention Border Patrol agents, the numbers. I just want to 

get your assessment. I know the Texas Department of Public Safety engaged in Operation Strong Safety, and they surged a lot of 

manpower to the border. I just want to get your evaluation, how 

effective that was, because we have talked about technology, different detection systems, fencing, that type of thing. In the end, we 

need manpower. And so just give me your assessment of how Operation Strong Safety worked, and I believe it was in McAllen, Texas. 

Or was that all of the Texas border? Or where was that centered? 

Mr. VITIELLO. It is mostly South Texas. I have actually seen directly the deployments in the Rio Grande Valley. And obviously as 

an operator, I am going to tell you that more boots on the ground 

is always better. Is it the most efficient way and those kinds of 

things? That really would be for the State to tell you how effective 

their deployments have been. But I know that we have worked 

very closely with them, so most of our deployments, especially in 

South Texas, are near the river, and having the Department of 

Public Safety—they have some capabilities in rural enforcement 

and on the river, et cetera, but most of that deployment is related 

to hardtop, on the highways, and they have been an asset for us 

with regard to helping chase smugglers, et cetera. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So Operation Strong Safety, is that continuing? 

Mr. VITIELLO. As far as I know, it is. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, have you measured at all—I mean, 

do you have kind of a before and after? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I can look at all of the data that we have developed. I am not sure—obviously, locally we are aware of, their contributions directly. But, again, it is a situation where there are 

more boots on the ground, et cetera, in that particular location, and 

in their deployments they help us in the areas where we know traffic is going to eventually try to make it, if it has made it past us. 

Chairman JOHNSON. We were down there, particularly the Sunday, the extra day I stayed down there. I mean, you see their presence. I would never try speeding around the Rio Grande Valley. 

I would really be interested in any kind of analysis your agency 

or your Department can do in terms of what was the apprehension 

rate, what was the detection rate prior to the Operation Strong 

Safety, and what is it now, because I think it is just a really good 

test case of additional manpower, and we can kind of measure how 

much we have increased the manpower because of that. 

Mr. VITIELLO. Yes. So we have seen—obviously, the prior testimony that you mentioned, we have seen lower levels of activity 

across the southwest border. That does include where Strong Safe-
1124 

ty is deployed. What is their contribution? What is the contribution 

of the other assets that we have been able to procure and send to 

the agents for their use and that capability there? That is the part 

that we struggle with. That is what you hear about data. That is 

what you want us to do better at. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes. So, again, please look at that, because 

we also found out with aerostats, for example, when we talked to 

the people where those things were deployed, it shut down illegal 

crossings, but they just went someplace else. So—go ahead. 

Mr. VITIELLO. That is often the case. I mean, I think what I have 

heard from the agents on the ground that are the benefit of that 

capability, they went from not having, high-altitude persistent surveillance, situational awareness, if you will, to having, a very capable system. We are advantaged in the sense that we do not have 

to use agents to monitor those sensors and run those systems. That 

is a contract. The other side of that coin is it is very expensive to 

do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And the other side, too, is when the wind 

is blowing, they are down, and let us face it, I would cross when 

the wind is blowing. 

Mr. VITIELLO. Correct. That is why, we are very in favor of the 

Integrated Fixed Tower (IFT) deployments, the Refresh, and the 

additional Remote Video Surveillance System (RVSS), the cameras 

and sensors on the fixed and the mobile technology. We know those 

capabilities work. We have got a long history with some of it. We 

know that that is part of the future, and you will not be subject 

to the vagaries of the weather. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. I was actually trying to be 

shorter, but I have got so many questions. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. So many questions, so little time. 

I would like to ask, Chief, if you and Mr. Borkowski and Mr. 

Alles would just go back to my last question about life cycle. Just 

do it in a minute, no more than a minute apiece. But could you just 

comment on whether this is a challenge for the Department in 

terms of border security investments and what advice, if any, you 

have for us on how to improve on this? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Yes, I think we have—this is the data question. 

This is refining the assets that are available and recognizing the 

life-cycle costs. 

As an operator, what we try to do is say this is the requirement, 

this is the problem we are trying to solve, and we leave it to the 

acquisition professionals to understand, what is out there, how 

much does it cost. And I think we have gotten really good at learning from the acquisition folks how to establish requirements and 

then recognizing that life cycle, what we call operations and maintenance (O&M), is crucial for us to understand before we make the 

final decisions on deployments. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks. Mr. Borkowski. 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Senator, we have got some pretty good processes 

that have grown in the Department that put some discipline to 

check the affordability, which includes whether or not we can pay 

for O&M. But there is a continuing problem, and I will just be 

frank, that when I challenge people, they blame it on Congress. So 

let me tell you what that is. 
1125 

Senator CARPER. No. 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. They do. I am not sure that is true, but I will 

tell you what they say. What happens, as we buy more technology, 

you would expect that the operation and maintenance costs would 

go up. So what our budget plan is, let us suppose I have $100 and 

I start with, $80 to buy it and $20 to operate it. Over time, as I 

spend that $80, after I have built all of my technology, maybe I am 

down to zero, and I have moved all of that money from buying to 

operating and maintaining. What happens is that the budget people do not look at that as a total of $100. They look at it as money 

to buy and money to operate. OK? They see the money to buy going 

down, and they say, ‘‘That is great. We love you. You have saved 

money.’’ That is not really true, but that is what they say. ‘‘But we 

hate you for operation and maintenance because that has gone up, 

and you need to make it flat.’’ 

That is the real problem that we tend to have with operation and 

maintenance, is getting people to understand that if you buy more 

stuff, you need to operate and maintain it. And we have to look at 

the totality of the budget, not the individual pieces. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. Mr. Alles. 

Mr. ALLES. Sir, Senator Lankford asked kind of a key question 

here about numbers of different types of airplanes. We compute life 

cycles across each year’s platforms, but as you think about kind of 

the big picture, five different kinds of airplanes, that means five 

different pilot training programs, five different maintenance and 

supply chains, five different maintenance training programs, those 

kinds of things. So one efficiency we need to keep working on on 

life cycles is these numbers of different platforms. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Excellent. 

A question, if I could, for Chief Vitiello. It is my understanding 

that CBP is doing an extensive gap analysis for border security 

that involves identifying what else is needed to better secure our 

southwestern border with Mexico. Could you just take a minute 

and give us a preview of what might be in that gap analysis? And 

do you think it might be done? And how could it be used? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So describing the process, what we have tried to 

do with the capability gap analysis is going to the field, ask them 

what their challenges are, where they have specific things that 

they would like to solve with technology, with additional kinds of 

deployments, or other innovative ways to solve problems at the immediate border and, in specific zones, specific stations, specific sectors. And so what we have done is we have gone to the workforce. 

I explained to them what the process is, then gone out and taken 

surveys and gotten from the agents who walk the ground, who patrol the border, who are there, and gotten their ideas about what 

is required. 

Then what we try to do is we take that data, that information 

at the station level, roll it up to the sector, the 20 sectors that are 

out there, then that will be fed up to us at the headquarters. Right 

now we are in a situation where the training is out for the bulk 

of the workforce, like 95, 98 percent of it. And then we have got 

about 70 percent of their ideas and their innovations about how to 

go forward with—specifically on the technology side. We have got 

about 70 percent of the data in. 
1126 

Once we get all of the data, we will have a baseline. We will 

start to have conversations both with OTIA and S&T to find out, 

is there technology available? Is technology the best available resource for solving the problem as stated? And then we will be able 

to iterate that process as we learned about new things that are 

coming onboard, what the future looks like, using the success we 

know we have with other things, and try to fit a program together 

that says, ‘‘this is how many of these things that you need,’’ and 

then you could go down specifically into the locations and say, for 

instance, the agents at Carrizo Springs need the brush cleared or 

they need additional RVSS. That is the kind of capability we look 

to have once the C-gap, the first iteration is in as we move forward. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for that. 

The last thing I want to just touch on briefly is—and when we 

think of force multipliers, we think of a lot of stuff we talked about 

here today, and it is important. Sometimes I think in terms of our 

being able to better ensure that our borders are not so porous is 

to—I use the ‘‘needle in the haystack’’ analogy, and say the needles 

are the folks that are trying to get into our country—it could be 

human traffickers; it could be drug traffickers; it could just be people trying to flee a hellacious situation at home. But I would say 

there are a couple different ways to better find those needles in a 

haystack, and one of those ways is to make the haystack smaller. 

Another way is to have better equipment to detect the needles. And 

maybe another way would be to make the needle bigger. 

I think to some extent, if we do immigration reform, do it smart, 

we can actually make some progress on this front. If we do a better 

job with intelligence—I think one of the reasons we do pretty well 

up on the Northern Border is the great relationship we have with 

the Canadians and a lot of sharing of intelligence and really doing 

a lot of joint operations. 

The other thing I keep coming back to—and the Chairman and 

I have talked about this a fair amount; we have talked with General Kelly at SOUTHCOM about it, and that is to figure out how 

to convince a lot of people who live in Honduras, Guatemala, and 

El Salvador that they ought to just live there and somehow figure 

out how we can make them less likely to want to flee their country 

to come up here. 

Do you all have any thoughts on any of this before we close? I 

would welcome that. Mr. Garcia, just very briefly any thoughts, 

please. Just very briefly. You may not have. That is fine. 

Mr. GARCIA. I do not have any thoughts on that matter. 

Senator CARPER. OK. That is OK. Ms. Gambler. 

Ms. GAMBLER. I would just add on the unaccompanied alien children issue, which I think we have touched on a little bit today, 

GAO has a body of work looking at the unaccompanied alien children issues and have a couple of reports that will be issued this 

summer, including looking at U.S. programs in Central American 

countries to address some of those issues, as well as a report looking at screening, care, and custody for the children when they come 

to the United States. 

Senator CARPER. Good. 

Ms. GAMBLER. And so we will have some work on that this summer. That will help inform some of those points. 
1127 

Senator CARPER. Good. We will welcome that. Thanks. Ms. 

Duong. 

Ms. DUONG. Senator, I know the focus of this hearing is not 

about cargo—— 

Senator CARPER. I am going to ask you to be very brief. 

Ms. DUONG [continuing]. Or POE, but I would point out that 

when we talk about needle in the haystack, that problem is exacerbated at the ports of entry because we know that trade and travel 

is increasing by 5 percent at least per year. So the strategy of reducing the size of the haystack is indeed one of the main strategies 

that S&T is pursuing technology for. 

Senator CARPER. Excellent. Thanks. 

Chief, just very briefly. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I would just echo your comments as it relates to 

our partners in Canada. I think that relationship is a very good 

one. The local law enforcement and the Federal law enforcement as 

well as our partners in Canada, that makes a big difference. We 

are increasingly having those kinds of conversations in Mexico, and 

as we get smarter about how the Unity of Effort and the Joint 

Task Forces roll out, it will give us another opportunity to use the 

whole of government approach at the southwest border; and as our 

relationship with Mexico matures, it will be a benefit to all of us. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. Borkowski, very, brief comments, please, before we close. 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Just I like the needle in the haystack. Technology attempts to make the needle glow, and if it deters, then it 

can reduce the haystack, so we agree with you. But we also agree 

with you that technology is not the only or not necessarily the best 

way to get there. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. Mr. Alles. 

Mr. ALLES. Briefly, Joint Task Forces help, intelligence, investigations, coordination is key, and then I think working with Mexico better is going to help us. 

Senator CARPER. Great. Thanks so much. Thank you all very 

much. A great panel. I appreciate it. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

One of the advantages of me not making long opening statements, I will make a closing one, because I have got a comment. 

If you want to reduce the haystack, what you should do is try and 

reduce, maybe even eliminate the incentives for illegal immigration. One chart we have been putting up here is a history of unaccompanied children coming from Central America, and prior to Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals, we were somewhere around 

3,000 to 4,000 per year. And then, we issued those memoranda in 

2012, and that number jumped to 10,000 the next year 20,000, the 

following year 51,000. I know it has come down a little bit, but it 

is still way above historic levels. 

So I think we have to, again, looking at the reality of the situation, what causes these things, and we need to reduce those incentives. That is why I have always been very supportive of a functioning guest worker program. 8.1 million of those individuals here 

in this country illegally are working. It is a rational decision. When 

you have wages that are so much lower in Central America and 

Mexico than they are here in the United States, it is a rational eco-
1128 

nomic choice, particularly when the reality of the situation is, regardless of what the memorandum says, if you get into America, 

people are staying, particularly if you are a minor. 

So I think we really need to take a look at our policy, and I want 

to solve the problem. I think realistically we are probably not going 

to have comprehensive—we do not really do comprehensive very 

well, so what I have certainly asked the Secretary, what I hopefully 

asked my Ranking Member is work with me, let us identify those 

incentives, let us reduce them, and let us start approaching this in 

a step-by-step basis. I come from a manufacturing background. You 

do not solve problems just like that. I am perfectly willing to engage in continuous improvement. Let us take the step-by-step incremental improvements. Let us identify the things we can do. So 

if all of you would be willing to work with this Committee to identify those incentives, identify those steps, maybe a small piece of 

legislation—we reported one out of our Committee last week in a 

business meeting, just allowing CBP on Federal lands in Arizona. 

I would like to do it across the border. Probably some resistance 

there. So how about we just take a look at Arizona and see if that 

would actually work. 

So I really do hope that the Administration, the Department, 

your individual agencies will work with us. Let us identify those 

and, take a step-by-step approach and improve border security. 

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

forgot to thank all you folks. Again, thank you very much for your 

thoughtful testimony, for sitting here and answering in a very 

thoughtful manner. We really do appreciate it. I know how much 

time and effort goes into this, so thank you very much. 

The hearing record will remain open for 15 days until May 28 

at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions for the 

record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:24 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(1129) 

A P P E N D I X 
1130 
1131 
1132 
1133 
1134 
1135 
1136 
1137 
1138 
1139 
1140 
1141 
1142 
1143 
1144 
1145 
1146 
1147 
1148 
1149 
1150 
1151 
1152 
1153 
1154 
1155 
1156 
1157 
1158 
1159 
1160 
1161 
1162 
1163 
1164 
1165 
1166 
1167 
1168 
1169 
1170 
1171 
1172 
1173 
1174 
1175 
1176 
1177 
1178 
1179 
1180 
1181 
1182 
1183 
1184 
1185 
1186 
1187 
1188 
1189 
1190 
1191 
1192 
1193 
1194 
1195 
1196 
1197 
1198 
1199 
1200 
1201 
1202 
1203 
1204 
1205 
1206 
(1207) 

1The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 1241. 

THE 2014 HUMANITARIAN CRISIS AT OUR 

BORDER: A REVIEW OF THE GOVERNMENT’S 

RESPONSE TO UNACCOMPANIED MINORS 

ONE YEAR LATER 

TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2015 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

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

Present: Senators Johnson, Ayotte, Ernst, Carper, Baldwin, and 

Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning. This hearing will come to 

order. 

I want to first welcome our witnesses. I appreciate your testimony, which I have thoroughly read and studied. The hearing is 

really called to take a look at a one-year lookback at the humanitarian crisis that we experienced last year as unaccompanied children (UAC) streamed across our border in record numbers. The 

flow has been reduced, but I would still say it is at almost humanitarian crisis levels, and rather than read an opening statement, I 

will ask for unanimous consent to enter my written statement in 

the record.1

I would like to concentrate on a piece of Mr. Greenberg’s testimony. I want to read a little bit of it, as soon as I find it. 

Mr. Greenberg in his written testimony says, ‘‘In recent years, 

the number of unaccompanied children referred to the Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS’) Unaccompanied Children 

Program each year was generally in the range of 6,000 to 7,000 

until fiscal year (FY) 2012. Those numbers increased from 2012 

through 2014, from 13,625 in fiscal year 2012 to 24,668 in fiscal 

year 2013 to 57,496 in fiscal year 2014.’’ 

He goes on to say, ‘‘As I will discuss later, the number has fallen 

considerably in the last year, though it is still high relative to caseloads prior to fiscal year 2012.’’ 
1208 

1The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 1279. 

Now, we have presented this chart1 a number of times that 

graphically depicts the dramatic increase in the unaccompanied 

children coming in primarily from Honduras, Guatemala, and El 

Salvador. And I do this from a standpoint of trying to lay out pictorially when did it all occur and what happened. And there is one 

dramatic event that occurred in 2012. It is called ‘‘Deferred Action 

on Childhood Arrivals (DACA).’’ It was implemented by this Administration, and I know there is an awful lot of state of denial 

from—saying, ‘‘Oh, that did not really cause this; it is a push factor.’’ There are multiple factors, there is no doubt about it. But I 

think it is really quite clear that that unilateral Executive Action 

on Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals was the primary cause 

for this surge. And what I want this hearing today to talk about 

is the incentives we create in this country in our laws for people 

to come into this country illegally. 

We are a nation of immigrants. We need to recognize the fact 

that people that come into this country by and large are coming for 

the exact same reason our ancestors came here: they are seeking 

the opportunity that this country offers people. We need to understand that and we need to, to a certain extent, respect that if it 

is done legally. We cannot tolerate an uncontrolled border, an unsecured border, and an immigration process that is out of control that 

is all based on illegal immigration. 

So we have to really take a look at our laws and take a look at 

those incentives for illegal immigration. Again, I would certainly 

look at Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals as one of those incentives that created this crisis. So that is, from my standpoint, 

what I want to glean from this hearing today in the testimony and 

the questions we will be asking. 

It is a serious issue. People’s lives are put at risk because of 

these incentives, and we need to get to the bottom of this. 

The other point I want to make is the difficulty in getting the 

information to actually solve this problem. Part of the problem 

there is we have three different departments with five different 

component agencies dealing with this, and these children are 

passed from one department and agency to the other, and we do 

not keep a real flowing record, and each agency is charged with a 

certain responsibility in the process, and there is just no overall coordination of everybody’s effort. And from my standpoint, I do not 

believe we are really truly enforcing the laws the way that they 

were meant to. And as a result, we continue to incentivize this 

kind of illegal immigration. That has got to stop. 

So, with that, I will turn it over to our Ranking Member, Senator 

Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to one and all. 

It is good to see you. Thanks for joining us today and for your testimony. 

One of the things I think most of us here, whether Democrats or 

Republicans, agree on is that it is important that we address not 

just symptoms of problems, but that we address root causes, under-
1209 

lying causes that contribute to those problems. As the Chairman 

has said, there is no one single reason why all these people decided 

to come up to our country in droves the last couple of years. But 

I would suggest that one of the reasons why they want to come up 

here is because for a number of years they have lived hellacious 

lives that we contribute directly to. 

We buy a lot of illegal drugs up here. A lot of it comes right 

through Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. We sell them 

guns, and those guns are used to arm their gangs. The gangs make 

money off of the drugs that are sold here. The environment for job 

creation in those three countries is not very good because of the 

lack of rule of law. And when we deport people, we do not always 

deport, as we know, unaccompanied minors or maybe families with 

children, but adults, particularly adult males that have a criminal 

record. We send them right back down there. And what do they do? 

They go to work. And the work that they go to work on creates an 

even more dangerous, unappetizing, uneconomic environment. So I 

always keep that in mind. We contribute directly to the very difficult lives they have in those countries, and we have some obligation to do something about that, and I will talk about that in just 

a moment. 

But as the Chairman says, a year ago we faced a humanitarian 

crisis at our Southern Border. Tens of thousands of women and 

children were turning themselves in to our Border Patrol agents 

and seeking protection after a grueling trip from Central America. 

Our border officers were overwhelmed in many instances. So were 

our shelters to house these children and families. 

To address this crisis, our government swung into action on multiple fronts. We sought to comply with the 2007 law signed by 

former President George W. Bush dealing with unaccompanied minors. We set up emergency shelters. We surged agents and immigration judges to border areas. And we worked to find safe homes 

for the children until their cases could be adjudicated. 

We also worked with the Governments of Guatemala, Honduras, 

and El Salvador to launch what I call the ‘‘truth campaigns,’’ letting the people in those countries know about the dangers of the 

trip to the north, to the United States. And we collaborated with 

the Government of Mexico so that nation might better strengthen 

the integrity of its Southern Border. And it has. 

Many others provided support, too, including local communities 

and faith leaders. 

One year later, we no longer have a crisis, at least not of the proportion we did a year ago. It is true that many families and many 

children are still fleeing these countries, but those numbers are 

clearly down, I think by a little more than half. In fact, while that 

is an improvement, is that enough improvement? No, it is not. But 

even though the crisis appears to be over, we still have humanitarian responsibilities to protect the children in our custody, and 

we have a moral obligation to treat them fairly under our laws 

until we change those laws. 

We must do this even as we try to resolve their cases more expeditiously and return to their own countries those who do not have 

grounds to remain here. I look forward to hearing from our wit-
1210 

nesses today about how you work together to effectively process 

and care for so many children. 

While our border and immigration agencies are better equipped 

today than ever to handle another influx of immigrants, there is 

still a lot of progress that needs to be made. One area that I would 

like to focus on today is our immigration court system. As we all 

know, our immigration courts were badly understaffed even before 

last summer’s border surge. With tens of thousands of new cases, 

wait times have gotten much worse. In fact, some immigrants with 

pending cases were informed they might not get a hearing before 

November 2019. Clearly, this is unacceptable. 

That is why I wrote to our colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee earlier this year urging them to fund the President’s request for 55 new immigration judge teams. I am pleased 

to say that the request appears to have garnered support in both 

chambers. These new judges will not solve the problem entirely, 

but they sure will be a big help. 

We also know that cases often advance more efficiently when unaccompanied minors have a lawyer. Not surprisingly, most of these 

minors cannot afford one. That is why in Delaware, and in communities across the country, many lawyers have stepped up to the 

plate to offer pro bono legal services. I could not be prouder of the 

legal community in my own State. But many minors all over the 

country still lack attorneys, so there is work clearly to be done. 

Ensuring an efficient and effective border security and immigration system is incredibly important. However, I believe we must 

also not lose sight of the reasons why, as I said earlier, so many 

folks feel the need to flee their country. 

If we are to realize the kind of border integrity along our border 

with Mexico, we need to work with these three Central American 

countries—Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador—but not just 

them. We need to work with Mexico, we need to work with Colombia, with the Inter-American Development Bank, and others—the 

church, nonprofits—to help root out the causes of violence and poverty in the Northern Triangle while we do all this other stuff that 

we are trying to do. 

Not that many years ago, we encountered a similar challenge in 

Colombia. We all recall that. And most people would agree that our 

support—along with that of others—helped turn that country 

around through the implementation of Plan Colombia. We also 

know that Mexican immigration has leveled off in large part because of the economic advances in that country. Meanwhile, Central American migration has spiked because of the intense violence 

and poverty in that region. Young people are particularly vulnerable to gang violence. 

The Governments of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador 

must take the lead on this—and they are. These three countries 

have already joined together in an unprecedented regional effort 

called the ‘‘Alliance for Prosperity’’ to improve the lives of their citizens. I like to say, as in Home Depot they advertise, ‘‘You can do 

it, we can help.’’ They can do it, we can help, and we have an obligation to do that. 

Later today, Senate appropriators will take up the administration’s request for a dramatic new infusion of Federal aid to Central 
1211 

America. I hope the appropriators will heed the President’s call for 

a new focus and investment there. And by doing so, we can help 

sow some new seeds of hope and prosperity that can benefit generations of children to come. 

Needles in haystacks. I think about it in terms of needles in haystacks. There is a big haystack down on the border. We are trying 

to pick out the needles. And the needles are people, families trying 

to get through, drug runners trying to get through, human traffickers trying to get through. And the haystack is huge. We need 

to make the haystack smaller, and one of the things we need to do 

that is to support the administration’s proposal. It is like a new 

version of Plan Colombia. Plan Colombia worked. I think this one 

will work as well. In the meantime, we have got to do a whole lot 

of other stuff that we will hear about and talk about here today. 

Thank you all. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. As you are well 

aware, I am all into root cause analysis, and I will agree with you. 

If you take a look at what is causing our unsecured border, I would 

say the root cause is our insatiable demand for drugs. And in testimony before this Committee by General McCaffrey, if you really 

want a metric that shows you how unsecure our border truly is, it 

is how much of the drugs we are actually interdicting. It is about 

5 to 10 percent, even though we are spending, with all the agencies 

spending, about $25 billion on a war on drugs. 

So, again, I agree with you. That is a root cause. But within that 

overall root cause of the overall problem, there are individual situations, and this is, the unaccompanied children coming in from Central America. I think there is a root cause there, and I think it is 

called ‘‘Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals.’’ 

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. OSUNA. I do. 

Mr. GREENBERG. I do. 

Mr. MILLER. I do. 

Mr. LANGLOIS. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Our first witness will be Juan 

Osuna. Am I pronouncing that correctly? 

Mr. OSUNA. That is correct. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good. Mr. Osuna is the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Mr. Osuna served as an Associate Deputy 

Attorney General at the DOJ from June 2010 to December 2010, 

where he worked on immigration policy and other issues. From 

May 2009 to June 2010, Mr. Osuna was the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation. Prior to these positions, he served as Chairman of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals. Mr. Osuna. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, could I just interrupt for a second? If I can just ask a favor. I am not very good at acronyms. The 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), I have got that. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), I have got that. But in 

reading your testimony, a couple of you used a lot of acronyms, and 
1212 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Osuna appears in the Appendix on page 1245. 

if you persist in doing that, you are going to lose me. So just try 

to show some temperance there. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF JUAN P. OSUNA,1 DIRECTOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. OSUNA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper, and 

Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak 

with you today about the mission of the Department’s Executive 

Office for Immigration Review, our role in response to last year’s 

border surge, and the work we continue to do with our Federal 

partners on this issue. 

Our role in the removal process is to hear the cases of individuals charge with violating our immigration laws and deciding 

which of those individuals should be removed from the United 

States and which are eligible for some relief from removal. 

We carry out this mission through our corps of immigration 

judges in 58 immigration courts around the country and our appellate tribunal, the Board of Immigration Appeals. All our cases start 

when the Department of Homeland Security files a charging document with one of our immigration courts. 

Among the many challenges facing our courts, the largest is our 

growing pending caseload, which you referred to earlier, Senator 

Carper. There are more than 450,000 cases pending in immigration 

courts around the country, by far the most we have ever had. This 

backlog grew during recent budget cuts when the agency was unable to hire immigration judges and staff to replace those who left. 

In fact, while our immigration judge corps was shrinking, we continued to receive new cases, resulting in a continuously rising backlog. 

From last summer’s surge alone, the courts received more than 

80,000 cases between July 14, 2014, and June 30 of this year. We 

are taking steps to increase our capacity to adjudicate cases 

through a vigorous hiring effort, and hiring judges is our first priority. Overall, with the 18 immigration judges that we added a few 

weeks ago, there are now 247 immigration judges around the country, and dozens more are at various stages of the hiring process. 

Like our Federal partners, we took steps to respond to last year’s 

border surge by adding new priorities to our existing priority, for 

all detained cases. Specifically, we added to our priority list unaccompanied children and those who arrived with children. We depend on our partners at DHS to identify these groups upon the filing of the charging document with the immigration court, and we 

are processing these cases as quickly as possible consistent with 

due process. 

As anticipated, when we identified these new priorities, the focus 

of our limited resources on these priority case groups has had a significant impact on the non-detained, non-priority cases awaiting 

adjudication. Thousands of these cases have to be rescheduled far 

into the future to make room for the higher priority cases. Overall, 

45 percent of case completions in our immigration courts so far this 
1213 

year have been in priority categories, meaning individuals detained 

by ICE and those who crossed the border since last year. 

The numbers provide some insight into the work the immigration 

courts are doing. From July 18, 2014, when we started tracking our 

new priority case groups, to June 30 of this year, the immigration 

courts received approximately 35,000 cases for respondents DHS 

identified as unaccompanied children. It is important to note that 

many of these cases involving such children may not be currently 

pending before the court because the children are pursuing some 

sort of relief from removal, which requires work by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which you will hear from a little 

later, which has initial jurisdiction over these cases. 

The pending caseload for unaccompanied children is currently 

approximately 23,000. With a goal of holding an initial hearing for 

unaccompanied children within 21 days after receiving the case, I 

can report that more than 27,000 children have had an initial hearing scheduled by an immigration judge the date for which has 

passed, and immigration judges have issued more than 6,800 orders of removal. 

Under the law, orders of removal in absentia result from an individual’s failure to appear for a scheduled and properly noticed 

hearing when ICE has established that the person is removable. 

With regard to unaccompanied child cases, immigration judges 

have issued orders of removal in absentia in about 5,900 cases. 

Children who appear in immigration court proceedings without 

an accompanying adult may require special care and modifications 

to normal courtroom procedures. We have in place guidance for adjudicating cases where the respondent is an unaccompanied child. 

Further, circumstances in a particular immigration court may require specialized dockets for children’s cases. Following last summer’s surge, all immigration courts are equipped to handle a juvenile docket, and 39 courts have current active juvenile dockets. Immigration judges also receive specialized training, most recently in 

April of this year, regarding juvenile cases. 

We recognize that the presence of a representative can increase 

immigration court efficiencies, especially with children. We have 

taken numerous steps to encourage pro bono counsel to provide 

representation, and we ensure that unrepresented children are 

aware of those resources when they appear before immigration 

judges. 

To assist in these endeavors, we operate a legal orientation program for child custodians under which custodians of unaccompanied children are provided with important information on pro 

bono resources, the immigration court process, and their roles and 

responsibilities. And a few months ago, we launched some representation programs that now operate in 24 immigration courts to 

provide direct representation to unaccompanied children. 

Last year’s border surge posed significant challenges for all Federal agencies, including ours. We responded by taking steps to 

work toward hearing these priority cases as quickly as due process 

allows. These steps included making docket adjustments, 

reprioritizing certain cases, and refocusing our immigration court 

resources. We are in continuous and frequent contact with our Fed-
1214 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Greenberg appears in the Appendix on page 1252. 

eral partners at DHS and HHS on how we can continue to improve 

our collective handling of these challenging cases. 

Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Osuna. 

Our next witness is Mr. Mark Greenberg. Mr. Greenberg is the 

Acting Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and 

Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

We have got that one, right? 

By the way, I like your acronym, EOIR. 

He also serves as both the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 

and the Acting Commissioner for the Administration for Children, 

Youth, and Families. Before joining HHS, Mr. Greenberg directed 

the Georgetown University Center on Poverty, Inequality, and Public Policy. Mr. Greenberg. 

TESTIMONY OF MARK H. GREENBERG,1 ACTING ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Mr. GREENBERG. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, 

Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify 

today. In my testimony, I will be describing the responsibilities of 

the Department of Health and Human Services in relation to unaccompanied children and will then talk about a set of key developments relating to those responsibilities since the Committee’s hearing on this topic last summer. 

When unaccompanied children are referred to us by the Department of Homeland Security, we initially place them in one of a network of shelters while staff work to determine if they have an appropriate sponsor with whom they can live while they are awaiting 

their immigration proceedings. 

When they arrive at a shelter, children are provided with a complete medical examination within 48 hours. Trained staff at the 

shelters conduct screenings to determine if the child may be a victim of abuse or a crime or human trafficking. Children in care receive medical, dental, mental health services, education services, 

recreational opportunities, a legal rights presentation, and access 

to legal services, access to religious services, case management, and 

clinical counseling. 

While the children are in care at the shelters, we have a responsibility to place them in the least restrictive setting that is in the 

best interest of the child, taking into consideration the risk of harm 

to themselves or to the community or risk of flight. 

Initially, we seek to place children with a parent or a close relative or, if that is not possible, a more distant relative or a family 

friend. If we cannot identify an appropriate sponsor and the child 

does not get repatriated or attain immigration relief, the child will 

remain in HHS case until he or she turns 18, at which point we 

will remand the 18-year-old to the custody of the Department of 

Homeland Security. 

We seek to ensure that sponsorships are safe and appropriate. 

We require verification of the sponsor’s identity and relationship to 
1215 

the child. The potential sponsor must undergo a background check 

and complete an assessment that identifies risk factors and other 

serious concerns. In a set of cases, caseworkers perform home studies as an additional safety measure. 

As part of the placement process, potential sponsors must agree 

that they will ensure that the child appears at court proceedings 

and must agree to inform the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security of any change of address. In addition, 

when we release the child to the sponsor, we provide the address 

information to the Department of Justice and the Department of 

Homeland Security. 

I now want to highlight some key developments since last year’s 

hearings. As you noted, last year it was the highest number of children in the history of the Unaccompanied Children Program. This 

year, the numbers are down significantly, though still high in historic terms. 

Last year, we received over 57,000 referrals from the Department 

of Homeland Security. In the first 8 months of this year, we have 

received fewer than 18,000. 

Last year, the President directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish an interagency group, the Unified Coordination 

Group (UCG), to ensure unity of effort across the administration. 

The UCG continues to operate. It has an ongoing role to facilitate 

requests from the Department of Homeland Security or HHS, if 

needed, and this can include requests for additional capability, 

operational coordination, planning support, situational assessment, 

and critical transportation capabilities. 

Operating the Unaccompanied Children Program presents multiple challenges because of uncertainties about how many children 

will arrive and when. Incorporating lessons from last summer, we 

developed what we refer to as a ‘‘bed capacity framework’’ to ensure that we have enough year-round standard beds with the ability to quickly add temporary beds when there are seasonal fluctuations. This is a model that reduces funding during periods of low 

capacity while preserving the ability to respond to future increases. 

Since 2011, we have reduced the amount of time children stay 

in shelters from an average 72 days to a little more than 30 days. 

We have maintained the average this year at 34 days. 

While we seek to ensure that all releases are safe and appropriate, we know that sometimes a child may develop concerns 

about his or her placement, and in April, we expanded our help 

line in order to receive calls from children who are in distressed 

circumstances. 

In addition, starting this month, HHS is beginning to offer postrelease services to a child and sponsor in the first 6 months after 

release if a placement has been disrupted or is at risk of disruption. 

In December of last year, we published our interim final rule 

that outlines safeguards that all of our facilities have to implement 

to protect children in custody from sexual abuse. 

Last September, we provided funds to two grantees to expand 

legal representation. On June 15, we issued proposals for contractors to further expand the provision of legal services. 
1216 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Miller appears in the Appendix on page 1267. 

We welcome working with the Committee and Congress in efforts 

to improve the program. Thank you, and I will be happy to answer 

any questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Greenberg. 

Our next witness is Mr. Phil Miller. Mr. Miller is the Assistant 

Director of Field Operations, Enforcement and Removal Operations, for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security. 

That is ICE, and that is a whole lot easier to say than the long 

title. 

Mr. Miller has served in a variety of positions—— 

Senator CARPER. ICE is good. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, we know that one. 

Mr. Miller has served in a variety of positions in the Department, beginning as an immigration inspector in 1996, and becoming a deportation officer in 1998, ICE Special Agent in 2001, and 

Field Officer Director of the New Orleans Field Office in 2009. Mr. 

Miller. 

TESTIMONY OF PHILIP T. MILLER,1 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF 

FIELD OPERATIONS, ENFORCEMENT AND REMOVAL OPERATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, and good morning. Chairman Johnson, 

Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the 

role of ICE in addressing the ongoing challenges surrounding unaccompanied children arriving in the United States. 

I currently serve as the Assistant Director of Field Operations, 

for ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, where I oversee, direct, and coordinate the operational activities throughout the Nation’s 24 field offices and their sub-offices. This includes the transportation and removal of unaccompanied children to further agency 

goals and ensure compliance with agency policy. 

As you know, in 2014, there was an unprecedented influx of unaccompanied children from Central America to the United States. 

Through the whole of government, we continue to address this humanitarian border security issue in a manner that is comprehensive, coordinated, and humane. 

As part of the unified effort, ICE is responsible for quickly and 

safely transporting unaccompanied children from the custody of 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to the custody of HHS 

and, if ordered, the removal of these children following the conclusion of immigration proceedings. Both of these functions are critical 

links in the overall process. 

While unaccompanied children are not housed in ICE’s detention 

facilities, their short-term care and custody requires the use of 

agency resources and the time and attention of ICE’s officers. During the time that ICE maintains physical custody of the unaccompanied children for transportation and pending their placement 

with HHS, such minors are separated from adult detainees. Unac-
1217 

companied children are provided with regular access to snacks, 

drinks, consular officials, telephones, and other resources. 

ICE transports unaccompanied children via ground, commercial 

air, and ICE charter flights. All 24 ICE field offices have primary 

and backup juvenile coordinators each of whom receive annual specialized training with respect to the unique vulnerabilities of children. These field office juvenile coordinators, a duty that I personally performed in 1999, serve as a local subject matter expert on 

proper processing, transportation, and placement of unaccompanied 

children. Additionally, they monitor operational practices for compliance with regulations, standards, and policy, and they are on 

call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 

Currently, due to immigration court backlogs, immigration processes take months or even years. However, once removal proceedings have concluded and a final order of removal is issued, ICE 

takes appropriate enforcement action based on the Department’s 

stated priorities. 

Accordingly, HHS can transfer custody of an unaccompanied 

child to Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and then 

ERO will remove the unaccompanied child in cooperation with 

HHS and the receiving government. 

We have taken a number of steps to prevent further surge this 

year. 

First, the President and Secretary have reiterated that recent arrivals and those attempting to cross the border are priorities for 

apprehension and removal. 

Second, ICE has implemented procedures for efficiently obtaining 

travel documents and transferring unaccompanied children through 

a streamlined process that allows our ERO officers to continue to 

perform their other responsibilities. 

Third, Secretary Johnson and Director Saldana have personally 

met with high-level officials in El Salvador, Mexico, Honduras, and 

Guatemala to secure their cooperation in stemming the flow of 

their citizens into the United States. While the humanitarian influx is a seasonal challenge, early indications are that our efforts 

are paying off. 

While I am confident that we will not see a repeat of last year’s 

unprecedented numbers, we are better prepared than ever before 

to deal with the arrival of unaccompanied children along the 

Southern Border. With the Committee’s support, we continue to 

work closely with our sister agencies to address the care and processing of unaccompanied children arriving in the United States in 

a unified manner. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today, 

and I welcome your questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Miller. 

Our final witness is Mr. Joseph Langlois. Mr. Langlois is the Associate Director of the Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), at 

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Langlois is a career civil servant at USCIS, serving for more than 35 years in various positions from asylum officer to the Chief of the Asylum Division. Mr. Langlois. 
1218 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Langlois appears in the Appendix on page 1273. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH E. LANGLOIS,1 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, 

REFUGEE, ASYLUM, AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. LANGLOIS. Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper, and other distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify at today’s hearing on unaccompanied children. My name 

is Joseph Langlois, and I am the Associate Director of the Refugee, 

Asylum, and International Operations Directorate within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, at the Department of Homeland 

Security. I oversee the asylum program at USCIS, which plays a 

critical role in upholding our Nation’s long tradition of providing 

protection for those who have been persecuted or have a wellfounded fear of persecution. My testimony today will focus on 

USCIS’ role in adjudicating asylum applications filed by unaccompanied children. 

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 

(TVPRA) changed the track for unaccompanied children seeking 

asylum in removal proceedings and introduced a new role for 

USCIS. Prior to the TVPRA, only immigration judges had jurisdiction to adjudicate asylum applications filed by unaccompanied children in removal proceedings. Under the TVPRA, unaccompanied 

children in removal proceedings now have the ability to file their 

asylum applications with USCIS. This arrangement allows unaccompanied children to initially present their claims in a non-adversarial interview with a USCIS asylum officer rather than in adversarial proceedings before an immigration judge. While the forum in 

which the claim is initially heard is changed, the eligibility standard for asylum remains the same. 

In addition, if the asylum officer does not grant asylum, USCIS 

coordinates with ICE to transfer the case back to immigration 

court where unaccompanied children may renew their asylum 

claims in adversarial proceedings before an immigration judge. 

Since implementation of TVPRA in 2009, approximately 13,000 

unaccompanied children have filed asylum applications after having been placed in removal proceedings. Since TVPRA became law 

6 years ago, USCIS has granted asylum to approximately 4,000 unaccompanied children. While the number of unaccompanied children being granted has been low compared to the number of arrivals and the number of applications, USCIS serves a vital role in 

protecting unaccompanied children who have been persecuted or 

have a well-founded fear of persecution by providing a non-adversarial forum to elicit their claims. 

The asylum application process generally begins when a minor 

who was determined to be an unaccompanied minor by CBP or ICE 

indicates an intention to apply for asylum while in removal proceedings. ICE then instructs the unaccompanied child to file the 

asylum application with USCIS. In the meantime, the immigration 

judge grants a continuance of the removal proceedings or administratively closes proceedings in order for the unaccompanied child to 

file the application with USCIS and for USCIS to adjudicate the 

asylum application. 
1219 

1The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 1279. 

During the pendency of the asylum case, asylum officers communicate with ICE attorneys to provide progress reports on the case, 

verify the status of removal proceedings, confirm court hearing 

dates, and arrange for the transfer of files between ICE and 

USCIS. 

After USCIS receives the case, an asylum officer conducts an inperson, in-depth, non-adversarial interview of the unaccompanied 

child to fully explore the asylum claim. In addition, the asylum officer researches country conditions, completes a wide range of required biometric and biographic security checks. The asylum officer 

then determines whether the applicant is eligible for asylum and 

drafts a decision. Before any decision is finalized, a supervisor reviews the case to ensure that the decision is supported by the 

record and comports with the law. 

In conclusion, USCIS plays an important role in adjudicating 

asylum applications for the small portion of unaccompanied children who choose to apply. USCIS continues to monitor trends of 

new application filings and stands ready to meet any future challenges with a firm commitment to quality and integrity. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be more than 

happy to answer your questions. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Langlois. 

Let me start with the chart.1 As I stated earlier, there are multiple causes for, obviously, children coming into this country, but 

does anybody want to take a look at that chart and basically dispute my overall conclusion of what the primary cause of the spike 

of unaccompanied children coming to this country was Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals, the message that we are sending to 

Central America that if you get to America, you are pretty well 

home free? Does anybody want to volunteer a challenge to that conclusion? 

[No response.] 

OK. Then I will—Mr. Greenberg? You twitched. 

Mr. GREENBERG. First, I want to make clear that HHS is not an 

immigration agency, is not responsible for immigration policy, and 

our responsibilities are principally about providing shelter for the 

children and getting them to appropriate sponsors. The work on 

reasons for why children are coming is principally the work that 

has been done by the State Department and the Department of 

Homeland Security, and I would refer to the recent GAO report on 

this issue. 

The GAO report highlights the importance of crime and violence 

and economic conditions in the home countries. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Let me just ask, has there been a dramatic 

increase in crime or a dramatic reduction in economic conditions in 

Central America starting in the year 2012 that would be kind of 

a trigger for that, be a catalyst for that type of enormous spike? 

I have the murder rates, homicide rates per 100,000, and quite 

honestly, in most of these countries, they have dropped in El Salvador in 2009, 71; 2010, 64; 2011, 70; 2012, 43; 2013, 40. So, again, 

I realize Central America is not America, and, you have got a huge 
1220 

wage differential. These are certainly pull factors. But, again, I am 

looking at what caused that spike. 

I would say that nobody is really disputing that that is certainly 

a real possible cause right there. Let me get into some numbers 

here. 

Since 2009, from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, there 

have been over 100,000—109,000 unaccompanied children coming 

into this country. Of the children coming in 2009, we returned 

about 30 percent; in 2010, we returned about 22 percent; in 2011, 

we returned about 24 percent; in 2012, 12 percent; 2013, 6.2 percent; 2014, 2.7 percent; and as of 2015, about 3.8 percent. 

Now, again, we cannot really relate those returned versus when 

they came in, but that is just the returned versus the children coming into this country. 

So, in all, we have returned about 5.7 percent, about 6,248 unaccompanied children, when we have had 109,000 come to this country illegally. 

Now, is that sending a signal to people in Central America that 

as an unaccompanied child, if you come into America, you have a 

94.3 percent chance of being able to stay? Is that a disincentive for 

making that trip or an incentive for making that trip? Anybody 

want to answer that? I would say it is an incentive. 

Mr. Miller, there are currently, I think in your testimony you 

said about 6,800 final orders of removal that have been issued. 

Those are adjudicated cases, people have been ordered to be removed; children have been ordered to be removed from this country. So far in fiscal year 2015 we have removed 569. Why aren’t 

we removing the 6,800? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, Senator, first, the data I have shows that so 

far this fiscal year, as of mid-June, we had removed about 1,500 

unaccompanied children. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So 1,500 versus 6,800. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. As a police manager, I have to look at all 

of the cases that we have to work, and I can tell you that if I am 

going to task my officers with going out after criminals that are at 

large in our community or going out after juveniles who are noncriminals in our community, I think it is good policing to go after 

the criminals. We face a very dynamic environment in a number 

of jurisdictions that are no longer honoring ICE detainers, and so 

rather than my officers being able to go and pick up criminals, convicted criminals in a jail, we have to go out with teams and find 

these people in the community. That is very resource-intensive, and 

if we have to prioritize those two populations, I think we are making appropriate prioritization, giving our policing responsibilities. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, as long as we are talking about criminals, on Sunday we learned that 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle was 

killed in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant who had seven 

prior felony convictions. According to ICE data provided to Senators Grassley and Flake, from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 

2014, 121 criminal aliens were released and have been subsequently charged with a homicide-related offense. What do you have 

to say about that lack of enforcement? 

Mr. MILLER. I do not think that the two are necessarily—the 

larger data that we have been talking with your colleagues on the 
1221 

House side about, that represented a number of different reasons 

why those persons could no longer be detained. Many of those are 

a function of law. There are both criminal—I am sorry, circuit court 

decisions in the Ninth Circuit; there are also binding Supreme 

Court—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Tell me specifically what is preventing us, 

when we have people in this country illegally and they have had 

seven prior felony convictions, why aren’t we able to deport those 

individuals? 

Mr. MILLER. In that particular case, our detainer was not honored. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Who did not honor it? 

Mr. MILLER. San Francisco Sheriff’s Department did not honor 

our detainer that we lodged. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So you have no legal authority to detain 

that person yourself or apprehend them and deport them? 

Mr. MILLER. In that particular case, that gentleman has an outstanding felony narcotics warrant, and we feel strongly that the 

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) made the right decision in trying to resolve that criminal warrant before taking—we are allowed to take 

further civil action. 

Chairman JOHNSON. What is BOP? 

Mr. MILLER. Bureau of Prisons—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, that did not make sense to me right 

there. So tell me what happened. You seem to know a fair amount 

about that case. What happened in that case where that individual 

had seven prior felony convictions and he had been released, repeatedly obviously, and now a young woman is dead? Why did that 

happen? 

Mr. MILLER. In that particular instance, he completed serving a 

Federal sentence for illegal re-entry after deportation by an aggravated felon. When he completed that sentence—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Let me start over. Why didn’t ICE pick him 

up immediately upon that and deport him? What is preventing us 

from doing just that? We have got him in custody. He serves his 

sentence. Why isn’t ICE right there at the prison door escorting 

that person back to his country of origin? 

Mr. MILLER. As I said, there was an outstanding narcotics warrant, felony narcotics warrant, and Bureau of Prisons, as we would 

have done the same thing, we would seek to resolve all criminal 

warrants before we go forward with removal. That has been our 

past practice for a number of years. We actually operate that within the criminal alien program. As a matter of agency direction, the 

officers are to resolve outstanding felony criminal warrants before 

proceeding with removal. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So there was another criminal warrant, but 

he was released into general society to create a murder—or to commit a murder. I mean, does that make any sense to you? Because, 

I tell you, it does not make any sense to the American public. And 

that is the problem. That is what we are trying to grapple with 

here. That is the problem we need to solve. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Just go ahead. How do we solve that problem? 

Because there is a disconnect here. We have got a guy, he is up, 

he has been incarcerated repeatedly, a felon, a repeat offender. He 
1222 

is in prison where, in jail in San Francisco? We have got a drug— 

what is it? A drug charge against him, a Federal drug charge? 

Mr. MILLER. There was a State felony warrant for narcotics. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. MILLER. And I think that the Secretary is taking very 

proactive steps through the Priority Enforcement Program to try to 

bring a number of locations that are not honoring immigration detainers. We have established requests for notification that look to 

overcome a lot of the concerns that our State and local partners 

had in working through Secure Communities, and by establishment 

and working through the Priority Enforcement Program, we hope 

to have communities like San Francisco come back and begin working with us proactively. 

Senator CARPER. Is there something we need to do here at our 

end on the legislative side to make sure that something like this 

does not happen again? 

Mr. MILLER. I am not an attorney, Senator. I am a law enforcement officer, so I cannot really speak to the nuances of law or policy. I am told by our attorneys that there is limited ability to force 

communities to accept immigration detainers. Also, I think that 

has not been a historical police practice. Usually we work collaboratively to resolve outstanding criminal warrants and then to 

transfer custody when requests are made. I think some of the recent court decisions called into question ICE’s ability to request 

that communities hold, sheriffs hold their inmates for 48 hours beyond the expiration of their sentence, and that is one of the reasons 

why Secretary Johnson in going forward with the Priority Enforcement Program has created a new paradigm where we will be communicating with these jurisdictions before the person is released 

from custody and being able to safely and effectively ensure their 

transfer of custody. 

Senator CARPER. Maybe this is one that we could work on together to do a better job on. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER. Very good. 

Senator CARPER. I asked my staff to look to see if it is only the 

United States to which folks from Honduras, Guatemala, and El 

Salvador are fleeing to ask for asylum. What about these other 

countries? How about Mexico? How about Belize? How about Panama? How about Nicaragua? And they just gave me these numbers, 

and I thought it was pretty interesting. They said the United 

States is not the only country that is experiencing significant increases in asylum seekers from those three Central America countries I alluded to. Together, Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa 

Rica, and Belize have reported an increase of almost 1,200 percent 

from 2008 to 2014. That is like a 12-fold increase. And it is not just 

the United States. I just assumed they just want to come to the 

United States. Well, they just want to get out of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. And the numbers I think speak volumes. 

Having said that, the numbers are down by about half. In fact, 

the numbers are down by a little bit more than half from this year 

to last year. Let me just ask you why the numbers are down by 

so much. Mr. Osuna. 

Mr. OSUNA. Senator, I think there are a number of reasons. I do 

think that the administration feels that a lot of the measures that 
1223 

we put in place last year, not only here domestically but also with 

our partners in Mexico and Central America, have had an effect. 

Certainly—and I would defer to my colleagues at the enforcement 

agencies here, but the administration does feel that that has been 

part of the reason why the numbers are down, is because of many 

of the—— 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks. 

Others, please? Anyone want to share a thought with us? Please, 

do not be shy. 

Mr. MILLER. I would just echo Mr. Osuna in that both Secretary 

Johnson and Director Saldana have met personally with a number 

of Central American officials. Coupled with the Department’s outreach and coordination with the State Department, we are trying 

to overcome the message, the marketing by smuggling organizations last year that there were these unreal opportunities that were 

outside the law. And that seems to be taking hold. I think as Mr. 

Greenberg said, our colleagues from the State Department know a 

little bit more about this and the programs that are being operated. 

But it seems all indications are that our message is being well received, and our international partners are working in a high degree 

of collaboration to ensure that we do not have the same kind of humanitarian crisis that we did last year. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Good, thanks. 

Each of you give us one example of something that the Congress 

needs to do that will help continue to drive those numbers down. 

Each of you give us one good idea. Mr. Langlois. 

Mr. LANGLOIS. Well, I think that—— 

Senator CARPER. And do it briefly. 

Mr. LANGLOIS. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Just one good answer. 

Mr. LANGLOIS. I think that cooperating with the nation states 

that are on the perimeters of these three countries to build their 

asylum adjudication process would assist us in this endeavor to 

have sanctuary provided by countries that are in the surrounding 

area. We have been working with Mexico for quite some time on 

their asylum system, so that would be one suggestion. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks. 

Mr. Miller, one good example of what we can do. 

Mr. MILLER. Support the President’s request for contingency 

funding. As we saw last year, there was an opportunity to work collaboratively. We are doing that very effectively. Mr. Greenberg and 

I have been traveling together to the Southern Border to make sure 

that our teams are aware of the need to work together. But it was 

very difficult last year. The Department had to reprogram hundreds of millions of dollars and take away from other functions to 

accomplish our mission. I think with contingency funding in our 

2016 budget, we would have that flexibility to not only deal with 

unaccompanied children, but any other unforeseen crises on the 

border. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. 

Mr. Greenberg, one good example. 

Mr. GREENBERG. I need to largely defer to my colleagues on this 

one. What I would highlight is that in ensuring the efficiency of the 
1224 

legal process for arriving unaccompanied children, the continued efforts to expand legal representation are essential. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. Mr. Osuna. 

Mr. OSUNA. Support the President’s request for fiscal year 2016 

for more funding for immigration court resources. That enables us 

to—— 

Senator CARPER. 55 judge teams? 

Mr. OSUNA. 55 judge teams, which I thank you for—— 

Senator CARPER. I think it is in the—I think the appropriators 

have picked it up. 

Mr. OSUNA. It is. 

Senator CARPER. We are grateful for that. 

Mr. OSUNA. Those resources are going to be critical for us to be 

able to have the capability to move these cases as quickly as we 

can. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Good. Thank you all. You did a great 

job on those acronyms, too. 

Chairman JOHNSON. By the way, let me quickly point out, the 

message we are sending to children in Central America is 2.7 percent of them are returned from 2014. Even using Mr. Miller’s updated numbers of 1,500, that is about 10 percent. So, in other 

words, the message we are sending is if you get to America, 90 percent or more of you will be able to stay. That is the message. From 

what my understanding is, Mexico is doing a far better job of policing its Southern Border, increasing their apprehensions by 79 percent. I think that is probably the No. 1 reason our numbers are 

down here, and that is a good thing. Senator Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the 

panelists for being here today and your testimony. 

As I have said on repeated occasions, I believe that ultimately we 

need to pass comprehensive immigration reform to deal with these 

issues in a comprehensive way, which is why we need to have comprehensive immigration reform. 

At a hearing earlier this year discussing the Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals and the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, I spoke about two Michigan students as an example of the 

DACA program and what that means in individuals’ lives. One of 

these individuals was someone who came here very young, who 

knows no other life other than being an American, and came 

here—not her decision—but came with a parent, did very well in 

school, became valedictorian of her high school, is now at the University of Michigan with dreams of becoming a physician. Yet without DACA protections, she would be deported, which makes no 

sense whatsoever, and to me, is not good public policy for us either. 

I would like to enter, Mr. Chairman, if I may, a report from the 

American Immigration Council, and I think it speaks to some of 

the concerns that you raised as to whether or not this DACA program is responsible for some of the surge that was seen last year. 
1225 

1The American Immigration Council Report referenced by Senator Peters appear in the Appendix on page 1280. 

It is the American Immigration Council’s (AIC) Special Report of 

June 2015, if I may enter that.1

Chairman JOHNSON. Without objection, so ordered. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Basically, I would just highlight one part of it, where it says, ‘‘In 

its 2012 report, the Office of Refugee Resettlement stated that in 

a 5-month period between March and July 2012, the Unaccompanied Minor Program received almost 7,200 referrals, surpassing 

fiscal year 2011’s referrals, showing,’’—and this is a quote, ‘‘showing from the report that the rise in unaccompanied minors predated the implementation of the DACA program. Furthermore, individuals who arrived in the country after January 1, 2007, would 

not even be eligible for DACA.’’ 

Also, although I do not have the report, the Cato Institute did 

a report on July 29, 2014, and the Cato Institute said: ‘‘First, the 

surge in UAC began long before the June 15 announcement of 

DACA. It is true that DACA had been discussed in late May 2012, 

but the surge was underway by that time. From October 2011 

through March 2012, there was a 93-percent increase in UAC apprehensions over the same period in fiscal year 2011. Texas Governor Rick Perry warned President Obama about the issues, again, 

before the DACA announcement.’’ 

And, second, they also raise in this Cato report that children 

coming now are not legally able to apply for DACA. So there are 

certainly reports from independent groups as wide-ranging as the 

American Immigration Council to the Cato Institute which dispel 

that notion. 

And I think it goes back to what I said at the beginning of my 

comments, that ultimately Congress needs to roll up our sleeves, 

and we have to work to pass comprehensive immigration reform. 

If we do that kind of reform, we are going to provide clarity and 

certainty, improve border security, and ensure our immigration 

system is fair for all and makes our country stronger. 

I think it is also important to remember that when we are talking about the unaccompanied children here today, we are referring 

to kids who came to the United States to seek a better life and who 

are often fleeing violence and exploitations. Social service organizations in Michigan have cared for some of these children, including 

teenagers who have fled from sexual trafficking and gang violence, 

which leads oftentimes to severe depression and attempts at suicide as well. 

The United States has legal obligations to consider these children’s welfare and to allow their asylum claims to have their day 

in court. So I think that leads my question to Mr. Langlois. You 

talked about your asylum program. If you could speak to some specific examples of a child that comes forward who would be granted 

asylum, what are they facing? Talk specifically and give us two or 

three examples. 

Mr. LANGLOIS. In order to be eligible for asylum, an individual 

needs to establish that they have experienced past persecution or 

have a well-founded fear of persecution on one of the five protected 
1226 

grounds. We call it race, religion, nationality, social group, and political opinion. 

Individual minors are coming forward, the vast majority—it is 

over 90 percent that appear in front of us—are represented by 

counsel. They appear in front of us, and we have small numbers. 

Our approval rate is approximately 40, 42 percent, but the majority 

are fleeing severe violence that is connected to at least one of the 

protected grounds. So that is the overall view of what is occurring 

here. 

Senator PETERS. Now, these children that come before you, you 

say they go into a non-adversarial situation, but it looks as if the 

number that actually get into that is a lot smaller than the number 

of unaccompanied minors that are coming across. So does a child, 

say a 10-year-old, have to say, ‘‘I want to file an asylum claim, and 

I would like to’’—how do they even know that that is the avenue 

that they need to go? 

Mr. LANGLOIS. Individuals who are deemed to be unaccompanied 

children by CBP or ICE are placed in removal proceedings in front 

of an immigration judge. When they are in front of the judge, they 

must request to apply for asylum when they are in front of the immigration judge in the adversarial hearing. 

Senator PETERS. How is a 10-year-old going to know that? 

Mr. LANGLOIS. The individuals that are in proceedings sometimes 

do have counsel; they sometimes do not. I am not familiar with 

how it occurs in front of an immigration judge. 

Senator PETERS. Mr. Osuna. 

Mr. OSUNA. Senator, I can take that on. It can be challenging for 

our judges when they have children in front of them, as you can 

imagine, and you pointed out the scenario perfectly. A 10-year-old 

in front of a judge, sometimes it is a challenge for the judge to be 

able to find out exactly what the case is all about. 

Our judges take the necessary time to get to know what the child 

is all about, what the child’s case is all about. Sometimes judges 

will have children come back a couple of times in order to get them 

comfortable, in order to hear what actually happened to them, and 

whether they wish to apply for asylum. 

The point of taking the time, the judge taking the time, is not 

just also to hear what the child’s case is all about, but also to give 

the child a chance to find a lawyer. And there are a lot of organizations out there that are stepping up and providing lawyers for 

these kids. 

So for the most part, the process in immigration court is designed to get the child comfortable, to have the judge hear what the 

case is about, and to give the child a chance to find a lawyer or 

representative that can then assist them with the application for 

asylum, or for some other form of immigration relief. 

Senator PETERS. If I may just take a brief follow up, the image 

is striking to have a 10-year-old child standing in front of a judge, 

and then next to them would be a government attorney, basically, 

seeking to have them deported. Is there any other place in our justice system here in America where we just allow a young child to 

stand before a judge without any kind of legal representation and 

plead their case? 
1227 

Mr. OSUNA. Not to my knowledge. I think we are—immigration 

court, because there is no right to appointed to counsel in immigration court, we have those situations. And when it comes to children, it is all the more striking, which is why we are trying to do 

what we can with our Federal partners to increase representation 

programs, to do friend-of-the-court models, things like that in a lot 

of our immigration courts to try to provide as much capacity not 

just for lawyers but also for responsible adults to step forward and 

assist the children that are coming before our judges. 

Senator PETERS. Because that has got to be a pretty frightening 

experience for a 10-year-old who may be the victim of violence from 

where they came, they are fleeing that, and they may be a victim 

of sexual trafficking, they are trembling, they are scared, and we 

expect them to understand that they need to start pleading that 

they have an asylum claim. 

Mr. OSUNA. It absolutely can be very intimidating for obvious 

reasons, which is why we do what we can to try to give specialized 

training to our judges as to how to handle children coming before 

them. They are not like any adult case. They have to have specialized training, specialized procedures, specialized children’s dockets, 

which I referred to earlier. And certainly the surge from last year 

provided that much of a bigger challenge because of the numbers. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you. I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Baldwin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

you and Ranking Member Carper for holding this hearing and 

thank our witnesses for your insight and time. 

When we held a hearing about a year ago, I was very interested 

in the discussions that the Committee and the witness panel had 

about root causes of the surge that we experienced in 2014. And 

it was clear to me that violence and instability in a number of Central American countries were key factors that pushed children to 

make a very perilous journey to our border. It is critical that we 

continue to understand the causes so that we can ensure that we 

do not see another surge as we did last year. 

So I wanted to start on that topic, and I recognize we do not have 

a State Department witness on our panel today, but, Mr. Miller, at 

the beginning of your written testimony, you talk a little bit about 

the push and pull factors that led to the influx. You also mentioned 

in your testimony and in response to a question that Secretary 

Johnson and Director Saldana have met with officials in Honduras, 

in Guatemala, and El Salvador to request their cooperation in 

stemming the flow of their citizens to our borders. And I am wondering if you can outline for us or share with us some of the specific efforts that came out of those meetings and consultations. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Senator. While I was not present for 

those meetings, we were meeting with those officials to try to figure out an effective communications strategy to kind of overcome 

a lot of the marketing that smuggling organizations were doing to 

try to encourage children, thinking that they would be receiving 

some kind of immigration benefit that was not actually waiting for 
1228 

them on the other side, and it appears that those collaborative efforts are yielding results. 

And I would say that from my understanding of the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) report—and the State Department has 

a very robust plan to continue that communication, and they have 

pointed to a number of indicators of economic difficulties, some of 

them stemming from agricultural problems, some of them tied to 

the lack of opportunities for these children. And I think that as we 

continue to work with our Central American partners and work collaboratively with the Department of State, we hopefully will be 

able to continue to address those in a unified U.S. Government 

manner. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. 

Right now, as was noted by our Ranking Member, the Appropriations Committee in the Senate is looking at the President’s request 

for foreign assistance to implement a new strategy for engagement 

in Central America. The President’s request is at odds with the 

amount allocated by the House in their appropriations process. 

Mr. Miller, in your opinion, what would the impact be on these 

root causes of the migration if Congress did not engage in a funding level that met the President’s request? 

Mr. MILLER. I would have fear that we would begin to backslide 

and lose some of the gains that we have experienced in the past 

year. And, we are trying to the best of our ability to mitigate a very 

dangerous journey for these children, and I think the more effective 

and the more that we can do through the State Department to 

meet their needs in their home country and work collaboratively 

with our foreign partners, we are going to mitigate or diminish the 

humanitarian crisis on our border, which, from my perspective as 

a law enforcement officer, is a good government function. 

Senator BALDWIN. All right. Mr. Langlois, you did a great job of 

sort of outlining the two tracks of asylum proceedings, adversarial 

and non-adversarial, as a result of Congress’ passing the TVPRA 

in 2008. You talked quite a bit about some of the training required 

to conduct child-appropriate interviews to make sure that asylum 

officers get that type of specialized knowledge in both asylum cases 

and dealing with children. 

I wonder if you can talk a little bit more in detail about the 

training. Was that initiated back in 2009, or was that in response 

to last year’s surge, or both? 

Mr. LANGLOIS. The training to conduct interviews with children 

has been a longstanding training, I believe, with the asylum corps. 

I believe the first children’s guidelines, for example, came out in 

1995 or 1996. So we have had a history of interviewing children for 

asylum in the United States, and we have utilized a lesson plan 

to teach individuals the appropriate techniques. We have had a 

number of outside professors, consultants, and non governmental 

organizations (NGOs) assist us with the lesson plan. So it has been 

a long tradition. 

The numbers started to increase most recently, which emphasized, of course, the importance of the training, but we have been 

conducting this training I believe since about 1995, if my recollection is correct. 
1229 

Senator BALDWIN. And in terms of the resources available to minors who go through your non-adversarial process, tell me about 

the translation services that are available to minors. And, also, it 

is non-adversarial, but do minors get legal assistance in negotiating 

that process? 

Mr. LANGLOIS. Unaccompanied children, just like all asylum applicants, have to provide their own interpretation without government expense. We have an interpreter on the telephone that listens 

in to the interpreting to make sure that it is correct and fraud is 

not occurring. But the unaccompanied child needs to provide his or 

her own interpreter at no government expense, as well as an attorney at no government expense. 

Now, I did mention that over 90 percent of individual unaccompanied children are represented by the time they get to us, but that 

is coming from the courts, is where they start before coming to us, 

and 90 percent is the number that we are looking at. But it is no 

expense to the government, I believe. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. I want to thank all of you for being here today. 

One of the things I wanted to follow up on, when Secretary Johnson testified in 2014 about the crisis we were facing from unaccompanied children from Central America, one of the things he recommended at the time—in fact, when he testified before the Senate 

Appropriations Committee—and I recall hearing him say this—I 

think it was before this Committee as well. He talked about the 

differences in the law between countries that are contiguous to the 

United States of America and countries that are not contiguous to 

the United States of America. And he said that in terms of changing the law, we are asking for the ability to treat unaccompanied 

kids from a Central American country the same way as from contiguous countries, and it would help if the Senate amended the law 

for children to treat the children the same from a non-contiguous 

country as a contiguous country. 

So as I understand it, the law is different if it is a child from 

Mexico, for example, that comes to the border in terms of what 

rights and legal explanations can be given that they can voluntarily return, and that that cannot happen with a Central American country. Is that true? And when you talk about steps we could 

take to help this situation, isn’t that one of the steps we could take 

consistent with what Secretary Johnson told us at the time of this 

crisis? Whoever is the best person to answer that. 

Mr. MILLER. Senator, that is my understanding of the TVPRA as 

well. I know operationally the Border Patrol, when they encounter 

either a Mexican national or a Canadian national, they can work 

collaboratively through their local repatriation agreements to assure—for children who wish to withdraw their application and return voluntarily, they work collaboratively with those respective 

governments to ensure the safe return of those children. 

Now, to the Secretary’s point that if we had that flexibility with 

other countries for those children who, at the time of encounter by 

CBP, whether it is Border Patrol or at the ports of entry, if they 

wish to withdraw their application and return to their country, we 
1230 

have outstanding repatriation agreements with those countries. We 

have many opportunities to effect that repatriation in a safe and 

humane manner. And given the opportunity, we would be able to 

exercise a broader spectrum ability for those children who are not 

seeking any kind of protection. 

Senator AYOTTE. And I understand that this law was put in 

place, I believe, when President Bush was in office in which we 

were changing treating the contiguous countries differently than 

the non-contiguous. But it seems to me that it has outlived its purpose and that you should be given the same tools as the Secretary 

had previously asked us. So is this a tool that you would still like 

to have, Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, ma’am. We support the Secretary’s effort to 

have broad spectrum ability to do the best thing in the interest of 

the children that we encounter. 

Senator AYOTTE. Very good. Thanks. 

I also wanted to point out, when Senator Peters had asked all 

of you about the relationship between, for example, the President’s 

Executive Orders and DACA and the influx of unaccompanied children, at the time—and I recall this as well when we were dealing 

with the real influx—Secretary Johnson made actually a point of 

being very clear with the Central American countries because 

clearly there was an impression—regardless of how they got the 

impression, but there was clearly an impression at the time that 

somehow you could receive a permiso or pass if you made it to the 

United States. And I know that he clearly said he wanted them to 

understand that the children would not benefit from the President’s DACA order. 

So this clearly was some contributing factor in the sense that 

there was an impression or a misimpression in Central America or 

the children were being given a misimpression by perhaps the 

coyotes or other folks that were trying to make money off of them 

and bringing them here. So would you agree with me that that was 

a piece? Because certainly the Secretary addressed it at the time 

and had concerns about it. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, ma’am. Our colleagues from CBP and their 

post-interdiction interviews, we are well aware that that was a 

marketing strategy of the smuggling organizations, and I think the 

Secretary worked extensively both, to educate and to inform that 

that was not the case, that there were not permisos, and that persons who were interdicted after January 1, 2014, throughout the 

immigration court proceedings, throughout the life cycle, as we call 

it, of the immigration process, they would retain that date of interdiction and, thus, remain a priority. 

Senator AYOTTE. Do you think that has been clearly communicated now so that that is not being conveyed? Or do you think 

that is still a concern that that is being misrepresented in those 

countries? 

Mr. MILLER. To the best of my knowledge, from our colleagues 

in the State Department, that message has been received, and it 

seems to have contributed to the reduction in the influx this year. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you all. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. 
1231 

Mr. Miller, I am a little confused because earlier—you just said 

that according to those memoranda children coming here now, they 

do not have the benefits of Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals. 

But you said—so they are a priority. But in your answer to my 

questions, you said that the priorities are really the criminals. So 

which is it? Are removals of children coming in here now a priority 

or not? 

Mr. MILLER. It is a priority, but most law enforcement agencies, 

they prioritize criminal actions or the apprehension and removal of 

criminals higher than the apprehension—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. So it is not a top priority. Secretary Johnson 

in front of our budget hearing, on April 29, 2015, quote, he said, 

‘‘You have to show the population of Central America that you are 

sending people back.’’ That was the Secretary of Homeland Security. OK, we have got to show Central America that you are sending people back. 

Mr. Miller, does it send the signal, are we showing people we are 

sending them back when we are sending, somewhere between 2.7 

and maybe as much as 10 percent back? And, again, let us really 

take a look at the number. From 2009, unaccompanied children, 

109,000 have come into this country, according to some of my figures—and we are not exactly sure what the real number is, but 

that is pretty close—we have returned a little over 6,000, which is 

about a 5.7-percent rate. So, I mean, I agree with Senator Peters. 

Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals does not legally apply to 

these children, but in reality, isn’t that what really children in 

Central America are relying on, the fact that the reality of the situation is that if you get into America, you have got a very low percentage chance, very low probability of being returned? I mean, 

isn’t that the reality? 

Let me just ask you the question this way: Do you believe we 

are, as Secretary Johnson said, showing the population of Central 

America that we are sending people back in any meaningful way? 

Mr. MILLER. I think across the broad spectrum of all the persons 

interdicted on the border, yes, we are. We have worked very effectively with the adult population. We continue to make strides with 

the family units. And we will work collaboratively with our partners here at the table that, simply put, the juvenile process takes 

longer to mature. I do not have the data with me that shows the 

persons that have been removed, when they were interdicted, and 

when they entered into the court process. We see across the spectrum that by the time the case is mature, many of the people who 

have gone through this process and been adjudicated fully by the 

immigration court, they may have reached the age of majority before their case matures. That is not something that any one member is at fault for. That is something that is the nature of the process. These children, upon interdiction, have due process rights, and 

we have to wait for those rights to mature. 

I can tell you that, going forward, we will continue to utilize our 

efforts appropriately. I mean, I stand by my previous statement 

that it makes good sense as police manager, if I have limited resources and I am faced with the task of going after criminals or 

going after non-criminal children, I think it is the appropriate 

choice to go after the criminals first. 
1232 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, from my standpoint, I think we need 

to disincentivize children from making that dangerous journey. I 

think that is compassion. 

Mr. Greenberg, does HHS check the status, the immigration status, the legal status of sponsors of unaccompanied children that 

they turn unaccompanied children over to? 

Mr. GREENBERG. We do make inquiry of a potential sponsor as 

to their immigration status. 

Chairman JOHNSON. A hundred percent of the time? 

Mr. GREENBERG. We make inquiry in all cases. In addition to 

that, for those cases that are subject to fingerprinting, we will get 

immigration information in the context of the fingerprint match. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So if you find somebody who is in this country illegally, do you still turn those unaccompanied children over 

to an illegal immigrant parent? 

Mr. GREENBERG. In the process of placing a child with a sponsor, 

we inquire about immigration status. 

Chairman JOHNSON. It is simply a yes-or-no answer. Do you turn 

unaccompanied children over to illegal immigrant parents? 

Mr. GREENBERG. We will place a child with an undocumented 

parent. 

Chairman JOHNSON. That you know is undocumented? 

Mr. GREENBERG. That is correct, yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Do you then notify either ICE or DHS about 

that fact? 

Mr. GREENBERG. We will provide the information about the location and the address of the sponsor at the time that we release the 

child. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Do you notify any agency that that individual is in this country illegally? 

Mr. GREENBERG. We will—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, a very simple question. Do you inform DHS or ICE that you have just placed a child with somebody 

in this country illegally? 

Mr. GREENBERG. We will respond to any inquiry we receive—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. No, really. Just answer the question. Do you 

tell DHS or ICE that you have just placed a child with somebody 

that you know is in this country illegally? Yes or no: Do you tell 

them that? 

Mr. GREENBERG. We do not affirmatively do so. 

Chairman JOHNSON. That is a no, then. Can you say no? That 

is a no, you do not inform ICE or DHS. 

Mr. GREENBERG. We will provide the information upon their request. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Do they ever ask you for it? 

Mr. GREENBERG. In some circumstances, I understand that they 

do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Probably pretty rare. 

One question I have for you—and I am not judging whether this 

is right or wrong, but in your testimony, you do state that children 

have the privilege of representation but at no expense to the government. But then you are talking about we are doing requests for 

proposals on legal services. I mean, can you square that for me? If 

current law is that there can be no expense to the government and 
1233 

yet we are issuing grants for people to provide legal representation, 

just how does that—I mean, how do you get around the law? Which 

is basically what is happening, correct? 

Mr. GREENBERG. We are complying with the law, Senator, and 

we have a specific responsibility under the law to help children in 

receiving legal representation. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So there is a conflict in the law, is what you 

are saying. So, on the one hand, there is a law that says there can 

be no government expense utilized to provide legal representation, 

but there is another part of the law that gives you the authority 

to have legal representation at government expense. Is that basically what is happening? 

Mr. GREENBERG. The law makes clear that we should be maximizing the use of pro bono resources, and we do seek to maximize 

the use of pro bono resources, but we need—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. But you are also—— 

Mr. GREENBERG [continuing]. To do more of that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. You are also granting money for legal—or 

certainly asking for requests and paying for legal representation, 

are you not? 

Mr. GREENBERG. That is correct, and we do have—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, again, it is your testimony that says 

legal representation is supposed to be granted, but at no expense 

to the government, and yet you are paying for it. 

Mr. GREENBERG. We are following—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, is that just, again, a conflict in the 

law? 

Mr. GREENBERG. We do not believe it is a conflict in the law. We 

are following the requirements of the TVPRA. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. I tell you what. It sounds like a real 

conflict in the law that we ought to address. 

Mr. GREENBERG. The law is clear that it says that we should be 

using pro bono to the maximum extent possible. That makes clear 

that if we are doing that, we should be doing additional things beyond that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, it looks like the law is clear in two different—in a conflicting manner: on the one hand, at no expense to 

the government, and then it is clear that we should be spending 

money. So, again, I think that is a conflict that we need to address. 

Mr. Osuna, real quick, what is the average time to adjudicate 

one of these claims? Do you have that stat at all? Are we talking 

months? Are we talking years? 

Mr. OSUNA. You are talking for—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. For unaccompanied children. 

Mr. OSUNA. Our commitment, Senator, is to have the initial 

hearing in 21 days, and we are adhering to that timeline. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. That is just the initial hearing. I am 

talking about adjudication to the—— 

Mr. OSUNA. I do not have that number because these cases, as 

my colleagues have mentioned, do take a long time. Some cases 

have resulted already in removal orders because the child probably 

did not have a claim to—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. But a very low percentage of those. 

Mr. OSUNA. 6,800—— 
1234 

Chairman JOHNSON. A very low percentage. 

Mr. OSUNA. So they can take a significant amount of time. I will 

say that legal representation does help because, for obvious reasons, we—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. You have got a lawyer making sure that the 

person shows up. 

Mr. OSUNA. Thus, fewer continuances and all that, so that does 

help in speeding up the court hearings, at least at the beginning 

of the process. But, yes, they can take a long time. I do not have 

a number to give you in terms of the latest surge of children, but 

it is certainly a matter of months and not weeks. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Isn’t it really more a matter of years? 

Mr. OSUNA. Well, it depends. If the child does apply for some sort 

of relief from removal that requires a transfer to USCIS, then it 

can. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Begging the indulgence of my Ranking 

Member here, Mr. Langlois is talking about a very low percentage 

of these UACs obtaining any kind of asylum, but yet we have a 

very low percentage of people with orders to remove. Again, I do 

not see how we can—this has got to be a very lengthy process then. 

I do not see—when you go back to 2009 and just see what a very 

low percentage of those people that have been returned and the 

very low percentage in total of the 109,000, this has got to be a 

very lengthy process. 

Mr. OSUNA. It can be a lengthy process, and it is not just asylum, 

Mr. Chairman, but kids can also apply for special immigrant juvenile status, which is even more complicated because it involves the 

State court systems. I mean, that is the law that we have. That is 

the law that we work through. Again, I think that we certainly 

work through these cases as quickly as we can consistent with due 

process, and I know my colleagues do as well. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I appreciate that. And, again, I appreciate 

you trying to comply with the laws, and I think that is what this 

Committee is trying to lay bare is the conflict within the law, the 

incentives we create for people coming to this country illegally. We 

need to address those conflicts and those incentives. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to go back to root causes again with a little different 

focus. Among the things that our Chairman and I agree on is the 

idea that if folks who are citizens of Honduras, Guatemala, and El 

Salvador who want to come to this country to work for a limited 

period of time and be able to go home, maybe we ought to change 

our immigration laws so that that can happen. And that is one element of the comprehensive immigration reform legislation that 

passed the Senate several years ago. 

Give us some advice. If we were to do piecemeal immigration reform or attempt again to do comprehensive immigration reform, 

what advice would each of you have to give us of an element or two 

to include in that legislative effort to help address the issues that 

we are addressing here today? Mr. Osuna. 

Mr. OSUNA. Two comments, Senator. First, the administration 

does, as you know, support the comprehensive immigration reform 

bill that the Senate passed a couple years ago. That rough frame-
1235 

work I think is something that the administration and all the agencies here are behind. Specifically for my agency, that bill and other 

proposals have included significant resources and other additional 

tools for the immigration court system, and we would, of course, 

ask that any comprehensive immigration reform bill take into consideration the needs of the court system and the resource constraints. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Greenberg, same question. 

Mr. GREENBERG. Given our role in the process, I defer to my colleague agencies on this question. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Fair enough. Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Senator, I would say that in looking to fix the broken immigration system, we would favor things—the opportunity 

to balance the age of the conviction versus the statutory requirement that we have today that, regardless of the age of the conviction, many times our officers are compelled to take action, and as 

a result, frequently we exercise a great deal of resources on the initial encounter with the individual, only for that to be mitigated 

thereafter. 

I think if we put a temporal element to our enforcement 

prioritization in how individuals are charged under the Immigration Act, that would allow us to even better and more efficiently 

deploy our resources across the country. 

Senator CARPER. Give us a really simple example of what you 

just said. 

Mr. MILLER. A very simple example would be a narcotics conviction from the 1980s. At times, frequently, when the person is seeking, for example, to have their green card renewed, it will be a referral to ICE for an enforcement action because the person has this 

narcotics conviction from the 1980s. And as the statutory framework is today, we are asked to take the appropriate enforcement 

action, which would be to arrest and charge the person as an aggravated felon, notwithstanding any kind of—what the person has 

done since that initial conviction. 

Senator CARPER. OK. I have got it. Thanks. Mr. Langlois. 

Mr. LANGLOIS. As we discussed, individuals who are attempting 

to enter the United States unauthorized come for a variety of reasons. One reason, however, is that they are fleeing persecution. 

They have a well-founded fear of persecution or they have been 

persecuted in the past, and their claims should be heard. We 

should design the law to effectively and efficiently hear those 

claims. 

Senator, you had mentioned a needle in a haystack. To a great 

degree, that analogy rings true here where you are trying to get 

to that needle efficiently and effectively in order to grant asylum 

to individuals who deserve protection but effectively and efficiently 

deny those individuals that are not eligible and return those individuals. 

So to the extent that the law can grapple with that balance, that 

is what I would encourage, of course. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. Thank you all. 
1236 

Someone, I think, in your testimony today I thought mentioned 

that roughly 4,000 unaccompanied minors have been granted asylum. Was that correct? 

Mr. LANGLOIS. That is correct, Senator. That was in my testimony. 

Senator CARPER. And—— 

Mr. LANGLOIS. Since 2009. 

Senator CARPER. Since 2009. Would you just give us some idea, 

since 2009, roughly how many unaccompanied children have 

sought asylum? Just roughly. 

Mr. LANGLOIS. Yes. Since 2009, I do not have that figure exactly 

in front of me. 

Senator CARPER. Just really roughly. 

Mr. LANGLOIS. Actually, I can take it from right here. From 2009, 

we are dealing with roughly 13,000 individuals have applied for 

asylum since 2009 via the court. So they were in front of an immigration judge; they requested to file for asylum. They were given 

a continuance, and then they have filed. So 13,000 as of the end 

of the second quarter. 

Senator CARPER. Is it safe to assume that there are more than 

13,000 that have not filed or have not been before a court? 

Mr. LANGLOIS. As we discussed, the process can take time, and 

there is—— 

Senator CARPER. I said earlier during your testimony, I leaned 

over and said to our Chairman, I said, ‘‘The process seems mindnumbing.’’ And when I read your testimony coming down on the 

train today, I thought—and I told Senator Johnson, ‘‘Maybe I did 

not have enough coffee.’’ You do not drink coffee on the train, but 

he said no, it was not the coffee. 

Chairman JOHNSON. There was not enough coffee. 

Senator CARPER. And I listened to you speak here today. It is 

hard to wrap my head around it. I think I speak for the Chairman 

as well. It is confusing, and a long and tortured road. But I do not 

know if there is something that we can do to help make it clear, 

more straightforward, or not. But I would sure be interested in exploring that. 

I do not mean to be critical of your testimony. I thought you presented it very well. But, boy, it is really a long and tortured road. 

I want to go back to the idea of no attorneys for unaccompanied 

minors at no expense to the government or to the extent that we 

can avoid that. I am just very proud of what we have done in our 

State of Delaware where our Chief Justice of the Supreme Court 

and his staff, his office, have really reached out to law firms all 

over our State and asked them to help out. And they have answered the call, and this has enabled us to provide a lot of legal 

counsel for young people and, frankly, at not much cost to the government. We need to do more of that. 

Why is it in our financial interest to try to ensure that these kids 

have legal counsel? Is there some association with whether or not 

people have legal counsel, these kids are able to have legal counsel 

and they actually show up for hearings? Does it expedite their 

process or does it slow it down? Anybody. 

Mr. OSUNA. Senator, there is no question, based on long experience from our immigration courts with these cases over many 
1237 

years, that having counsel at the start of the process, especially for 

a child, makes the process more efficient. Immigration judges have 

to grant fewer continuances. The legal issues are clearer. Immigration judges do not have to spend a lot of time trying to tease out 

what the case is all about. 

So in terms of efficiency, there is little doubt that counsel at the 

beginning of the process makes our court process much more efficient. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Fine. 

Mr. Chairman, if I may have one more quick question, if I may? 

Chairman JOHNSON. Absolutely. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Langlois, I understand that we have begun 

to allow a limited group of children from Guatemala, Honduras, 

and El Salvador to apply in their home countries to come to the 

United States as refugees. I understand this is limited to those who 

have parents in this country who are citizens or legal permanent 

residents who meet certain requirements. Could you just describe 

this new effort and why it has begun? 

Mr. LANGLOIS. Certainly, and it even has an acronym. The Central American Minors (CAM)—— 

Senator CARPER. I am sure it does. [Laughter.] 

Mr. LANGLOIS. The Central American Minors Refugee and Parole 

Program, the ‘‘CAM program,’’ as we call it—was designed to give 

an alternative to individuals that are in these three countries a 

safe and legal alternative to taking the dangerous road to the 

United States with smugglers. The program allows individuals who 

are lawfully present in the United States to file for their children 

that remain in—unmarried children that remain in these three 

countries. They file. A deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing is done 

to make sure that the relationship is valid. Then we have the State 

Department, who is the manager of the program, they arrange for 

the child to be preliminarily interviewed in the country. When the 

case is ripe to be presented as a refugee or for parole, a USCIS refugee officer will conduct the extensive interview. We will do background checks on the interview, fingerprints. We also do checks on 

the individual who is petitioning that is in the United States to 

make sure that they are in the status that they claim, also if there 

is any criminal record of that individual, and then we arrange 

through the refugee program, if they are deemed refugee, for them 

to come to the United States. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks for that explanation. It actually 

sounds like common sense, and I think it sounds like a pretty good 

idea. 

Mr. Chairman, thanks. It has been a good hearing, and to our 

witnesses, thank you all for your appearance and for your testimony. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

I am going to use Senator Carper’s fine example by allowing each 

of you to have the opportunity to make one final comment. But before I do that, I do want to requote Secretary Johnson before our 

budget hearing on April 29, 2015: ‘‘You have to show the population of Central America that you are sending people back.’’ 

To quote our Ranking Member, he frequently says, ‘‘You have to 

find out what works and do more of that.’’ Well, we have an exam-
1238 

ple of what worked. In 2005, we were experiencing a real surge 

with Brazilian immigrants, 3 times higher than the previous year, 

31,063. And as a result of that, in 2005, DHS Secretary Chertoff 

employed Operation Texas Hold ’Em where they prioritized existing space, dedicated bed space, and began detaining and removing 

all of the illegal Brazilians that were apprehended using expedited 

removals. By the following year, the number of people coming in 

illegally from Brazil dropped from 31,063 to 1,460. 

So, again, I think, what this hearing—and by the way, again, I 

just want to thank you all for your testimony. This has been very 

enlightening. A very complex problem, multiple root causes, I certainly have my opinion in terms of what the primary root cause is, 

but what we have found from your testimony and what we have 

found from your answers to questions is so much—and I think 

somebody here said it, broken immigration system. It is. That is a 

very valid acknowledgment. It is a broken system. It is convoluted. 

It is obviously within these three departments and five different 

agencies trying to grapple with this thing, it is not fully coordinated. Often there are conflicting laws. 

I am pleased to hear that our Ranking Member used the word 

‘‘piecemeal’’ reform. I realize this administration does not want to 

talk about that, but, listen, we do not do comprehensive very well, 

because it is complicated. These things are not easy to deal with. 

So certainly what I asked Secretary Jeh Johnson when he was before this Committee was work with this Committee, let us identify 

these problems, these conflicts, and let us—because, quite honestly, 

the reality of the situation is we are not going to do comprehensive 

reform, not in the next 18 months. Even by Secretary Johnson’s admission, we are not even going to have situational awareness of the 

border in the next 18 months. 

So let us take a look at the problems. Let us take a look at the 

conflicts. Let us look at the convoluted process. Let us try and fully 

coordinate this. Let us start making the incremental improvements. 

I come from a manufacturing background of continuous improvement, root cause analysis. So let us look at the root causes of these 

individual little problems, and working with you, with your help, 

with your expertise—again, I truly appreciate your service, and I 

understand that you are dealing with the laws we have got. That 

is what we have to deal with. But I think the only thing that is 

realistic that we can accomplish, at least in the next 18 months, 

is a—and let us not use ‘‘piecemeal’’ because that may have the 

wrong connotation. How about a step-by-step continuous improvement process? I think we have that attitude. The Ranking Member 

is willing to work with me. Let us prioritize those individual problems that we can address and start fixing this on a step-by-step 

basis. 

With that, let us start with Mr. Osuna. 

Mr. OSUNA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper. I would 

just say that the border surge from last year was really unprecedented. I have been doing this job for a long time, and I have never 

seen the level of interagency coordination and discussion that this 

engendered really from the start, from when we first started identifying this issue in late April, May. 
1239 

I think that it has been a challenge for all the agencies, but we 

have done the best we can. I think it has had an effect, and we 

look forward to continuing our discussion with you and with our 

fellow partners at the other agencies. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. And I think I speak for the 

Ranking Member, too. When we went down to Rio Grande Valley 

and we talked to Customs and Border Protection, I think they did 

an extraordinary job grappling with a very difficult problem. And 

I think they kind of circumvented some rules, and God bless them 

for doing it. I mean, this is—again, we are a very compassionate 

society. This was a humanitarian crisis, and the people in those 

agencies I think rose to the challenge. So I think we really want 

to give them kudos for doing that. Mr. Greenberg. 

Senator CARPER. I am Tom Carper, and I approve that message. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. An act of real bipartisanship here. 

Mr. GREENBERG. Thank you, Senators. First, I want to underscore Juan’s remarks about how closely the agencies are, in fact, 

collaborating and cooperating in these efforts. I first met Juan last 

year when we were both in Texas and visiting facilities at the same 

time. As Phil Miller indicated, he, his colleagues, and I went together again to Texas this year to look at both HHS and DHS facilities. Our staffs talk every day. We appreciate the importance of 

coordination and we are working hard to accomplish that. 

Chairman Johnson, I want to follow up on the issue around legal 

representation. My understanding is that the statutory language 

that you were referring to is language which is seeking to make 

clear that there is not a right to paid counsel at the expense of the 

government. We are clear that this is not about a right to paid 

counsel. I do not believe that there is an inconsistency in the language, but we would be happy to follow up with you and your staff 

and look at this more closely. 

And then, finally, I just want to indicate that, having been before 

the Committee a year ago, there has been tremendous progress 

over the course of this last year. We look forward to continuing to 

build on it, and we look forward to working with you in doing so. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Greenberg. Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Senator. I echo what my colleagues expressed that never before has there been greater coordination. 

While these agencies and different departments have different statutory requirements, different fiscal constraints placed upon them, 

we work at an amazing level of collaboration and cooperation, making joint decisions, sharing information in a way that I think is 

really without precedent. And as a result of that, we continue to 

work collaboratively, not just on issues relating to unaccompanied 

children, but we continue to work collaboratively with immigration 

judges on how to better streamline these processes, to look at what 

can we do more efficiently to reduce the non-detained docket. 

One of our initiatives as part of Secretary Johnson’s memoranda 

is to give opportunities to people who did not want to continue 

their non-detained court settings if they do not meet one of the Department’s current priorities, making opportunities available where 

people can give us constructive feedback, and then we can share 
1240 

that information across the one government, all of the agencies and 

departments dealing with these issues. 

While there is a lot of work to be done—clearly, I think we are 

all in agreement with that—what we learned last summer is that 

we do not have to just sit there with our own agency and grapple 

with these struggles, grapple with these problems that we face 

every day, that by sharing information and coming to joint decisions, we can more effectively and efficiently work within the 

framework that we are given today and hopefully work with the 

Committee for a better framework tomorrow. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. Mr. Miller, we want to 

work with you. Mr. Langlois. 

Mr. LANGLOIS. Certainly the border surge last year presented a 

wide range of challenges for the asylum corps in its attempt to adjudicate the cases. We experienced an increase in our caseloads of 

credible fear, of reasonable fear, and, of course, unaccompanied 

children’s claims in the affirmative context. 

Individuals that have suffered persecution deserve a just but 

very efficient adjudication of their claim. They deserve protection, 

and we must effectively give them that and efficiently give them 

that. 

We have cooperate at unprecedented levels with CBP as well as 

ICE, as well as EOIR, to assist us in that endeavor. I think that, 

as usual, all procedures or systems can be improved, and we work 

very hard in order to do that. I think we have got an incredibly 

committed asylum corps that is applying themselves diligently to 

this task and cooperating fully with our partners in this task. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Langlois. 

Again, I want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony and 

for your thoughtful answers to our questions. I will have more 

questions for the record. In particular, we have just got to get our 

arms around the information, the data, because you have to have 

that kind of data to really highlight where are the problem areas 

and what do you need to really address. So I want to work with 

all of your agencies to get that information. 

This hearing record will remain open for 15 days until July 22 

at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and those additional 

questions for the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(1241) 

A P P E N D I X 
1242 
1243 
1244 
1245 
1246 
1247 
1248 
1249 
1250 
1251 
1252 
1253 
1254 
1255 
1256 
1257 
1258 
1259 
1260 
1261 
1262 
1263 
1264 
1265 
1266 
1267 
1268 
1269 
1270 
1271 
1272 
1273 
1274 
1275 
1276 
1277 
1278 
1279 
1280 
1281 
1282 
1283 
1284 
1285 
1286 
1287 
1288 
1289 
1290 
1291 
1292 
1293 
1294 
1295 
1296 
1297 
1298 
1299 
1300 
1301 
1302 
1303 
1304 
1305 
1306 
1307 
1308 
1309 
1310 
1311 
1312 
1313 
1314 
1315 
1316 
1317 
1318 
1319 
1320 
1321 
1322 
1323 
1324 
1325 
1326 
1327 
1328 
1329 
1330 
1331 
1332 
1333 
1334 
1335 
1336 
1337 
1338 
1339 
1340 
1341 
1342 
1343 
1344 
1345 
1346 
1347 
1348 
1349 
1350 
1351 
1352 
1353 
1354 
1355 
1356 
1357 
1358 
1359 
1360 
1361 
1362 
1363 
1364 
1365 
1366 
1367 
1368 
1369 
1370 
1371 
1372 
1373 
1374 
1375 
1376 
1377 
1378 
1379 
1380 
1381 
1382 
1383 
1384 
1385 
1386 
1387 
1388 
1389 
1390 
1391 
1392 
1393 
1394 
1395 
1396 
1397 
1398 
1399 
1400 
1401 
1402 
1403 
1404 
1405 
1406 
1407 

(1409) 

SECURING THE BORDER: UNDERSTANDING 

THREATS AND STRATEGIES FOR THE 

MARITIME BORDER 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2015 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in room 

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

Present: Senators Johnson, McCain, Lankford, Ayotte, Ernst, 

Sasse, Carper, McCaskill, and Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning. This hearing will come to 

order. I guess we will start before Senator Carper arrives. He 

should be arriving shortly. 

I want to welcome the witnesses coming here this morning, taking the time, for your thoughtful testimony. I am looking forward 

to hearing it and giving Committee Members an opportunity to ask 

questions. 

This is our eighth hearing on basically the security of our border 

of the United States, a top priority of the Federal Government. Following this hearing, and prior to our August recess, our Committee 

is planning on issuing a report, an interim report, laying out all the 

components of our border, and the extent that we have it secure 

and the extent that we have not secured it. And I think our first 

hearing it was pretty clear by the testimony we received that our 

border is not secure. 

This hearing is going to be centered on our maritime borders, 

and to just kind of put things into perspective, a lot of our hearings 

have obviously concentrated on what is easily and readily acknowledged as our No. 1 problem, the southwest border, which is about 

2,000 miles long. And in terms of the extent of the problem, we 

have had about 480,000 interdictions in fiscal year (FY) 2014. That 

number is down for various reasons, but 480,000 interdictions. 

Our Northern Border is more than twice that length, 5,225 miles 

long, and we had a little over 3,000 interdictions. And, of course, 

our maritime border is enormous in comparison, about 95,000 

miles, and we have had about 7,500 interdictions. 

So it is an enormous task. We are concerned, obviously, about 

drug smuggling, potential international terrorists, crime, those 
1410 

types of issues that the representatives that are testifying here 

today from the Coast Guard and from the Office of Air and Marine 

(OAM), which are components of the Homeland Security Department, as well as another individual from the Homeland Security 

Department will be here to discuss. 

So, again, this is from my standpoint an important hearing, kind 

of wraps up the different components that we wanted to explore in 

our eight-hearing series on the border. 

I do ask unanimous consent that my written statement be entered into the record, and Senator Carper is always so kind as to 

grant that or not object. And, without objection, so ordered. 

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

Tom Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. To our witnesses, good 

to see you. Some of you have been here not long ago. We are going 

to have to start paying on a per diem basis or something if you 

keep coming back like this. But we are grateful to all of you. 

Just in reviewing on the train coming down today, not just reading your statements but also just reading your backgrounds, we are 

just so fortunate to have people with your pedigree, your record of 

service. Some of you are pretty smart. They schooled you. I am impressed. But thank you for all of that and for being here today. Mr. 

Chairman, thanks for pulling this together for this hearing. 

Today we take note of an important but often overlooked aspect 

of our homeland security: our Nation’s maritime borders. 

The United States has more than, I think, 95,000 miles of shoreline. Most of that is not in Delaware. The oceans, rivers, and lakes 

bordering the United States are both natural barriers and super 

highways. My home State of Delaware has about 350 miles of 

shoreline. It is also home to the Port of Wilmington, Delaware, 

which ranks as the Nation’s leading gateway for imports of fresh 

fruits, bananas, and juice concentrate. If you ate a banana this 

morning, there is a good chance it came through the Port of Wilmington. So maritime activity is serious business for us in Delaware, and I know for many others on this Committee it is a serious 

matter for our country. 

But the same waters that facilitate so much legitimate travel 

and trade can also be a pathway, as we know, for many illegal activities. For example, we know that drug traffickers, human smugglers, and counterfeiters all take advantage of the difficulty in securing our maritime borders. 

Maintaining ‘‘situational’’ or ‘‘domain’’ awareness of our country’s 

vast maritime borders is extremely challenging. I do not need to 

tell you that. And trying to actually disrupt or intercept threats 

that approach by water can be even more daunting. 

But, thankfully, we have many Federal employees—servants, if 

you will—who dedicate their lives to stopping these threats from 

entering our country by water. Just last week, I had the pleasure 

of meeting several dozen of these fine people at the Coast Guard 

station at Indian River Inlet near Rehoboth Beach in Delaware. 

I am so proud of the work there led by Captain Ben Cooper, and 

among the troops that he leads is Petty Officer Greenwell whom I 
1411 

talked about on the Senate floor a couple of weeks ago, and the rest 

of men and women at Indian River Inlet are doing important work, 

saving a lot of lives, protecting people and property. Day and night, 

Captain Cooper and his team patrol our busy coasts in Delaware 

and along the Atlantic and are always ready to provide assistance 

should there ever be an emergency. So we thank you for all that 

you do for the people of our State and for our country, as well as 

our guests. 

The Department of Homeland Security (dhs) has a unique and a 

leading role in maritime border security. It is home to the U.S. 

Coast Guard, home of the Office of Air and Marine within Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which conducts investigations to disrupt trafficking and other threats. These agencies or their predecessors 

have been protecting our shores since the founding of our Nation. 

We are fortunate to have leaders from each of these agencies here 

today to talk with us about the important work that they do. 

It is my hope that we can learn more about a few key issues here 

today. First, we need to understand the current state of our maritime border security. I would also like for our witnesses to talk 

about what a secure maritime border actually looks like to them. 

Next, we need to develop a better understanding of the top threats 

in the maritime environment and how they are evolving. 

As we have tightened up security on our southern land border, 

for example, traffickers and smugglers are seeking out other paths 

in the Caribbean or the Pacific coast. We need to be ready to combat this trend as we continue to ‘‘squeeze the balloon’’ along our 

Nation’s borders. Given the vastness of our maritime borders, it is 

important that there is close coordination among agencies, as well 

as good cooperation with our trusted international partners. 

Finally, I hope to hear today from each of our witnesses about 

the equipment and resources available to you and to your colleagues to ensure our maritime border security. For instance, I 

know that you often rely on air surveillance—I know personally because I was down there flying in one of your P–3’s not long ago— 

to direct where vessels should go to disrupt criminal activity. Yet 

too many times, we have assets up in the air without the right 

kind of technology or surveillance packages. That is not good. That 

is not helpful. This also hampers our efforts on our land borders 

while wasting a lot of taxpayers’ money, and we need to be smarter 

than that. 

That is enough from me. We are anxious to hear from all of you 

and have a good conversation. Thank you all. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

I have been made aware that there will be one vote at 10:30, so 

we will keep the hearing going and hopefully Committee Members 

can cooperate with each other in terms of sticking around to ask 

questions to keep the hearing going. 

It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses, so if 

you will all stand 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? 

Admiral BROWN. I do. 

Mr. ALLES. I do. 
1412 

1The prepared statement of Rear Admiral Brown appears in the Appendix on page 1446. 

Mr. EDGE. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Please be seated. 

Our first witness is Rear Admiral Peter Brown. Admiral Brown 

is the Assistant Commandant for Response Policy for the U.S. 

Coast Guard. He has served multiple tours of duty at sea. He has 

also served as the Chief of Response for the Seventh Coast Guard 

District and Chief of Staff for Coast Guard Atlantic Area. Rear Admiral Brown oversees the development of strategic response doctrine and policy guidance for all Coast Guard forces. Admiral 

Brown. 

TESTIMONY OF REAR ADMIRAL PETER J. BROWN,1 ASSISTANT 

COMMANDANT FOR RESPONSE POLICY, U.S. COAST GUARD 

Admiral BROWN. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Ranking 

Member Carper, and other Members of the Committee. I am honored to be here today to discuss the Coast Guard’s role in securing 

our Nation’s borders. I thank you for your strong support of the 

Coast Guard and our men and women in uniform. 

It is also a pleasure to be here with two of our most important 

partners in maritime border security: Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

The Coast Guard’s success is due in no part to the partnerships 

that we have with these two organizations, and I would personally 

like to thank both Executive Director Edge and Assistant Commissioner Alles for their ongoing support and leadership. 

My complete statement has been provided to the Committee, and 

I would ask that it be entered into the record. 

Mr. Chairman, maintaining border security while facilitating 

lawful travel and trade is a fundamental national security interest, 

requiring comprehensive, coordinated efforts across many departments and agencies and, in particular, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). As members of the Committee are aware, 

over 90 percent of global trade travels through maritime conveyances, making the safety and security of our maritime borders both 

an economic and national security imperative. 

The Coast Guard conducts operations every day to protect, prevent, and respond to a broad range of maritime border security 

threats, including illicit trafficking of narcotics and people by organized criminal networks, undocumented migration, the exploitation 

of our natural resources, potential terrorist activities, and the disruption of maritime commerce. So our strategy is to secure the borders in a layered defense, one that engages with foreign partners 

and takes action far from U.S. shores where threats to security and 

national sovereignty emanate. Our strategy focuses on exerting our 

unique authorities and capabilities in the maritime domain before 

those threats land in our ports, on our beaches, or at our borders. 

Overseas, the Coast Guard assesses foreign port security and the 

antiterrorism measures of international trading partners through 

the International Port Security Program. These activities aim to 

ensure that cargo bound for the United States meets all United 

States and international security standards. Additionally, in coordination with Customs and Border Protection, we receive and screen 
1413 

notices of arrival for both cargo and personnel long before commercial vessels arrive in the United States. We have liaison and attache officers posted at multiple embassies overseas and facilitate action across the full spectrum of maritime governance. 

Closer to shore, using our major cutters, maritime patrol aircraft, 

armed helicopters, and law enforcement detachments, we deploy 

assets to intercept those threats where they are most vulnerable: 

at sea. Along with our national security cutters, the Coast Guard’s 

essential effort to recapitalize its fleet through the Offshore Patrol 

Cutter Acquisition Project will ensure that the Coast Guard is capable of projecting vital law enforcement presence on the high seas, 

in the 200-mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, in our customs waters, and in our territorial seas for decades to come. 

The Coast Guard is the only U.S. Government component that 

has at all times both defense and law enforcement authority and 

is able to make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests for violation of U.S. laws both on the high seas 

and in U.S. waters. By maintaining that overt presence offshore 

and in the littoral region, the Coast Guard has interdicted more 

than 2,600 undocumented migrants this year alone and deterred 

many more from taking to the sea in dangerously overcrowded and 

unseaworthy vessels. 

Likewise, just this past June, the Coast Guard conducted 22 

maritime interdictions, supported by CBP and others, that resulted 

in the detention of more than 60 suspects and removed more than 

14 metric tons of pure uncut cocaine. In one case, our new national 

security cutter Stratton, using onboard sensors and law enforcement intelligence gained from other interdictions, located and 

seized a semi-submersible vessel with 2.8 metric tons of cocaine in 

the Pacific Ocean. This product was ultimately destined for the 

United States and would have left a trail of corruption, instability, 

and death as it moved through Central America and Mexico. 

Through a single month of interdictions, the Coast Guard denied criminal networks more than $480 million in wholesale drug proceeds and profits. Cases such as these that result in the detection 

and prosecution of traffickers generate additional actionable intelligence and fuel our cycle of success. Over the last decade, law enforcement intelligence gained from Coast Guard interdictions contributed to the arrest and extradition of nearly 75 percent of all 

drug kingpins who were extradited to the United States. 

Successfully patrolling and enforcing the maritime border requires a strategic outlook, tactical execution, and Department of 

Homeland Security unity of effort. Along the Southern Border, the 

Coast Guard operates within a new DHS Southern Border and Approaches Campaign Plan. The three task forces set up under the 

Campaign Plan—Joint Task Forces East, West, and Investigations—operate cooperatively to maintain effective border security, 

and Coast Guard Vice Admiral Dean Lee is the Director for the 

Joint Task Force East. 

In addition, the Commandant, Admiral Zukunft, has signed the 

Coast Guard Western Hemisphere Strategy that outlines three priorities: combating networks, securing borders, and safeguarding 

commerce. 

Thank you, sir. 
1414 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Alles appears in the Appendix on page 1452. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Admiral. 

Our next witness is Randolph D. Alles—‘‘Tex,’’ I guess you call 

him? I like that name. Mr. Alles is the Assistant Commissioner for 

the Office of Air and Marine with the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection in the Department of Homeland Security. Office of Air 

and Marine is the world’s largest aviation maritime law enforcement organization. Before joining OAM, Mr. Alles served in the 

U.S. Marine Corps for 35 years, retiring in 2011 as a Major General. Mr. Alles. 

TESTIMONY OF RANDOLPH D. ALLES,1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF AIR AND MARINE, U.S. CUSTOMS AND 

BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Mr. ALLES. Thank you very much, sir. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, and distinguished Members of the Committee, 

it is an honor to appear before you today and also with my Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) cohorts and also Coast Guard, 

who we work with extensively daily. 

The threat in the maritime environment is dynamic. Smugglers 

continually adjust their tactics in order to counter our latest efforts 

to apprehend them. Increasingly, smugglers exploit normal traffic 

patterns to conceal their intent, often mimicking a legitimate recreational or commercial voyage. Small vessels in particular are 

ideal conveyances for this tactic because they operate in a largely 

unregulated environment, while providing ample opportunity for 

concealing people or cargo. 

OAM thrives by being extremely efficient and adaptive. Our 

unique authorities and specialized capabilities enable us to bridge 

border environments and jurisdictions, providing important continuity to investigations. OAM’s marine interdiction agents have a 

singular law enforcement mission. They are empowered particularly to take necessary action, including conducting searches and 

participating in investigations, obtaining and serving warrants, 

making arrests of U.S. citizens, and also seizures of property. 

Our agents undergo intense training in maritime tactics in order 

to swiftly and safely interdict smuggling threats and mitigate the 

dangers of prolonged pursuits. Additionally, they are experts in 

interview technique and are well versed in applicable laws. 

OAM agents, sometimes in plain clothes or undercover, routinely 

collaborate with investigative partners on covert surveillance and 

enforcement operations in the maritime domain. This capability is 

essential to combating a threat that thrives on concealment in legitimate traffic. 

OAM’s specialized fleet of vessels, particularly our next-generation coastal interceptors, are built from the hull up for interdiction. 

These high-performance vessels enable our targets to respond 

quickly and effectively to incursions and to our territorial waters. 

With a limited number of agents and assets, OAM has a substantial impact in efforts to protect our Nation’s border. OAM efforts 

have resulted in the seizure of significant quantities of contraband 

and disrupted considerable illicit activity before it reaches our 
1415 

shores. In fiscal year 2014, OAM efforts resulted in nearly 5,000 arrests of subjects, 80,000 apprehensions, and the seizures of nearly 

800 weapons, $148 million in currency, and more than 1 million 

pounds of illegal drugs. 

Ultimately, maritime security requires a unity of effort. No single 

entity has the capability or capacity to address all aspects of maritime security. Information sharing and strong partnerships are 

critical to understanding and addressing maritime threats. We frequently participate in joint operations with a variety of Federal 

partners, including the U.S. Coast Guard, and work very closely 

with multiple investigative components, especially U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

The recently implemented Southern Border and Approaches 

Campaign, mentioned by Admiral Brown, leverages the various 

roles, responsibilities, and capabilities of multiple DHS agencies to 

comprehensively address border and maritime threats. OAM has 

been extensively involved in the planning of this effort on the Joint 

Task Force East, directed by Admiral Lee, the Deputy, is an OAM 

employee, Mr. Merton Cox. 

Moving forward, we will continue to work with our partners to 

enhance our detection, investigation, and interdiction capabilities 

to address emerging threats and adapt to changing conditions in 

the maritime domain. We will fully network our fleet and operational centers to share critical information in real time. 

OAM is an integral part of the Department’s border security mission. We blend specialized interdiction capabilities, skilled investigations, a modern domain awareness network, and seamlessly 

apply them across multiple environments and jurisdictions. In 

doing so, we add a critical layer of cohesion and coordination to 

maritime border security that no other agency provides. 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, distinguished 

Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to 

speak, and I look forward to your questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Alles. 

Our final witness is Mr. Peter Edge. Mr. Edge is the Executive 

Associate Director of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), for 

the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Department 

of Homeland Security. Prior to this position, Mr. Edge served as 

Deputy Executive Associate Director and before that as the Special 

Agent in Charge in the HSI Newark office. He has also served as 

Director of the Office of Congressional Relations at ICE headquarters and as Acting Deputy Special Agent in Charge of the New 

York HSI office. Mr. Edge. 
1416 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Edge appears in the Appendix on page 1462. 

TESTIMONY OF PETER T. EDGE,1 EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. EDGE. Thank you very much, Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Carper and distinguished Members. It is a great opportunity to be here today, and I would like to discuss ICE’s efforts 

to improve security along the maritime border of the United States. 

As you know, we work closely with CBP and the Coast Guard to 

target Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCO). Today, I will 

highlight our enforcement activities, operational challenges, and 

successes in the maritime environment. 

As interdiction efforts along the U.S.-Mexico land border increase, drug and human smuggling organizations have expanded 

their operations to include maritime routes where they attempt to 

evade detection by concealing contraband in sea freight, as well as 

in commercial fishing vessels. As a result of increased Coast Guard 

and CBP patrols, smuggling organizations are utilizing wooden 

fishing panga boats to travel further out to sea and up the California coast, to circumvent interdiction efforts. 

As a part of our ongoing efforts to identify, disrupt, and dismantle transnational criminal organizations, in 2005 we created 

the Border Enforcement Security Task Force (BEST). This initiative promotes cooperation and coordination with Federal, State, 

local, tribal, and international law enforcement authorities. Currently, we operate 37 BEST units across 16 States and Puerto Rico, 

19 of which maintain maritime units. 

The individual BESTs, located in maritime environments, face 

unique challenges along the shoreline because of the surrounding 

geography. For instance, since its establishment this past April, 

our newest BEST in Houma, Louisiana, has afforded us the opportunity to be more robustly engaged in the drug-trafficking organizations who are exploiting emerging Caribbean ports for maritime 

smuggling along the Gulf Coast. This smuggling is done via containerized cargo, commercial vessels, crew members smuggling 

drugs, and non-commercial fishing and sailing vessels. 

A notable success from the Newark BEST involves our creation 

of a carjacking task force in response to the dramatic increase in 

luxury vehicles being violently carjacked in New Jersey. These vehicles are then smuggled in containers from the Ports of Newark 

and Elizabeth to West African countries, and they are used there 

to fund illicit transnational criminal activity. The BEST investigations resulted in 29 arrests and the recovery of approximately 180 

stolen vehicles worth more than $10 million. 

Along the Gulf Coast, the Houston BEST focuses on maritime 

threats from Central and South America through its Mexico Corridor Initiative. This initiative leverages law enforcement and the 

Department of Defense (DOD) resources. The BEST tracked a commercial freighter vessel from the Dominican Republic that traveled 

to Puerto Rico via Venezuela. To interdict this vessel, the Houston 

BEST worked with our office in Puerto Rico and with CBP’s Office 

of Air and Marine to yield several arrests and seize nearly 2,800 
1417 

kilograms of cocaine. The Coast Guard made an additional 11 arrests, and the freighter was seized by the U.S. Government. 

In San Diego, the BEST has been successful in combating criminal organizations smuggling drugs and people from Mexico into the 

United States along the coastline of Southern California. The BEST 

is part of the Southwest Border High Intensity Drug Trafficking 

Area and leads a complex investigation targeting a large-scale maritime smuggling organization operating out of Baja California. 

Since its initiation in 2012, the investigation has resulted in significant enforcement outcomes across judicial districts. During the 

last fiscal year, the operation yielded over 30 interdictions and 95 

arrests, as well as the seizure of 81,000 pounds of marijuana and 

30 pounds of methamphetamine. 

A high-impact example of our maritime efforts outside of the 

BEST program is the Joint Operation Panama Express. This is a 

U.S. interagency strike force with significant HSI participation that 

identifies and interdicts multi-ton quantities of cocaine transported 

in the international maritime environments from South America 

through Central America and the Caribbean on to the United 

States. We play a critical role in Panama Express through our investigative authorities and our ability to leverage interagency resources. 

Along with the successes that we are achieving in the BESTs, we 

have also been designated as the executive agent for the Joint Task 

Force for Investigations that you heard about from my colleagues, 

and hopefully, we will be able to discuss more of that today. 

These investigative operations in the maritime environments are 

compelling examples of how the agency and the Department applies a ‘‘whole of Government’’ approach to targeting criminal organizations and preventing them from perpetuating their adverse impacts on U.S. border security. We remain dedicated to this cause 

and this mission, and we look forward to working with the Committee to effect some positive change in this area. We appreciate 

your support and the opportunity to be here today. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Edge. I will start the questioning I think with you. You mentioned transnational criminal organizations. I would like to get some sense of the percentage of 

your attention or the percentage of the activity devoted to the different types of crimes—in other words, drug smuggling, human 

trafficking, potential terrorist activity, the combination of the drug 

cartels with trans-criminal organizations, with potential Islamic 

terror groups like Hezbollah. 

Can you give this Committee some sense of the proportion of the 

threats and the proportion of your time and efforts trying to combat those various components? 

Mr. EDGE. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. First and foremost, our investigative efforts are, again, based on our foundation as a border 

security agency. So we start there, and we enforce a multitude of 

violations that affect our Nation’s national security. So, for drug 

smuggling, of course, drugs have, traditionally, always come across 

our Nation’s borders, and with our coordination with our counterparts at Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard, this 
1418 

is one of our primary missions, to keep that contraband out of this 

country. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But, again, is that 50 percent of your time 

and effort, 50 percent of the crimes being committed? Is it 90 percent? I realize there is no set percentage, but I just want to get 

some sort of sense of that. 

Mr. EDGE. Well, because we do keep copious information on our 

hours spent on our investigative activities, I would venture to say 

that a little under 30 percent of our time is spent in the area of 

narcotics interdiction and drug-smuggling investigations. Whether 

through a task force, we participate in a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Task Force (HIDTA), or through our BEST activity, 

we are continually working on a lot of drug cases. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. So fill in the other 70 percent. 

Mr. EDGE. The other 70 percent includes child exploitation, or 

counterproliferation investigations. Our responsibility is also to enforce the export control laws of the United States, so we find ourselves in a lot of different areas. In addition there is our immigration portfolio, which includes document and benefit fraud, and 

identity theft. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Alles, can you answer that question for 

your agency? 

Mr. ALLES. I cannot give specific percentages. I would have to go 

back and look at my—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. A general sense is kind of what I am looking for here. 

Mr. ALLES. I would say it is probably in the—I would estimate 

in the 40-percent range, if you talk about drug interdictions. On 

the TCO side, a primary focus in JTF–West is on these 

transnational criminal organizations, so that is a major effort in 

terms of taking down those networks. But I cannot give you a percentage of the time on that versus what they are just doing on regular border work. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And, again, so 40 percent drugs. Describe 

the activities of the trans-criminal organizations. 

Mr. ALLES. Well, from our standpoint, we are supporting ICE in 

their investigations on TCOs, or we are actually interdicting drugs 

in the transit zone or coming across the border. So when I give you 

that 40 percent, I am looking at the hours expended on my aviation 

side actually that is going toward those kinds of efforts. 

Chairman JOHNSON. What I am trying to get at here is certainly 

when we came down and visited your site and were down in the 

Rio Grande Valley, the more we investigate this through our hearings, we are hearing the drug cartels combining with trans-criminal organizations, potentially a nexus with Islamic terror organizations like Hezbollah. I am trying to get some sort of sense specifically what is happening. 

Mr. Edge, maybe you are the best one to answer that question. 

Can you give us some sense of what is happening? 

Mr. EDGE. Well, what we find is that in all the areas that we 

are responsible for investigating, there ultimately is one motivation, and that is financial. The bad guys around the world want to 

make money to support these illicit activities that take place all 

over the world. We have found that through an export control in-
1419 

vestigation, for example, the investigation that I mentioned out of 

north New Jersey where the vehicles were being stolen and exported; that money ultimately can be used—we have found in several investigations—for illicit activities that fund terrorist activity. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Is there a money-laundering aspect to the 

vehicle smuggling? 

Mr. EDGE. Yes, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Can you describe that? Because I have had 

it described to me, and it is kind of hard to follow. 

Mr. EDGE. Well, as far as the money-laundering aspect of this, 

and with all the violations that we enforce, there is a money-laundering aspect. We conduct these long-term financial investigations 

into that aspect by assessing the assets that the organization owns 

and has, and we try to follow the money through the various accounts. Depending on the nature of the crime, last summer when 

there was the UAC crisis that was down there at the border, we 

find ourselves in the situation where we were combating that by 

following the money. The funds that were being used to support 

those smuggling efforts, the human smuggling efforts on the southwest border, we were able to identify those accounts and seize that 

money, working very closely—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Can you give us some sense of the dollar 

volume of, just the transnational criminal organizations? What is 

the dollar value of the drug trade, of their activities? Can you give 

us some sort of sense there? Are we talking tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars? 

Mr. EDGE. I cannot give you an exact assessment, but it is in the 

billions of dollars. No matter what discipline or violation that we 

are enforcing, whether it is intellectual property theft or any of 

these other violations, such as human smuggling, there are funds 

that are used and received to support those activities and to increase the activities into other areas. 

Chairman JOHNSON. General McCaffrey in testimony before this 

Committee estimated—and it has not been disputed yet—that we 

were only interdicting on the southwest border somewhere between 

5 to 10 percent of illegal drugs coming into this country. That is 

through the southwest border. A lot of your activities involve interdicting drugs through the maritime borders. Is it a similar type 

percentage? Are we only by your estimates interdicting 5 to 10 percent of drugs? Mr. Alles. 

Mr. ALLES. I cannot provide an estimate on the percentage of 

interdictions, I mean the stuff that we do not interdict. So last year 

our office interdicted $14 billion in drugs, street value on the 

drugs. By trying to estimate what that is of the total of the United 

States is—again, we do not know what we miss. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Do you have a sense that we are interdicting a high percentage or a very low percentage? 

Mr. ALLES. I mean, I would sense that, we are not getting over 

50 percent. I just do not know, to be honest. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Admiral, do you have any input on that? 

Admiral BROWN. Yes, sir. The estimate that we have a national 

target of reducing about 40 percent of the cocaine supply approaching the United States. That is the nationally set target. It has been 
1420 

a graduated target. It is 36 percent this year. It is moving up toward 40 percent. 

Over the past several years, we have averaged between about 11 

and 18 percent in terms of maritime interdictions of the known 

drug flow toward the United States. One of the challenges of that, 

as was mentioned earlier with regard to maritime domain awareness, is this is illicit activity that is trying to be concealed for detection. So our confidence in what we call the denominator of that, the 

actual flow, is somewhat limited, but based on best estimates of the 

intelligence community (IC) and the law enforcement community, 

in the maritime we interdict in the range of 11 to 18 percent. For 

the Coast Guard it has been about 450 metric tons over the past 

5 years. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, so that just underscores really how 

unsecure our borders truly are. When we are talking about 5 to 10 

percent drug interdiction on the southwest border, 11 to 18 percent 

maritime—again, I am not being critical, but I am just laying out 

that reality. It is a really sad and frightening reality. Senator 

Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Chairman. 

I wanted to ask each of you, I know during your testimony you 

talked about seeing cocaine and to some extent marijuana being 

smuggled through our maritime borders. In New Hampshire, we 

have a tremendous heroin epidemic, and previously I have heard 

from officials testifying before this Committee that the heroin is 

coming over on the land border, on the Southern Border. And so 

I was just curious if you are seeing any heroin coming over the 

maritime borders. And if not, why? And could you help me understand how these different trafficking routes work as we want to increase our ability to interdict a drug that, frankly, is killing so 

many people in this country? In my home State of New Hampshire, 

we have people dying every day on this, unfortunately, and it is too 

cheap. Whoever is best to answer that. 

Mr. ALLES. I will take a whack at it here. I think, as you noted, 

Senator, the primary flow is across the land borders. So CBP has 

seen an increase in the amount of heroin interdicted through our 

ports of entry (POE), so that is a prime concern as the heroin flows 

coming out of Mexico through our ports of entry. 

Just as an example, another problem that we have is we have 

a lot of aircraft each year that fly up to the border, and they land 

and they drop off drugs. This is a typical load of an aircraft that 

was interdicted in Mexico off of CBP information. It had 389 kilos 

of meth, 79 kilos of cocaine, 79 kilos of white heroin, 1.5 kilos of 

black tar heroin. So there is definitely a high flow of the heroin, 

more so than we have seen in years past. It is a problem that we 

are working against. 

Senator AYOTTE. I am sorry. Go ahead, Admiral. 

Admiral BROWN. Yes, Senator. I would add that in the maritime 

domain, we have seen relatively small quantities of heroin, typically mixed in with loads of cocaine. For example, just about a 

month or so ago, we had an interdiction of a bulk quantity of cocaine, several hundred kilos, off the coast of Central America, and 
1421 

embedded within one of those cocaine packages was approximately 

10 kilograms of heroin. We have also seen that on the Caribbean 

side, again, in relatively small quantities. But as Mr. Alles mentioned, the vast majority of heroin that comes into the United 

States does so across the land border, not a maritime border. But 

our Intelligence Community remains alert to instances of heroin 

trafficking in the maritime, and to the extent that we can, we 

interdict those when we know they are coming. 

Mr. EDGE. Senator, if I may, I certainly concur with my colleagues, but also what we have seen with our investigative portfolio, is very similar to what they have seen. Most of the heroin is 

coming across the land border and the southwest border. But, of 

course, there is heroin that does come into the interior via commercial aircraft, and then that heroin is then transported to other 

parts in the Northeast and the Midwest. 

It is a growing problem, and it is a problem that we see at the 

Ports of Entry where it is, in fact, commingled with other shipments. You might have a shipment of legitimate goods that might 

have heroin inserted inside them through containerized cargo, and 

that is where our BESTs have been very effective. 

Over the past couple of years, we have seen a lot of commingled 

shipments, and the number of commingled shipments at our ports 

of entry are increasing. 

Senator AYOTTE. And to address this, I have also spoken with 

General Kelly, the Commander of Southern Command, about this 

issue as well and coordinating with—because he has real concerns 

that this network also can be used for terrorist activity, as you 

have discussed with the Chairman. 

What is it that you need to increase interdiction? Is it more 

planes, more people? What do we need to understand? Because we 

have a terrorism threat, we have the drug threat, all of which is 

bad for our country. 

Mr. EDGE. Senator, I think we have done an effective job, and 

we can always do better, of course, but we have coordinated our efforts both from the investigative perspective and the operational 

perspective, and also through the sharing of intelligence information. At the Department of Homeland Security, the National Targeting Center, which is at CBP, is a place that all this information 

is vetted and reviewed, and that has been a great source for our 

investigative efforts as well. We have joined CBP in our efforts in 

assessing that information that we get from all around the world, 

not just domestically, so we can use our resources smarter. 

Senator AYOTTE. So, Director Edge, I think all of us have been 

really shocked about what happened in San Francisco, and I would 

like to ask from the perspective of ICE, obviously you have a big 

piece of the job in enforcing our Nation’s immigration laws. And I 

want to ask you about the existence of sanctuary cities and what 

your view is on that, and whether it frustrates the mission of ICE 

to have these cities who obviously we saw in the San Francisco situation where there was not cooperation between the city and obviously the Federal immigration authorities, and it has been really 

shocking to all of us to see that this beautiful young woman was 

murdered. 
1422 

Mr. EDGE. I certainly agree that what happened in San Francisco 

is a terrible tragedy, and at ICE, we are attempting to work very 

closely with our law enforcement partners to ensure that circumstances like this will not happen again. And from the investigative side of ICE and Homeland Security Investigations, what we do 

very well is we work very closely with our State and local counterparts. We try to not only conduct our investigative efforts into 

areas that affect public safety, like our community shield gang operation where we are arresting and infiltrating gang activity 

around the country looking to arrest those foreign-born gang members who are committing violence and truly affecting public safety. 

So one of the things that we will continue to do is work closely 

with our State and local counterparts and encourage them to work 

with us, so hopefully something like this will not happen again. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, let me just ask you, if your State and local 

counterparts as a policy matter will not work with you, doesn’t it 

make your job more difficult? 

Mr. EDGE. It would make our job more difficult, but from an investigative perspective, we usually get great cooperation from our 

State and local counterparts. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, it seems to me that if your State and local 

counterparts will not cooperate with Homeland Security when it 

comes to a situation like we saw in San Francisco, obviously there 

is real danger to the public on this. So I hope this is something 

that we take up in this Committee as well further, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. 

Before we go to, I guess, Senator Carper, Chairman McCain has 

got some time constraints. We are going to let Senator McCain ask 

a question. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Edge, you really did not answer the question. The fact is that this guy was arrested and deported five times, 

and the sanctuary city—your order to detain was not honored by 

the sheriff of San Francisco. So if you call that ‘‘great cooperation,’’ 

fine. The rest of us do not. 

And on the issue, by the way, of the drugs coming into the 

United States, General Kelly said that he watches the drugs come 

in because of sequestration he does not have the capability to interdict. And so if you think you are doing a great job, General Kelly 

certainly does not agree with that because he does not have the assets to interdict. 

I have one question. What do you know about the published reports that Mexico has refused our offer to help in apprehending Mr. 

Guzman. 

Mr. EDGE. Senator, certainly I have heard those published reports, and we stand ready to—— 

Senator MCCAIN. But do you know if it is true or not that the 

Mexican Government has refused our offer to provide assistance in 

tracking down Chapo? 

Mr. EDGE. No, I do not. 

Senator MCCAIN. You do not know anything about it? 
1423 

Mr. EDGE. We have an office in Mexico City, and they are working very closely with—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, I would think that it would come to a 

higher level than our office in Mexico City, Mr. Edge. Thank you. 

Mr. EDGE. Yes, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Gentlemen, again, welcome and thanks for your 

testimony and your responses to our questions. 

I want to just go down the line—Admiral Brown, I will ask you 

first of all—and each of you give us two things that we can do to 

help the folks who with you, for you, be more effective in your 

work. Two things, each of you. And briefly. 

Admiral BROWN. I will try to be brief, Senator. The first one is 

support for the recapitalization of our offshore patrol fleet, specifically the offshore patrol cutter acquisition. And kind of following up 

on Senator Ayotte’s question before, what would it take for us to 

be more effective, our effectiveness in our maritime interdiction 

role is based really on three things: 

Information, actionable intelligence. That is generated primarily 

through General Kelly’s command, U.S. Southern Command 

(SOUTHCOM), and their Joint Interagency Task Force South 

(JIATF–S). 

Aviation. We need fixed-wing air support to locate the targets 

that JIATF points us to. That is a combination of CBP aircraft, 

Coast Guard aircraft, and partner nation aircraft. 

And then we need ships on station, and our long-range cutters, 

our high-endurance cutters, medium-endurance cutters, and the 

new national security cutter. And the future OPC equipped with a 

helicopter flight deck, an airborne use-of-force helicopter, multiple 

pursuit boats, and a seasoned Coast Guard crew and boarding 

teams are the most effective package in interdicting these threats, 

whether drug-trafficking threats, migrant-trafficking threats, or 

whether those criminal pathways are ultimately used for terrorism. 

Senator CARPER. OK, good. When you look at the President’s 

budget request for 2016 as it pertains to each of these areas, and 

you look at what the Appropriations Committees have reported out 

in terms of funding for those priorities, how do they match up? 

Admiral BROWN. We are still examining the marks between the 

Senate and the House on the—— 

Senator CARPER. Just stay with the Senate. Just stay with the 

Senate, if you will. How does the Senate—how have the appropriators done with respect to these priorities? And how do they match 

up with the President’s request, the 2016 budget? 

Admiral BROWN. We believe there is sufficient appropriations to 

continue with our acquisition program of record to recapitalize the 

fleet. Obviously if we had more, we could do better, but they are 

sufficient to recapitalize on our program of record which will give 

us 8 national security cutters, 25 offshore patrol cutters, and 58 

fast response cutters for coastal operations. 

Senator CARPER. I read somewhere—and I think it was in your 

testimony—that we have funded one particular class of boat, 

maybe it is the national security cutter, but your real need was, I 

think, maybe the offshore cutters. Is that correct? 
1424 

Admiral BROWN. That is correct. Our program of record is for the 

eight national security cutters that are already budgeted for and 

the offshore patrol cutter that is currently in preliminary design, 

and that acquisition will stretch out over a number of years into 

the future as our current medium-endurance cutters approach, 

some of them have exceeded, and all of them will ultimately exceed 

50 years in service before they are retired as these new cutters replace them. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

General Alles. 

Mr. ALLES. Thank you, sir. Two items you asked for—— 

Senator CARPER. Two items, please. 

Mr. ALLES. On the procurement side, the multi-role enforcement 

aircraft—— 

Senator CARPER. I am sorry. Say this again more slowly. 

Mr. ALLES. Multi-role enforcement aircraft is a procurement we 

need to continue. That is in the budget both in yours, the House’s, 

and the President’s request. That is an aircraft that does maritime 

patrol near shore. So it is not going to work down the transit zone 

with the Coast Guard, but does work with the Coast Guard and 

our assets in the customs waters of the United States. 

Senator CARPER. What kind of surveillance packages do they include? 

Mr. ALLES. It includes basically a radar package and an EO/IR 

eyeball on the aircraft, so it can do maritime surveillance and 

interdiction. 

Senator CARPER. How does it compare with, say, what you have 

on your P–3s? 

Mr. ALLES. It is shorter range. The radar is shorter range—— 

Senator CARPER. In terms of the surveillance capabilities, just 

compare it for us. 

Mr. ALLES. Yes. The surveillance radar is less range. 

Senator CARPER. Compare it with the surveillance capability of 

the P–3. 

Mr. ALLES. I mean, the P–3, the dome version reaches out several hundred miles, and this thing is probably going to go 30, 40 

miles. So it is a much more limited package, but we are using it 

in a different environment, too. So that is one item. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. ALLES. The second item is our coastal interceptor of vessel. 

We just awarded the contract for that. We have a program of 50. 

Currently we can probably buy out about 22 of those, so that is 

going to be a long-term need for us in terms of getting that budgeted, into both the President’s budget and the appropriations budgets, also. 

Senator CARPER. OK, good. Thanks. Mr. Edge. 

Mr. EDGE. Thank you, Senator Carper. From our perspective, our 

biggest resource is our human resource, and for our Border Enforcement Security Task Forces that we have around the country, 

we would like to make sure that they continue to be fully funded, 

and that our State and locals will be collocated with us as well as 

fully trained in the Federal law that they are going to assist us in 

enforcing. That is the first thing. 
1425 

The second thing is to have hearings like this and to continue 

the dialogue on these issues is of significant importance to us to be 

able to do our job and enlist your support in the work that we are 

trying to do. 

Senator CARPER. All right. In a trip that the Chairman and I and 

some others, I think Ben Sasse, took down to the border maybe 6 

months ago, one of the things that we heard about was looking at 

South Texas, the Rio Grande Valley, the ability to put into the 

water boats on a fairly regular basis as opposed to—what is it?— 

about 100 miles, they had maybe one place where you could put in 

a boat to do surveillance along the border. And the need was for 

some more shallow-bottom boats. And just talk to us about that. 

You do not think about it in terms of securing our borders. You do 

not think much about how often do you have boat ramps. Well, it 

turns out that was an issue. And the other one was in a lot of 

places, the Rio Grande was pretty shallow, and some of the boats 

we were on could not go into those areas. 

Mr. ALLES. So, sir, we use a series of different boats to work the 

Rio Grande. One is our SAFE boat, 22-foot SAFE boats. Those 

work in the deeper water of the Rio Grande. We have air boats 

that can work in basically almost no water at all. And then we are 

currently procuring a riverine shallow draft vessel which can work 

in 4 inches of water. That procurement is in process, and much like 

the Coastal Interceptor Vessels (CIV), we are going to have some 

struggles in buying out the objective we want. But those would 

help the Border Patrol in terms of those areas, those shallow-water 

areas. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks. 

The other thing I want, let us talk a little bit about intelligence. 

You guys are really intelligent, but talk to us about the availability 

and the quality of intelligence that we are getting to enable us to 

do our interdiction work, please. Admiral, do you want to lead us 

off? 

Admiral BROWN. Certainly. As I mentioned earlier, the Joint 

Interagency Task Force South, a DOD command under the leadership of General Kelly and his SOUTHCOM command, has the lawful responsibility for detecting and monitoring illicit traffic coming 

toward the United States. They do that using both national intelligence means and law enforcement intelligence from not only other 

complements of DHS but also the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 

numerous foreign partners. We have terrific foreign cooperation 

down there that alerts JIATF South to literally thousands of drug 

movements toward the United States every year. 

However, as we talked about, we are resource constrained in 

terms of aviation and surface ships so that only roughly 35 to 40 

percent of those targets, of those potential targets actually become 

active targets searched for with aircraft. 

So the intelligence systems work very well. They do a great job 

of fusing national level intelligence with law enforcement intelligence, and we have multiple partnerships to keep that happening. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Just very briefly, Mr. Alles. 

Mr. ALLES. Sir, one struggle down there in the transit zone is the 

reduction in DOD assets. When we apprehend the people ourselves, 

we get a lot of intelligence out of those people we have appre-
1426 

hended. So that has been a downturn for us with less presence 

from the Department of Defense down there. That has hurt us. 

Overall, most of what we do down there is directed assets. 

I would just say also two other important parts that we work 

with ICE on really is, on the investigative side, they provide us intelligence in investigations so our assets know where to go, and 

then also in the source information they buy from criminal sources. 

Those are all critical elements to us. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Mr. Edge. 

Mr. EDGE. And for us, certainly working with our counterparts 

in the Department of Homeland Security is a key and critical part 

of our intelligence-gathering process and sharing with our counterparts at DOD. So, we find ourselves in situations where we are 

working very closely with all the COCOMs around the world, in addition to our law enforcement colleagues. And the different centers 

that we have set up within DHS have been successful in hashing 

out that information. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. Thank you all. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before this Committee today. I appreciate the 

testimony. 

Senator Ayotte talked about the illegal drug trafficking across 

the borders, whether it is maritime or across our land borders. And 

in that discussion, you did mention meth is a growing problem, and 

we have seen that all across the United States. It is a big problem 

in my home State of Iowa. 

Unfortunately, I think it does present a unique challenge for you 

because often the precursors for methamphetamine are legal substances that have legitimate uses, so I think that would be very difficult to police some of that. But talk about some of the challenges 

that you might see with methamphetamine, whether you are seeing the finished product coming over the borders, whether it is a 

challenge with the precursors, and maybe how you deal with that 

issue. And all of you are welcome to answer. 

Admiral BROWN. I think if I may, Senator, I will tackle the precursors issue. We have talked a lot about the Joint Interagency 

Task Force South, which is focused in the Western Hemisphere, 

looking primarily at cocaine production coming from South America 

toward the United States. DOD also has a Joint Interagency Task 

Force West, based in Hawaii and looking westward toward Asia, 

the source of many of these precursor chemicals. One of their primary duties is to track those precursors as they approach Central 

America. It used to mostly be Mexico, now it is mostly Guatemala. 

And so they do a reasonably effective job of tracking those precursors. Mexico has clamped down substantially on precursor chemicals coming through that country. Now they are going to Guatemala. 

So as part of the Southern Border and Approaches Campaign 

Plan and part of the wider Central America strategy for the entirety of the Federal Government, we are looking to, with multiple 

partners, improve the governance across Guatemala and the other 
1427 

countries in Central America so they can improve their own port 

security and do a better job of clamping down both on precursor 

chemicals and on production. 

Senator ERNST. That is good to hear. General Alles. 

Mr. ALLES. I think on the precursor side for us at CBP it focuses 

at the National Targeting Center for cargo. So they are trying to 

interdict these precursors before they enter the United States. 

Typically, they are manifested as something else on the cargo shipment, so their job is to sort out what is actually in the container 

and what is legal and illegal before it comes in. 

Then there is also the cross-border flow, which we have seen 

more meth coming across the border. Again, a lot of this is not only 

dependent on what we do at the ports of entry, but how we work 

with HSI in terms of focusing our enforcement efforts. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. Mr. Edge. 

Mr. EDGE. Thank you, Senator. One of the things that we have 

seen with the production of precursors, we have 63 foreign offices, 

including Central and South America, where we have transnational 

criminal investigative units that have local law enforcement officers that work very closely with our special agents who are incountry. They have been a great source of our ability to identify the 

production plants for the precursor chemicals. Then we share that 

information with the intelligence community in the States and with 

our DHS counterparts in an attempt to be able to identify those 

shipments when they are coming across the border. So that is one 

thing that we see. 

Also, during the course of our investigative efforts, especially in 

the Midwest and that part of the country, we have had several 

long-term investigations that have resulted in agents coming across 

the meth production labs. And one of the biggest problems that we 

see is that those chemicals are quite deadly. So we have agents 

who are in these situations spontaneously who find themselves— 

who could be seriously injured. 

So we are trying to do our due diligence from the perspective of 

taking care of our agents to make sure that they have the equipment, they have the knowledge base, and they know how to handle 

themselves in these various situations. And it is an increasingly 

large problem that we find ourselves in. 

Senator ERNST. Yes, it is. I appreciate that very much. 

Of course, Cuba has been in the news a lot lately with normalization of relations there, but I would like to ask about the U.S.-Cuba 

immigration accord. I understand that with this policy informally 

known as the ‘‘wet-foot, dry-foot policy,’’ it allows any Cubans that 

actually reach American soil to stay in the United States and after 

one year they can apply for legal status and become eligible for an 

immigrant visa, they can apply for permanent residence, and then 

ultimately U.S. citizenship. However, those Cubans that do not 

reach American soil, if they are interdicted at sea, they are interviewed and then sent back to Cuba. 

I would like you to just confirm if this is, in fact, the current U.S. 

policy, and then also if you would give your opinion of that, if you 

believe that it does increase the activity of Cubans trying to immigrate to the United States through this policy. 
1428 

Admiral BROWN. OK. Thank you for that question, Senator. In 

talking about the Migration Accords, the Migration Accord or 

agreement that we have with Cuba dates back to the mass migrations of the mid-1990s. So since the 1994–95 timeframe, we have 

had agreement that allows for the direct repatriation of Cuban migrants who are interdicted at sea and are then screened to ensure 

that they are not going to be subject to persecution or torture upon 

potential return to Cuba. We then have a well-facilitated repatriation mechanism by which Coast Guard cutters go into a particular 

Cuban port, repatriate those migrants to the custody of the Ministry of the Interior. 

I had the opportunity from 1998 to 2000 to serve as the Coast 

Guard’s essentially liaison officer to the Cuban Border Guard. And 

since 2000, we have had somebody permanently stationed at the 

U.S. Interests Section in Havana to help facilitate that part of the 

relationship, and it is a very professional working relationship that 

we have with the Cuban Border Guard. And as relationships 

change with Cuba, we see that potentially being an avenue for continued cooperation in other matters of law enforcement and security. 

Senator ERNST. OK. Do you think that that encourages very unsafe immigration to the United States? It seems that most of those 

that are trying to come from Cuba are often in vessels that would 

not be worthy of going to sea. 

Admiral BROWN. We would say with all forms of illicit migration 

and unsafe migration by sea, they are often driven by, if not the 

policy itself, the perception of the policy, which is often exploited 

by criminal migrant smugglers who charge people money on the 

dream that they will arrive in the United States. 

Senator ERNST. OK. Is there any additional input from the members of the panel? 

Mr. ALLES. I think his statement about the desire to reach here 

and the danger associated with it does not just apply to Cubans. 

It applies to all that try to approach our maritime borders in a lot 

of these vessels that are typically very dangerous and not very seaworthy. 

Mr. EDGE. And, Senator, from our perspective, with our investigative portfolio—and we do run into circumstances where there 

are migration issues and there are large volumes of them—we usually call our colleagues at the Coast Guard to assist us. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. Thank you, gentlemen, very much. 

Thank you, Chairman Johnson. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

our witnesses for your testimony this morning. 

The issue of maritime border security is important to me in my 

State of Michigan. We are blessed with the second longest coastline 

of any State in the Union, second only to Alaska, and a significant 

portion of that is the border with Canada. So certainly if we are 

thinking about maritime security, we need to be thinking about the 

Great Lakes as well. 
1429 

I want to take this little different tack and kind of discuss some 

new potential threats coming up and how you are going to react to 

it. There have been a number of reports from the White House, and 

the Department of Defense, the national intelligence community, 

the Department of Homeland Security all talking about some of the 

national security implications of climate change. We are actually 

seeing some changes in the Great Lakes that I think warrant some 

thought, and that is the ice cover that we are seeing. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been tracking 

what has been very significant ice cover these last two seasons. In 

fact, last year, 92.5 percent of the lakes were covered by ice, particularly Lakes Huron, Erie, and Superior. The NOAA folks, although the data is still preliminary, are thinking this might be a 

long-term trend as a result of the melting polar ice cap. You will 

see colder weather coming in the Great Lakes, so we may have 

complete freezing of the Great Lakes for future years as well. And 

that can make it easier for folks to cross the border as well. 

In fact, earlier this year the Coast Guard intercepted a man who 

was attempting to walk across Lake St. Clair, which was fully frozen, on his way to Canada to cross the border using the ice. 

The 2012 Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy acknowledged also the use of all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles to smuggle drugs in the Great Lakes region. So if there is a possible way 

for folks to smuggle, they are going to take it, and then criminals 

will attempt to cross the Great Lakes. I do not think there is any— 

on ice is no different. So I am just curious as to what assets the 

Coast Guard and DHS may have to monitor people who are using 

small vehicles, or even walking, attempting to enter the United 

States now that there is in a sense an ice bridge across perhaps 

a very long border with Canada. 

Admiral BROWN. Thank you for that question, Senator. I think 

I will tackle the ice-breaking piece of it first and then the security 

aspects. 

With regard to ice breaking, we have seen record winters, particularly the winter of 2014, and a cooperative agreement between 

the U.S. Coast Guard and the Canadian Coast Guard provided ice 

breaker coverage to the extent that the United States, we are not 

prepared to provide on our own. We have a number of 140-foot icebreaking tugs as well as our 225-foot buoy tenders as well as the 

Coast Guard cutter Mackinaw, our only heavy ice breaker on the 

Great Lakes. 

Canada has a little bit more capacity and works with us very cooperatively on ice breaking to keep the shipping channels open as 

long as possible, and we foresee that relationship continuing in the 

future. We also have an in-service vessel sustainment program to 

upgrade the 140-foot ice-breaking tugs to continue them in service 

for an extended period of time. So we think that from an ice-breaking standpoint, we have sufficient capacity on the Great Lakes for 

the foreseeable future for most winters, with help from the Canadians in the heaviest periods. 

With regard to the security relationship, we have a great working relationship with Canadians both from an intelligence and operations perspective. The Coast Guard has a ship rider agreement 

with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that cross-deputizes offi-
1430 

cers of the two services to ride on each other’s vessels so the border 

cannot be used as an escape route essentially for someone who is 

conducting some type of nefarious activity. We also have an intelligence relationship with Canada that allows us to share information both about the border itself and about other threats. 

And the last point I want to make about Canada is that they also 

recognize that border threats do not emanate right at their border 

with the United States. Many of them come from farther away. So 

the government of Canada, through the Canadian Navy, provides 

Canadian naval ships that assist us with Coast Guard boarding 

teams on board to interdict drugs as far away as the coast of South 

America. So they have been terrific partners in all ways. 

Senator PETERS. Does the fact that you have an ice bridge now 

through miles and miles of border—do you need additional assets 

for that? Do you look at that differently? How do you react to the 

situation where people can take a snowmobile across many miles 

of border? 

Admiral BROWN. We work that primarily in conjunction with 

Border Patrol, and I would leave that to Mr. Alles. 

Senator PETERS. OK. 

Mr. ALLES. Yes, so from our standpoint, sir, in the winter when 

it freezes over, we are talking about the utilization of more emphasis on the frozen areas of the lake via snowmobiles, increased patrols. Our marine interdiction agents who obviously cannot use 

their boats in those conditions are pulled off the water and participate in those operations. 

If the flows were considered serious enough, we could look at 

using technology like the Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation Radar 

(VADER) to actually patrol the lake. That is the radar technology 

that detects walkers. It is employed in our UAV asset. Right now 

it is used exclusively on the Southern Border, but that is a possibility up there. There is a technology to address it. 

But those are the main ways they address those cross-border 

flows in the winter. It is a problem when the lakes freeze over. 

Senator PETERS. Mr. Edge. 

Mr. EDGE. Senator, from the investigative perspective, we have 

one Northern Border BEST in your jurisdiction, in Detroit, and 

three others across the rest of the Northern Border. And one of the 

things that we find is that the partnerships are very strong, both 

with our foreign counterparts as well as our domestic counterparts, 

and we are able to share the intelligence information that we get 

with our counterparts at CBP and Coast Guard. 

So hopefully in the future we will be able to see the program 

grow along the Northern Border, because we certainly recognize 

that there is a significant problem with smuggling, with the use of 

snowmobiles and skis and the like. So we look forward to communicating with you in the future. 

Senator PETERS. Good. Well, I appreciate that. 

Commissioner Alles, you mentioned some of the radar assets as 

well, and according to the Office of Drug Control Policy’s latest 

Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy Report, they claim that 

radar coverage of the Great Lakes region is far from complete, 

which could allow certainly low-flying aircraft to move drugs. But 

then you also talked about walkers and other folks along that area. 
1431 

So the report called for action to enhance some of our air and maritime efforts, particularly when it came to radar assets. 

Where are we on that? How do you view that? Is there anything 

we need to do? 

Mr. ALLES. So currently there are no active sites on the lake. On 

Lake Erie, there are three radar sites that are being permitted and 

installed. I do not have the exact locations, but I understand they 

are on the eastern end of the lake. 

Also, as we continue to procure the multi-role enforcement aircraft, which is a maritime patrol aircraft, that provides you more 

radar density. We will eventually base those on the northern tier— 

not currently. We do not have enough density to do that, but that 

is the objective of the program eventually. 

Senator PETERS. Great. Thank you so much. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Lankford. 

Senator LANKFORD. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Let us 

talk a little bit about the movement of narcotics through the gulf 

and the Caribbean area and then coming up the budget the Pacific 

side as well, all the way up the coast. We talked a little bit about 

the assets that you have requested, what you have, and the process. This number keeps sticking with me, Admiral Brown, that you 

had mentioned before, between 11 and 18 percent of known narcotics that we are able to actually do interdiction on. 

So just to clarify, that is, we have intelligence, we are aware that 

we at least have a high suspicion that this particular vessel is carrying some sort of illegal drugs, between 11 and 18 percent of those 

that we know about we are actually able to interdict. 

Admiral BROWN. OK. It is slightly different than that, Senator. 

The 11 to 18 percent is of the estimated flow, total drug flow toward the United States, we interdict—by weight, we reduce that 

supply by about 11 to 18 percent with a national target of 36 percent, going up to 40. 

With regard to individual events about which we have known intelligence, JIATF South and SOUTHCOM estimate that they can 

only target about 37 percent of those events, but that overall, once 

they locate a vessel or actual—the Coast Guard’s kind of interdiction performance, once a vessel has been sighted as a target, our 

interdiction performance is between 85 and 90 percent. So it really 

is a matter of turning the known intelligence into a sighting or a 

detection that we can then target with the vessel, with the shiphelicopter-boarding team combination. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. So what does it take to get that done? 

Let us talk about the dynamics of this. If we are targeting that 

number, somewhere around 70 percent then of what we think is 

there we are not interdicting, what will it take to get that number 

up? 

Admiral BROWN. I would say that as a government, aviation, 

long—persistent surveillance, whether it is in the form of fixedwing aviation, national assets, unmanned systems, persistent surveillance that can be targeted until a very thinly populated fleet of 

surface vessels can get there. 
1432 

Senator LANKFORD. So we are talking about we are aware of it 

leaving, but we are not able to track it the whole way, and at some 

point in the vast ocean or the gulf we are losing it. 

Admiral BROWN. Correct. And when you mention the vast ocean, 

just in the eastern Pacific alone, the area that we are talking about 

is an area equivalent to the continental United States that may be 

patrolled by three to four ships at a time. 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 

Admiral BROWN. All of which have to refuel somewhere on the 

east coast, notionally speaking. And I mentioned earlier, in addition to the information, much of which we have, the aviation, much 

of which we do not have, and the ships on station, right now the 

Coast Guard is significantly challenged by our ability to keep our 

older ships, our 30-to 50-year-old medium-endurance cutters on 

station. Last week alone, while we projected to have seven ships on 

station in the Caribbean and the Florida Straits, we actually only 

had two because five of them had mission-limiting casualties. And 

so the recapitalization of our offshore patrol cutter fleet becomes to 

us the linchpin of success for decades to come. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. So when does that get turned around, 

when we go from two ships back to seven? 

Admiral BROWN. Well, thanks to some great efforts by our logistic system, those ships are back up and operating. But, again, we 

missed almost a week on station for many of them, and that time 

on station cannot be regained. 

Senator LANKFORD. So the aircraft, what is the most efficient delivery system there? What is the best asset for us that? Is that an 

unmanned? Is that manned? I know they have different missions 

and different capabilities. But when you look at trying to dramatically increase the number of aircraft that are there, actually tracking what we think is moving narcotics, what is the most efficient 

way to get that done? 

Admiral BROWN. I think perhaps Mr. Alles could comment on 

that more effectively based on his experience in aviation? 

Mr. ALLES. Yes, I think right now the manned aircraft is more 

effective because of the limitations on employing the Unmanned 

Aircraft System (UAS) in the airspace. So we are eventually moving down to put a sense-and-avoid system on our Predator aircraft 

UAS system. With that we can fly more liberally in international 

airspace. Right now we have restrictions on flying outside of air 

cover. So actually it is your manned aircraft. 

But the other part I think we ought to get to is you are kind of 

asking the question of how do I secure a maritime border, and to 

me that is really five components: It is maritime domain awareness 

that we are talking about. It is law enforcement information, because merely having coverage does not tell me if a vessel is legitimate or he is doing illegitimate activities. So I need information 

from investigations. I have to have response capability, which he 

mentioned about in terms of the cutters. For me it is in terms of 

coastal interceptors. I have to have unity of effort because I do not 

have all the information at CBP. The Coast Guard does not have 

it. Not even ICE has all of it. It has to be a combined effort, Federal, State, local. And then, finally the small-vessel accountability 

piece we have not really talked about, but we have 12 to 15 million 
1433 

small vessels in the United States, and they basically are unregulated in that regard. So whether they are doing legitimate or illegitimate activity is very hard to know, and so the accountability of 

those vessels for us is a major challenge. 

The fact that we do not have any kind of device on those vessels 

like an AIS system that is your beacon system that goes on your 

larger, 300-ton and up vessels, is a substantial challenge for us. 

But that is a regulatory issue that we cannot really address. It 

would require action by the Congress. 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. So initially what I am looking for were 

the gaps. When we have intelligence that tells us we have some 

sort of vehicle and it is suspected to be carrying narcotics and we 

are not able to interdict that, that is the first warning sign to say 

of those five you listed, we are missing one, at least one, where 

there is a gap in there. The worst-case scenario for us and for you 

in law enforcement is to say I suspect there is illegal activity going 

on and I can do nothing about it. 

So, to me, the first step is let us find out what is missing in that 

gap. Let us try to fill that gap, because we have a long-term strategic issue on that. 

When you mentioned the unmanned aerial systems as well, your 

hesitation is that is not a platform we can use because of the regulatory status? Because of what? 

Mr. ALLES. Because of the regulatory status to operate in international airspace without its own ability to sense and avoid aircraft. It needs that to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) rules. That is the issue for the platform. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Are we unifying our other fixed-wing 

aircraft to make sure we are getting efficiency? There is an issue 

that has happened in the past with having multiple different types 

of aircraft, because then you have multiple maintenance folks, you 

have multiple parts, replacement, if one goes down, it is harder to 

be able to fix it. 

Mr. ALLES. Well, I think the direction we are going there, both 

for the Department of Homeland Security—we have constructed a 

joint operation requirements document for maritime patrol aircraft 

that addresses the mission system on the airplane. So our main 

issue there is we want to get our airplanes linked together so they 

can pass information between themselves and operations center, 

like our air and marine operations center, or Coast Guard sectors, 

and we are moving in that direction with this joint operation requirements document. I think that is definitely—— 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Mr. Chairman, may I have the luxury 

of having one more question? I need to ask about Cuba and follow 

up on what Senator Ernst was talking about as well. What are you 

seeing as far as the rise and the fall of the number of individuals 

coming from Cuba trying to come into the United States? I saw 

some written statements about some numbers there. I would like 

to know where we are currently today or as soon as we can. 

Admiral BROWN. In the maritime domain, the number of Cuban 

migrants that have attempted to come to the United States has 

upticked over the past 2 years, fiscal years 2014 and 2015, as compared with the 5 years prior. But, still, that level remains below 

kind of our 10-year historical average. 
1434 

So we perceived a slight uptick shortly after the announcement 

of change in relationships. As I mentioned earlier, we think that 

the perception of U.S. policy or potential change in U.S. policy is 

often a driver of migration and often fueled by migrant-smuggling 

organizations that profit from that uncertainty. 

Senator LANKFORD. So has that number gone back down or has 

it stayed high? 

Admiral BROWN. That number has since gone back down on a 

month-to-month basis compared to what we saw in December and 

January. And, again, it is back down to historical norms now. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Lankford, let me just enter something into the record, some facts on that. Between December 1 and 

December 16, 2014, the Coast Guard interdicted about 80 Cubans. 

On the 17, President Obama announced the new U.S. policy toward 

Cuba. Between December 17 and December 31, 2014, the Coast 

Guard interdicted 419 Cubans, a 423-percent increase. 

To address this, the Coast Guard deployed direct repatriation immediately and began sending those interdicted in the waterways 

back to Cuba. As a result, Cuban interdictions fell to 254 from January 1, 2015, and, according to this have now returned to more 

normal levels. Is that basically correct? 

Admiral BROWN. That is accurate, sir. Normally, in the winter 

months the flow trails off, so those numbers were fairly high. The 

numbers now month to month are about 300, which, for the summertime, is about normal and certainly well within the normal 

range. And I would add that this perception of policy issue, as Mr. 

Alles said before, applies not only to Cuban migrants but to Haitian migrants as well. A few years ago, we saw a significant spike 

in Haitian migrants trying to go from the Dominican Republic toward Puerto Rico. We were then able to come up with a policy solution to that of expedited removal of Haitians who had landed in 

Puerto Rico or the islands of the pass between Dominican Republic 

and Puerto Rico, and we were able to get a lid on that. 

So it is a combination of policy, operations, but also public messaging in addition to the additional operations effort that we made. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So bottom line, U.S. policy creates direct incentives and disincentives for illegal immigration. 

Admiral BROWN. Correct. And as I mentioned before, smuggling 

organizations absolutely exploit uncertainty or perceived changes 

in policy to profit from people’s desire to get to the United States. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. A couple years ago, my family took off between 

Christmas and New Year’s Day, and we went on a cruise out of 

Florida into the Caribbean, and the first morning—we left at night, 

and the first morning out, about 8 in the morning, I said to my 

wife, we were in our cabin, and I said, ‘‘I do not feel like we are 

moving.’’ And she said, ‘‘Go back to sleep.’’ 

Anyway, I went out on this little balcony on our cabin, and I 

went out there, and the Caribbean was just glass, just like glass. 

And I said, ‘‘I do not think we are moving.’’ 

And then the captain of the ship came on the P.A., and he said, 

‘‘We are not moving.’’ And what we had stumbled across out there 

in the night was a boat with Cubans trying to make it to the 
1435 

United States. And it was Christmas morning, and literally we 

stayed with them. We had already been with them for 3 or 4 hours. 

They had been out to sea for a week or two. And we stayed with 

them. A couple of people were in bad shape. We brought them in, 

fed them, gave them water, and attended to their medical needs. 

We stayed with them for another 6 hours, and it made us late on 

our cruise to get to these different islands we were supposed to go 

to. Nobody ever complained. We literally stayed there as humanitarians on Christmas morning. I thought it was pretty extraordinary. 

And then the Coast Guard arrived, and they took charge, and we 

headed out. And they took those folks back to Cuba. There were 

no kids on the boat. There were no unaccompanied minors. And my 

guess is that most of the folks we find at sea that are trying to 

make the trek by boat from Cuba to the States, my guess is there 

are not a lot of unaccompanied minors. 

What we deal with, as you know, certainly as Mr. Alles knows, 

what we deal with on the Southern Border is a lot of unaccompanied minors, a lot of families with kids. We just do not see that 

sort of thing coming in from Cuba. It will be interesting to watch 

what happens in the months ahead as we move toward more normalized relations. 

I want to follow up a little bit on James’ question, and he was 

talking about drones. In the old days, Mr. Alles, I spent a lot of 

my life on Navy P–3 aircraft, maritime patrol aircraft, and we were 

pretty good at tracking Soviet nuclear submarines when we had 

good intelligence. If we actually knew what part of the ocean to go 

to and search, we were pretty good at finding those guys. It helped 

having sonobuoys that worked and were efficient and highly sensitive. It helped to have a crew on board who knew how to run the 

equipment. They have really sophisticated surveillance equipment. 

It helps to have maintainers of the aircraft so we could actually fly 

and not have to board our flights. 

But when you think about those different components—good intelligence, aircraft that have the kind of surveillance equipment 

needed, folks that are trained to operate that equipment, folks that 

are able to maintain that equipment, and to keep the airplanes flying—when you think about those components and you think about, 

for example, drones or these other shorter-range maritime patrol 

aircraft, Mr. Alles, how do those factors weigh in with respect to 

whether it be the drones or the—what are they called, the shorterrange aircraft, maritime patrol? 

Mr. ALLES. The multi-role enforcement aircraft. 

Senator CARPER. There you go. Is there a designation, something 

8? What is it? S–8? I do not know. 

Mr. ALLES. No, sir. It is a Twin Beech, is what it is. A Beech 350 

I think it is. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. ALLES. Is what the aircraft actually is. 

Senator CARPER. Talk about those components as they apply to 

these aircraft, the drones and these aircraft. 

Mr. ALLES. Well, I think you have highlighted the key component 

of this thing. Each aircraft has its kind of space it operates best 

in. The drone gives me long endurance. It does not have quite the 
1436 

radar range that some of my P–3s have. I should be specific here 

because some of the P–3s have the long-range apps radar on board, 

and the rest of them, six of them have the SeaVue, which is the 

shorter-range radar, the same as the Guardian UAV does. But the 

critical part really here, as has been mentioned by the Admiral and 

also by Pete over here, is really the intelligence. So how do I know 

where to put the aircraft so it can actually find the vessel? So in 

JIATF South, that is the model. The aircraft does not go out there 

unless we have information on what he is looking for. 

Now, without the aircraft, we will never find the vessel. He will 

go to his destination and deliver his drugs. But without the information, the aircraft will patrol for hours and likely find nothing. 

So I would say that same model applies if you think about U.S. 

coastal lines, too, is we need that kind of information, that kind of 

law enforcement intelligence that allows us to put our aircraft in 

the right places to patrol and actually find these vessels as they 

are coming inbound. So that is a key part. 

And then each airplane—the Multi-Role Enforcement Aircraft 

(MEA), our Dash 8 is also a maritime patrol aircraft, longer range, 

and the Guardian UAV, and then also finally the P–3—has its particular element it operates in based on the performance characteristics of the airplane and the radar it has on board. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. 

Another one for Admiral Brown and probably Mr. Alles as well. 

Let me just go back to the unmanned aerial systems for a second. 

General Alles and Admiral Brown, can you talk a little bit with us 

about your use of drones in the maritime—you talked a little bit 

about it, but, Admiral Brown, how effective are they in spotting 

traffickers, other kinds of illegal activities? 

Admiral BROWN. Thank you for that question, Senator. We have 

had some successes in partnership with CBP on using unmanned 

aerial systems for interdictions. I recall a very good case off of 

Puerto Rico where a maritime patrol aircraft first spotted a suspect 

vessel, then handed it off to an unmanned aerial system that maintained surveillance until a Coast Guard cutter was able to get on 

scene and do the interdiction. So we have had successes with that. 

The Coast Guard, in addition to the partnership program with 

CBP on the Guardian, has also two other unmanned aerial system 

programs. One is a shipboard UAS program. We have kind of had 

some fits and starts on that. Some of them, as you have mentioned, 

Senator, are more people-intensive than we first would have anticipated. In fact, I think within DOD they have actually changed 

terms from ‘‘unmanned’’ to ‘‘remotely piloted’’ to put emphasis on 

the fact that there is still a pilot, just not on board the asset. 

And then we are also working on small, essentially handlaunched unmanned aerial systems for closer-range surveillance 

and for a variety of applications. Right now we are testing them 

in the Arctic for ice breaking, to find leads in the ice and other environmental concerns. So we have multiple programs, all of them 

in some nascent stage, but we have had some successes. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks. 

Mr. Alles, let me ask a quick follow up. The Chairman and I 

have been sitting here before with the Inspector General (IG) I 

think from DHS and talking to us about drones and saying they 
1437 

are not as effective, we are not getting our money’s worth out of 

the drones. We heard about a report maybe 3, 4, 5 months ago 

from the Inspector General, and just give us an update. I know 

there has been work underway to try to address the concerns 

raised by the Inspector General. How are we doing? 

Mr. ALLES. Yes, sir. So some of the concerns he addressed are 

underway in terms of addressing those. They address the concept 

of operations (CONOPS) we had that needed to be updated and is 

currently being updated. We talked about the flying hours of the 

program. We have a disagreement on that. We are shooting to get 

into the 6,000-to 9,000-hour range. We are going to update the 

CONOPS so they cannot draw a false inference from that CONOPS 

on how many hours we want to fly that. So that should correct 

that. 

In terms of the actual effectiveness of the drone, I will just give you an example. For this year it is now responsible for $561 million 

of contraband seizures, and the year is not over yet. So I think in 

terms of flying hours compared to what it costs to operate it, it is 

giving us a tremendous return on investment. So I would disagree 

with the assessment that the drone does not produce for us, as we 

talked about earlier when you all came down to Corpus Christi, I 

think it was in January. But same opinion there. It is still being 

verified even this year with the numbers it has produced so far in 

fiscal year 2015. 

Senator CARPER. Just keep in mind, as we figure out how to fund 

2016, if there are things that we need to be doing to support 

whether it is pilots, whether it is maintenance, to make—I want 

to make sure—we spent all this money on drones. We want to 

make sure we are getting our money’s worth, and if there is some 

component that is missing, that we need to be mindful of, please 

let us know. 

A last question, if I could. We are interested in root causes. The 

Chairman and I are very much interested in root causes. I think 

the root cause of a lot of what we talked about here today is our 

insatiable appetite for illegal drugs. That is really the root cause, 

and it is a hard one to solve. So what we do instead is we address 

symptoms of those problems. 

The Chairman and I may be heading down to Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador sometime in a couple of months, I hope, and 

I think with that in mind, Mr. Edge, at some point in your testimony you talked about a joint operation that led to the convictions 

and extraditions of, I think, one or two major players in the 

transnational criminal network. I think it was in Honduras, and I 

think you stated that the extraditions had an effect on the flow of 

cocaine in Honduras. Could you expand on that just briefly and 

talk about the impact the extraditions have had on our relationship 

with Honduras, please? 

Mr. EDGE. Certainly, Senator. The relationship with Honduras 

has actually been very good lately as a result of the extraditions. 

The extraditions certainly sent a wave of concern among those who 

are involved in the criminal organizations down there, and also 

working very closely with our transnational criminal investigative 

units that are in that region of the world. We have several, and I 

think you have been to Panama and have visited there. But that 
1438 

region has been a focus of investigative activity that was certainly 

enhanced last summer with the unaccompanied children problem 

that we witnessed. 

But the relationship is strong, and we certainly anticipate that 

it will get better in the coming months. 

Senator CARPER. All right. My time has long since expired. I notice we have not started our vote yet, Mr. Chairman. Could I just 

follow up on this root cause thing. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Sure. I was going to as well. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you very much. 

Let me just ask each of you to take one minute, please, to talk 

about how we, the Chairman and myself and our Committee especially, can engage more effectively and our country engage more effectively in the Northern Triangle region? Please, just take a 

minute on that. Admiral. 

Admiral BROWN. Thank you, Senator. As I mentioned earlier, 

there is a Central America strategy now developed out of the National Security Council staff, and Vice President Biden is the one 

who—— 

Senator CARPER. And I am pleased to see that it has been funded 

by the appropriators—not to the full extent, but I think generously. 

Admiral BROWN. And I think that is terrific, sir. There are three 

key aspects to that strategy. They include security, governance, 

and prosperity. And I think the Coast Guard has a role to play, 

particularly in security and governance, but leading to prosperity. 

We talked a little bit earlier about precursor chemicals in Guatemala. So shipping out of Central America toward Wilmington, for 

example, with bananas and juice concentrates could be an important part of their economy if they had a relief from the pressure 

of corruption and the corrosive effect of cocaine traffic moving 

through Central America. So I think the appropriations for funding 

that strategy are a key component of moving forward there, and 

from a Coast Guard perspective, we want to put more people in the 

embassies in the country teams to improve our performance in all 

three aspects: security, governance, and prosperity. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much. 

Mr. Alles, please? 

Mr. ALLES. I think on the Northern Triangle side, our big contribution we can make from my office is continue to fund detachments down there to help in their law enforcement work. So we 

funded a detachment down to El Salvador this year, which also 

worked in Guatemala, and that was the Predator UAV that helped 

them on some of their law enforcement operations. So I think that 

is helpful in terms of doing the security aspect we talked about as 

the element of this strategy, and then other elements of national 

power need to come into play because, clearly, the economy is a big 

factor on why people migrate out of those countries. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Alles. 

Mr. EDGE. Senator, one of the things that we need to do in HSI 

is make sure we keep allocating the appropriate resources to that 

part of the world. We want to make sure that we fully staff our 

offices in that area of the world, so we can continue to collaborate 

with our foreign counterparts, and that we also maintain 

connectivity to our domestic offices in the States through this 
1439 

whole joint task force model because that is very important for us 

to build investigative efforts and also share some of the information 

that we can with our counterparts in that Northern Triangle region. It is going to be critical to our success to identify the threats 

before they make it to our shores. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you all. Thank you very much 

for your testimony today and your good work. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Again, I think in the course of these hearings, I think we have 

both come to the realization and agreement that the root cause 

really is our insatiable demand for drugs, the root cause of our unsecure border. 

In evaluating that, though, I think you have to really take a look 

at the history, and you have to kind of piece the puzzle together. 

So I wonder if any of our witnesses are willing to really speak to 

how that all came about. We have an insatiable demand for drugs, 

which obviously helped the growth of these—the creation and 

growth of the drug cartels. Drug cartels are businesses, so they are 

smuggling drugs, and most businesses look to expand their product 

lines, and that expands into human trafficking, sex trafficking. You 

are moving humans across the border. Well, let us take a look at 

illegal immigrants. Let us use them as a diversion for our drug 

trafficking. 

Can anybody speak to how those cartels have if not completely 

destroyed, certainly done great harm to the public institutions of 

Central American nations? Can anybody kind of speak to the history of that and what the current State is, which is, as pretty relevant as well? Director Edge. 

Mr. EDGE. Sure thing, Mr. Chairman. One of the things that we 

have seen through our investigative efforts—and, again, the foundation here is our investigations—the demand for drugs has resulted in an insatiable demand for money. And the financial aspect 

that I mentioned earlier, where we have a financial component to 

all of our investigations that we conduct, no matter what discipline 

they are in, there is a demand to make a profit. And that profit 

certainly is inherent in a need for these cartels to survive, to make 

more money, to commit corruption in those countries, and that is 

a big part of it. And that has become part of the culture in those 

countries. 

So one of the things that we try to do is, I think, the best course 

of action that we have taken, to enhance our international footprint, to communicate more effectively with our foreign counterparts at the law enforcement level, and that has yielded some pretty significant results. We have actually gotten an extradition out 

of a country that we otherwise would not have. 

So it is things like that that we have to continue to do to really, 

perhaps, see some progress and, perhaps, see the flow stem a little 

bit in addition to all-of-government effort to reduce the demand for 

the product. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Commissioner Alles, you look like you want 

to chime in. 

Mr. ALLES. I was just going to make a comment, as he did. It 

is the issue of corruption and how that basically erodes government 

institutions, and also the ability to do business. I am sure, as you 
1440 

recognize, if you are bidding on a contract and you have to bribe 

them to get the contract, I mean, that is, fraught with all kinds of 

problems and just undermines the institution. So I see that as a 

major problem for, not only in Central America but in Mexico, too. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Can you give me a sense of the progression 

or degradation of those institutions? Are they worse than 10 years 

ago? Are they getting better than 10 years ago? Admiral Brown, do 

you have any information on that? 

Admiral BROWN. I would say, sir, that the closest analog might 

be Colombia in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and perhaps Central America is in about that condition now, but with a combination—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Which is not good. 

Admiral BROWN. Which is not good, but also not hopeless. With 

a combination of significant national effort by the Government of 

Colombia and the people of Colombia, as well as a relatively small 

investment from the United States of people and money and time 

and resources, Colombia has reduced its murder rate, substantially 

increased its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and reestablished the 

rule of law almost over the entirety of the country, with the exception—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. That took extraordinary leadership, right? 

Admiral BROWN. It absolutely did. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Unfortunately, leadership—when I say ‘‘extraordinary,’’ I mean it does not exist very often. 

Admiral BROWN. Right, sir. And so the goal of the Central America strategy is to try to address at the same time the security concerns, the governance, the rule of law, and the institutions there, 

as well as improving the prosperity so that there is no longer the 

roots of corruption and also the pressure on people to move out of 

Central America so that they can rebuild their own countries and 

economies. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. I will give each of you an opportunity 

to just make a closing comment, something that, if we have not 

asked a question, you just want to get off your chest. But I do want 

to go back to the incentives and disincentives of our own policy, 

and I want to go back—because you spoke earlier about the problem we had in fiscal year 2013 and 2014 in Haiti. I want to get 

the numbers on the record. By the end of fiscal year 2013, 1,760 

Haitian migrants had attempted to enter the United States 

through the Mona Passage, as compared to 39 Haitians in fiscal 

year 2012. So it went from 39 to 1,760. 

And then basically we decided to enact a policy that immediately 

repatriated those Haitians, correct? Can you describe, first of all, 

exactly what we did? 

Admiral BROWN. What had happened, sir, was following the 

earthquake in Haiti in 2010, we had stopped removal of Haitians. 

And I have to different between repatriation—in the Coast Guard 

we use repatriation, maritime repatriation, migrants who are interdicted at sea who return to their country of origin or departure— 

from removal, which is the process after a migrant has landed in 

the United States. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Correct. But, again, repatriation is immediate, and it is noticed immediately. 
1441 

Admiral BROWN. So we never stopped post-Haiti earthquake the 

maritime repatriation process. Thankfully, that continued to work, 

and there was no increase in migration from Haiti in 2010 subsequent to the earthquake. 

However, the expedited removal of Haitians who were already in 

the United States was stopped at that time and was not resumed. 

And by 2013, migrant-smuggling organizations in the Dominican 

Republic began to take advantage of that by bringing Haitians already in the Dominican Republic to uninhabited islands that are 

U.S. territory between Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, again, because I really want to get this 

straight. So U.S. policy, we stopped expedited removal or repatriation back to Haiti, so the reality of the situation was that if you 

were Haitian and you got in the United States, you felt you had 

a pretty good chance of staying. 

Admiral BROWN. Correct. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And as a result, we saw a pretty good 

spike—nothing like we saw with the unaccompanied children, but 

we saw a pretty good spike of Haitians trying to come to this country illegally. 

Admiral BROWN. Right, accompanied by a spike in deaths and injuries of migrants who were attempting to make that cross. 

Chairman JOHNSON. A pretty dangerous journey. 

Admiral BROWN. Correct. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Which is not a very humanitarian thing for 

us to incentivized people to take a dangerous journey to lose their 

life. 

Admiral BROWN. So we did a couple things. First, working with 

the Government of the Dominican Republic, we asked them to increase their shore-side enforcement to try to stop this traffic from 

taking place. And within the U.S. Government, we were able to 

within our Department and with interagency partners—State, Justice, and others—we were able to reinstitute the policy of expedited 

removal, and ICE enforcement and removal operations began removing migrants who had recently arrived in Puerto Rico or those 

uninhabited islands, and very quickly, once that became public 

knowledge, the traffic across that vector essentially dried up. 

Chairman JOHNSON. My note here says that after the first removal, the maritime flow in the Mona Passage decreased by 80 

percent. 

Admiral BROWN. Correct. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. I just wanted to get that on the record. 

Again, I would like to offer each of you gentlemen an opportunity 

to make a closing comment. We will start with you, Admiral 

Brown. 

Admiral BROWN. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to 

speak before the Committee today, and I will just reemphasize that 

for us in the Coast Guard, the most important aspect of us being 

able to maintain maritime border security for decades to come is 

going to be the recapitalization of the cutter fleet through the Offshore Patrol Cutter Program. So your continued support for that 

will help us out greatly in accomplishing not only drug interdiction 

but all the other missions to which we are appointed. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Admiral. Commissioner Alles. 
1442 

Mr. ALLES. Sir, I think the key point I want to make here is the 

importance of having unity of effort across the Department. The 

JTFs are doing that for us. Each of our organizations brings unique 

capabilities to the problem set that we are talking about. They are 

not redundant capabilities per se. So I think it is important that 

we continue to have a high degree of unity of effort, and I think 

that is a good path that we are currently on. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Director Edge. 

Mr. EDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

the opportunity to engage in this dialogue today. I certainly appreciate you and the Ranking Member, Senator Carper, taking the 

time to have this hearing. And as my colleague Mr. Alles just indicated, it is critical that for ICE and the DHS to collaborate and to 

coordinate our efforts in an attempt to leverage our resources and 

have this dialogue with you so that we can continue to do that in 

the future and that we can all have visibility into all that is taking 

place out there in an attempt to protect our country—or secure our 

borders. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. EDGE. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I am sure Senator Carper would like to join 

me in thanking all of you, all three of you, for your service to this 

Nation, for your testimony, and for taking the time to appear here 

today. 

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

July 30 at 5 p.m., for the submission of statements and questions 

for the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(1443) 

A P P E N D I X 
1444 
1445 
1446 
1447 
1448 
1449 
1450 
1451 
1452 
1453 
1454 
1455 
1456 
1457 
1458 
1459 
1460 
1461 
1462 
1463 
1464 
1465 
1466 
1467 
1468 
1469 
1470 
1471 
1472 
1473 
1474 
1475 
1476 
1477 
1478 
1479 
1480 
(1481) 

ALL HANDS ON DECK: WORKING TOGETHER 

TO END TRAFFICKING AND ABUSE OF 

PRESCRIPTION OPIOIDS, HEROIN, AND 

FENTANYL 

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Manchester, NH 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:59 p.m., at the New 

Hampshire Institute of Politics, Manchester, New Hampshire, Hon. 

Kelly Ayotte, presiding. 

Present: Senators Ayotte and Shaheen. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. I would like to welcome everyone here for this 

hearing, which is part of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs field hearing. 

First of all, I would like to thank St. Anselm’s for allowing us, 

Senator Sheehan and I, to use this facility to host this important 

hearing and thank President Disalvo and all who are here from St. 

A’s for making this possible. 

Also, before we begin, I just want to welcome so many of you who 

are here, who I know are very involved with this issue today. The 

topic of our hearing is ‘‘All Hands On Deck: Working Together to 

End Trafficking and Abuse of Prescription Opioids, Heroin, and 

Fentanyl.’’ And I know that there are many in this audience who 

have made it their life’s work in all aspects of this when it comes 

to certain substance abuse, addiction, and law enforcement. 

So I thank all of you, and I am going to identify some of the leaders we have in the audience. If I miss you, just please know how 

grateful we are for you to be here. 

I know that Mayor Ted Gatsas from the city of Manchester is 

here. Tim Soucy, the Public Health Director from the city of Manchester and Chris Hickey, Manchester Fire Department Emergency 

Medical Service (EMS) Officer. 

We have Jay Fallon, the Executive Director of New England 

Health Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) and Chris 

Stawasz from the American Medical Response (AMR), who is the 

General Manager for New Hampshire and Maine. 

John Delaney, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC), Manchester District Office. Leo Ducey, DEA Resident Agent, Manchester District Office. 
1482 

A number of our police chiefs are here. Chief Rob Brown of the 

Goffstown Police Department. We have Chief Rich O’Brien from 

Goffstown Fire Department, so he’s the fire chief. He’s also president of the New Hampshire Fire Chiefs. This is an issue that our 

fire departments are dealing with every day. 

Chief Andy Lavoie from the Nashua Police Department. Jim 

Hardy of the Hillsborough County Sheriff. We also have Chief 

Jamie Burkush, who is the Manchester fire chief. Chief Bob 

Cormier of the Tilton Police Department and also the president of 

the Chiefs Association here in New Hampshire. 

And we have many from our treatment community who are here, 

so thank you all for being here. Among those are Dr. Cheryl Wilkie 

of the Farnum Center. 

I know many of you who are here. I just want to thank those 

from the treatment and prevention community who are here. I 

wasn’t able to get everyone’s names, but know we are grateful for 

you being here. 

We have the Acting U.S. Attorney, Don Feith, here. We have 

Jack Wozmak, who is the New Hampshire Senior Director for Substance Abuse and Behavioral Health. So, all of you, thank you for 

being here today. 

I am grateful to see so many here to be part of this hearing. We 

are here to discuss a public health and safety issue that is devastating New Hampshire communities and families: prescription 

opioid and heroin abuse, and the ever-increasing role of fentanyl in 

fatal drug overdoses. Solving this crisis is going to require all 

hands on deck and today’s hearing is representative of that approach. 

I am very grateful to be here with my colleague, Senator 

Shaheen. Senator Shaheen is the Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security. This is certainly an 

issue that is very important to our State and she has done very important on work on it, so I am grateful to have you here as well. 

This is going to require an all-hands-on-deck approach. That is 

why that’s the name of this hearing. Over the past year and a half, 

both Senator Shaheen and I have hosted a number of discussions 

on this issue throughout the State. At each of these roundtables, 

I have certainly heard from law enforcement, first responders, 

treatment providers, people in recovery, public health officials, and 

other community leaders, and certainly all of you here who serve 

are making the difference. 

Today’s discussion is going to be a little bit different because this 

is an official hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and this will be the official transcript. 

So our goal is to bring the testimony that we hear today back to 

Washington so that we can make a difference and so that we can 

spread this testimony around other members so they can understand the challenges we are facing in New Hampshire. Hopefully 

we can get some additional policy solutions where we work together from the Federal perspective and grow support for Federal 

legislation to help, which you are all doing every day. 

I want to thank our witnesses who are here today on the first 

panel. We are going to hear from Manchester Police Chief Nick 

Willard. He is the chief of our largest city, and certainly they are 
1483 

seeing this epidemic as such a challenge and they are seeing a 

grave increase in the number of those addicted to heroin and the 

law enforcement challenges that flow from that. I had the privilege 

on Saturday night of doing a ride-along with the Manchester Police 

Department, and within an hour and a half I saw officers and also 

the Manchester Fire Department emergency responders go to two 

heroin overdoses. And those two individuals, by the way, would not 

have lived but for the response of our first responders at the scene. 

I am very grateful as well to have Doug Griffin here today to 

share his family’s experience with heroin addiction. Doug and his 

wife, Pam, who are here today, and their daughter, Shannon, who 

is also here today. They tragically lost Courtney—their daughter— 

to a heroin overdose last year. And since then, they have made it 

their mission as a family to share her story about addiction, to help 

others who are struggling, and to prevent similar tragedies. So 

thank you for being here. 

We will also hear from Heidi Moran, who is a clinical administrator for Southeastern New Hampshire Services, who will provide 

her perspectives and insights as a treatment provider for New 

Hampshire residents struggling with addiction. She has been working on these issues for several decades. So thank you. 

I am also honored to welcome in our second panel three of our 

Federal witnesses who have traveled here from Washington and 

will testify after the first panel. I am pleased to welcome the Honorable Michael Botticelli, Director of the Office of National Drug 

Control Policy (ONDCP), the Honorable R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and John 

Riley, Acting Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Each brings a tremendous experience and background, decades of experience, certainly each of them. And we look 

forward to hearing from them, and we also look forward to their 

opportunity to hear directly from our New Hampshire witnesses, to 

bring that perspective back to the work that they do in Washington. 

Solving this crisis will take a multi-pronged approach with local, 

State, and Federal officials working together to identify and pursue 

effective strategies. There are a number of bipartisan legislative efforts that we have been working on in Washington to support New 

Hampshire and communities across the country that are facing this 

public health epidemic. Law enforcement is working tirelessly, as 

we will hear from the chief, to take these drugs off our streets and 

to go after the high-level drug dealers. But we can’t simply arrest 

our way out of this problem. I have certainly heard from law enforcement in New Hampshire that key pieces of policy need to confront not only the public safety issue, but we need more prevention 

efforts, more treatment options, and more support for individuals 

who are in recovery. 

If you look at the statistics in our State, it is staggering. The 

number of people who overdosed in New Hampshire is alarming. 

In 2014 there were over 320 fatal drug-related overdoses in our 

State, up from 193 in 2013. I fear from the numbers I am hearing 

from throughout our State we are going to see a bigger number 

this year. 
1484 

And those numbers, I think it is important to understand, do not 

reflect the number of lives that have actually been saved using lifesaving drugs like Narcan, which our first responders are administering almost every single day in this State. And if we did not 

have those lifesaving drugs, I can assure you that those numbers 

would probably, at a minimum, be tripled in terms of the number 

of people who would die from a combination of heroin, sometimes 

a combination of heroin and fentanyl, and, of course, the overuse 

of prescription drugs. 

There is not a corner of our State that is not affected by this 

issue. From our largest city to our smallest town, we are all seeing 

this, and, unfortunately, this is not something we can think about 

as something happening somewhere else or to someone else. This 

is all of our problem, and this is something that everyone needs to 

understand. It will hit you or someone you know sooner or later. 

That is why we need to do something about it and work together 

on it. 

We also know that addiction to prescription pain medications can 

often become a gateway to heroin use. According to a study from 

the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 

approximately four out of five new heroin users previously used 

nonmedical prescription opioids before using heroin. So that is one 

reason that we also need to engage our medical community, the 

pharmaceutical companies, and the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) as we look at the challenges we face on this. 

I am hoping that the testimony that we hear today will allow 

Senator Shaheen and I to bring this testimony to Washington to 

push for getting legislation passed, legislation like the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA), which I am proud to support. CARA focuses on prevention; it focuses on support for first responders; it focuses on strengthening prescription drug monitoring 

programs and launching a prescription opioid and heroin treatment 

and intervention program. 

There are also many other pieces of bipartisan legislation in 

Washington. What we need to do is get this to the Senate floor and 

get this legislation passed to give support to everyone in this room 

and really start working on the Federal level to give you more tools 

to solve this problem. 

We know that there are so many challenges to tackling this epidemic. We know that we do not have enough treatment in this 

State and that there are some challenges that we are seeing from 

Federal regulations that I hope that we can work to provide flexibility to our treatment providers so that we can have the maximum 

number of beds to help people who are addicted and are seeking 

treatment. 

Finally, it is clear to me today why we are here. No one person 

and no one agency can solve this problem, and we are here to listen 

and learn about further steps that we can take together to fight 

this public health epidemic on all fronts. 

So I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. I 

look forward to hearing your testimony. And I would like to turn 

it over to Senator Sheehan for her opening statement and then to 

our witnesses. 
1485 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHAHEEN 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, Senator Ayotte, and 

thank you for convening this field hearing of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. We very much appreciate 

all of the witnesses who are going to be testifying today, and for 

those of you who have come from Washington, we hope you will 

hear information that you can take back, that we can work with 

you to address what we all know is a crisis of heroin and opioid 

addiction. 

Now, as I know everybody in this room understands, this crisis 

is the most urgent public health and law enforcement challenge 

that is facing New Hampshire right now. And as we have heard 

from our law enforcement leaders, the answer is not just in putting 

people in jail. It is in prevention, treatment, and recovery. And as 

Senator Ayotte has said so eloquently, it’s going to take all of us 

working together to address this crisis. Individuals cannot do it 

alone. Families cannot do it alone. Law enforcement cannot do it 

alone. Public health cannot do it alone. We have to mobilize entire 

communities and all of our resources at the local, State, and Federal level to address this crisis, because this is literally a life-anddeath issue. 

Addiction is a chronic illness and it has no permanent cure. People do not find lasting recovery in a clinic. They find lasting recovery in their communities. They need social supports and they need 

to connect with a positive, healthy, caring community. This is the 

only way to sustain sobriety over a lifetime. 

Now, as Senator Ayotte said, there is a lot of legislation in Washington to address addiction, but the answer is education; it is not 

incarceration. It is prevention; it is not punishment. It is treatment, recovery, and rehabilitation; it is not just putting addicts in 

jail. And in addition to the legislation that is pending, we also have 

to make sure that the resources are there to address this crisis. 

As you heard, I sit on the Homeland Security Appropriations 

Subcommittee, and I am disappointed to have to come back and report that when that subcommittee did its work, when the Appropriations Committee did its work, some of the funding that is going 

to be critical to addressing this crisis was cut. So that means, in 

the Senate, we passed a budget that cut Federal substance abuse 

treatment programs. The Senate’s Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee voted to cut funding for substance 

abuse treatment by nearly $130 million, including a $50 million cut 

to the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment block grant that 

is so important to New Hampshire. That means we will lose about 

$200,000 in funding if that goes through, as it passed out of committee. 

Now, I think cutting funding is wrong, for two reasons. First of 

all, it is pennywise and pound foolish, because we will end up paying far more for incarceration and crime, not to mention the countless lives that will be shattered because of this crisis. So we have 

to do a number of things at all levels of government. Certainly in 

Washington, I think we have to not only pass the kind of legislation that Senator Ayotte talked about, but we also have to make 

sure that the funding is there and the resources are there, to actually make sure those pieces of legislation work and that commu-
1486 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Willard appears in the Appendix on page 1525. 

nities like Manchester, States like New Hampshire can address 

this crisis in the way that we need to. 

So, again, thank you all very much for being here, and thank you 

to all of our panelists for being willing to tell your stories. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. 

Now, as part of the protocol and tradition of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, all witnesses that come 

before the committee are sworn in. 

So I would ask that both the first panel and the second panel, 

if you would stand and raise your right hand so that I can swear 

you in. 

[All panel witnesses sworn.] 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. Please be seated. I want to thank 

all of you for being here today. The first witness we will hear from 

is Chief Nick Willard of the Manchester Police Department (PD). 

Chief Willard. 

TESTIMONY OF CHIEF ENOCH ‘‘NICK’’ WILLARD,1 MANCHESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF MANCHESTER, 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Mr. WILLARD. Thank you, Senators, for having me here today. 

I would like to start by thanking people like Doug Griffin who 

have experienced this tragedy and yet they have the courage to put 

a face to the epidemic. So I do appreciate the opportunity to sit 

next to you. It means a lot. 

As you know, I am the police chief in the City of Manchester, and 

I speak for all of law enforcement and probably to a degree our fine 

men and women in the fire department and the AMR ambulance 

who are out there saving countless lives. But for their heroic actions day in and day out, saving lives through Narcan, this tragedy 

would be even worse than what it is now. Manchester PD has confirmed 52 fatal overdoses. Those numbers may be different than 

what AMR tracks, but those are confirmed through the Medical Examiner’s Office, with an addition of over 400 calls for service. So 

as officers are being needed elsewhere, they are responding to medical emergency calls. 

We are now at a point where we are deconflicting through the 

DEA those very things. So the Senator went on a ride-along, and 

went to three heroin overdoses. We took that information, gave it 

to the DEA, and then were able to deconflict some of that information to see if there’s a nexus between each of them. And that is how 

far this has become. 

To kind of give you an idea of what we are looking at, we had 

a shooting in Manchester. We had officers go into an apartment 

unknown to us previously and we found it to be a drug house. And 

from that, we did an investigation that led to Lawrence, Massachusetts, and from Lawrence, Massachusetts, directly to Mexico. So 

now we know that there is a Mexican drug cartel, the Sinaloa drug 

cartel, that is fueling heroin to the streets of Manchester, New 

Hampshire. That is alarming. Just last week we shut down three 

drug houses, all within 100 yards of one another. Two of those drug 

houses were competing drug dealers, selling out of the same build-
1487 

ing on different floors, and yet they did so in peace and harmony 

because there are so many drug users and addicts in the city of 

Manchester and the surrounding communities that it is a targetrich environment for a drug dealer. 

So we need help. We already have partnerships through the 

DEA, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), and the Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). However, as I was reflecting on the name for this, All Hands on Deck, on some levels we 

do that. Chief Burkus from the fire department, Tim Soucy from 

the health department, and myself have come up with an action 

plan for 60 days. My task was the enforcements. I have done some 

high-end prediction enforcement with the New Hampshire State 

Police. I am going to be doing another initiative through the State 

Police and the DEA. But it is not enough. 

When you say ‘‘all hands on deck,’’ I look at the Chicago Strike 

Force model, the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force 

(OCDETF). I think that that would give us an opportunity to bring 

together all Federal partners, local partners, and not just in Manchester, but statewide. And we talk about those small towns and 

the communities and the county itself. This would bring the full 

weight of the Federal Government to bear. It would give us an opportunity to actually have a U.S. attorney in the working group 

with them at all times, so we can have more aggressive prosecutions. Currently, more often than not, we are actually going to the 

county level to prosecute our drug cases right now because we are 

just getting better results. They are taking our cases quicker and 

we are turning them over quicker. 

However, I would prefer to go the Federal route because we get 

larger sentences. So having somebody from the U.S. Attorney’s Office embedded with the officers who are out there fighting the very 

issue that we are talking about, let us make no bones about it: We 

are in the throes of human tragedies every day. And Mr. Griffin 

is going to speak to that. 

I believe in the treatment piece. I believe in the education prevention piece, the prevention through education piece. But I am a 

law man and I believe in enforcement. So every single time a drug 

addict who would not otherwise commit a crime because they were 

initially addicted through pain medication, and then they lose their 

job, and now they are out stealing from vehicles or breaking into 

houses, every single one of those vehicles is a victim in the city of 

Manchester. So the opportunity to give these people deferred sentences is not there. 

We do not have a drug corps. We need something similar to that 

in Hillsborough County, because I believe everybody needs to be 

held accountable. Maybe they are given an opportunity through alternative sentencing, but at the end of the day, they did victimize 

somebody in order to get themselves in the position that they were 

in. 

So I guess, moving forward, I believe in the partnerships. We are 

doing it now. I think the OCDETF model, modeled after the strike 

force in Chicago, would be a huge help moving forward, at least in 

my view. Because, currently, we are going after the more low level 

drug dealers that are causing quality-of-life issues within our 

neighborhoods. So if I have a drug dealer selling drugs out of a 
1488 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Griffin appears in the Appendix on page 1531. 

house, they are bringing in unsavory characters, not just from 

Manchester, but from surrounding towns. Prostitution increases. 

So people who live there have to wade through prostitutes, other 

people that would not otherwise be in that neighborhood, and then 

they steal things coming in and out of that neighborhood. 

I have decided we are going to take these drug houses out in 

real-time, but by focusing our efforts on real-time drug dealers to 

protect the quality-of-life in Manchester, we kind of missed that 

kingpin piece that we are talking about. And I think that most of 

that strike force would be a perfect opportunity to have that piece, 

but also get that aggressive prosecution that I think we desperately 

need. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. Thank you, Chief Willard. 

I would now like to turn to Doug Griffin, who is the father of 

Courtney Griffin. 

And Mr. Griffin, thank you so much for all of your work, and certainly I know that I speak for Senator Shaheen and myself that 

our hearts are with you and your family while you are here today, 

as well. 

TESTIMONY OF DOUG GRIFFIN,1 NEWTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you very much. Before I start my testimony, 

I would like to let you know that my testimony is based on the person I was before, not now. During all of Courtney’s problem with 

addiction, we were parents that hid her addiction, so we were in 

a world that was different than the world we are in now. 

So, Courtney’s story. She was born very early, about 5 weeks 

early, and her lungs were not strong enough to breathe. 

I have really got to get through this. 

So she spent the first 11 days in the Neonatal Intensive Care 

Unit (NICU) center, and we were really worried then that she 

would not make it. So, then, when we finally got her home, she was 

strong and she did well, and she started school. 

We lived in Salem, New Hampshire and she went through the 

first two grades in Salem. She was always a quiet kid, never talked 

much. Actually, she talked hardly at all. Then, as she entered third 

grade, we moved to our home in Newton and she started school 

there. She was a little chubby and the new kid, so she was sort of 

shunned, and she did not take well to that. So she did not really 

like school. She was very smart. I could tell, talking to her and 

playing games with her all the time, that she was really on top of 

things. School was not hard for her at all, but she just did not want 

to go, and a lot of mornings she would be crying, saying she did 

not want to go to school. 

She got into middle school and she made a couple of friends, and 

then things started to turn around for her because she had some 

friends. Then it was fun to go to school, and the friends would come 

over to the house and things were good. We thought things were 

going to go well. 

When she was 12, we sent her on the People to People program, 

where she went to Europe and did five countries in two weeks, and 

she saw things that most people I know still have not seen. When 
1489 

she came back, she was like an adult, and she would speak with 

adults more easily. It was like it changed her life. It changed our 

lives. And she was such a strong person that we bought her one 

of those Verizon prepaid phone cards so she could be sure to call 

home all the time, and she did not call home once. And when she 

got home, all the parents were thanking us for her letting their 

kids use the phone card so they could call home, because they 

missed their parents. Crazy kid. 

So when she got to high school, she got her first job, and she was 

working in fast food at Wendy’s here in Haverhill. And, of course, 

they take the kid that’s got the new job and they put them on the 

crazy hours, so she was working until midnight or later on the 

weekends. And she did not have a car, so my wife and I were driving her, dropping her off and picking her up. I would sit in the 

parking lot and wait for her to close every night, because I wanted 

her to have a job. I wanted her to learn a work ethic. 

We gave her a car and we were kind of relieved because we did 

not have to go get her after work. But the people that come in at 

that hour of the night at closing time are the people that you would 

never want your kid to associate with. And, of course, they did not 

have cars, so they needed a ride, and Courtney ended up giving 

rides to people that, I would never have had her give a ride to. 

Then she started being late coming home, and then her schoolwork started to suffer a little bit, and pills started missing from 

our house. Not on a big scale. Some things were missing. Money 

would go missing. But we were not sure whether we misplaced 

things or—you do not think someone is going to steal from you in 

your house at first. 

So the older she got, she got a little bit more into perk 30s. She 

was talking—she knew the word. She was talking about perk 30s 

and using drug words around the house that did not belong in our 

house. We never had them in our house before, and we were afraid. 

When she was getting ready to graduate from high school, she 

was accepted at the University of Hawaii. Because if you asked 

Courtney what she wanted to be when she grew up, she always 

had the same answer. She said ‘‘Hawaiian. ’’ 

And so I would not let her go, because I was afraid to cut her 

a check and put her on an airplane for fear that she would just further get into the drug thing. We were afraid at that point. I said, 

‘‘You are going to have to come work for me for a while, and maybe 

take some night classes and prove to us that you are ready to go.’’ 

And she said, ‘‘OK, Dad.’’ 

And she came to work for me. And I have a million parts in my 

inventory and she came in, she sat down, and she was easily able 

to handle inventory control. She controlled our inventory without 

an issue. She did our shipping; she did our receiving. That kid was 

brilliant. We listened to the radio every day, and outside of one 

door of my office was my daughter running the computer company 

and outside the other door was my daughter, Shannon, who is 

here, running the flower shop. So I had everything. 

After about six months, she had saved up enough money—thousands from working—because she did not have any bills and did 

not have anywhere to spend her money and was working all the 

time. So she went out and got a new car. And on the way home 
1490 

from the gas station, she ran into the boy who led her to heroin. 

And from that point on, our lives went straight downhill. And at 

one point in our house, we found one of these. And as you can 

imagine, nothing could be worse. 

So we started to try to get her treatment. She ended up in 

Hampstead Hospital where she was for nine days. When she came 

home, all she came home with was a list of where every drug in 

the world came from. Then she started disappearing for longer periods of time, and it started to snowball, and a $7,000 necklace 

went missing and then checks were written out of my company. 

And she was still our child, so I did not want to hurt her credit 

or get her arrested, so we did not tell anybody. We just started to 

look for help. So we Googled help, and the people that make the 

most money come up on top, and we just could not get her help. 

Our insurance company would not cover anything. My wife and I 

spent 100 hours in emergency rooms, waiting to try to get her admitted. They would keep her for an hour or so. They would release 

her. Even when the local authorities took her to the hospital, to 

admit her, they were out three hours later. Would not hold her. 

Sorry. 

It got to the point where we were frantic because we knew that 

we were going to get the call. We knew that she was using drugs 

heavily. I called the Farnum Center in Manchester and spent an 

hour and a half there going through an interview process where we 

were told that she would not be allowed to go. And our insurance 

company let us know that it was not a matter of life or death, so 

they would not cover the problem. 

So we got involved with local authorities who said the only thing 

you can do is kick her out of your house and cancel her insurance, 

because if she is homeless, she can get help in Massachusetts. So 

we kicked her out of the house and canceled her insurance and she 

moved in with her boyfriend’s grandparents. Shortly after that, her 

boyfriend was arrested and put in jail for a parole violation and she 

was all alone. Then she totaled her car, and she was further alone. 

She was just alone in a strange house with strange people. 

We know who sold her the heroin. He delivered it to the house 

that night. And she used it and she died of fentanyl. And the State 

medical examiner told me that it was a strength of about 80 times 

stronger than she thought it would be and that she did not feel 

anything. She would have just drifted away. So, in one day, we lost 

this. 

And just in closing, this weekend, her boyfriend died—in the 

same house, in the same room, the same bed—and was buried this 

week. 

That’s all I have. Thank you . 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Griffin. Unfortunately we hear 

too many stories of this happening, and just know that all of our 

prayers are with you and your family. 

I would now like to introduce Heidi Moran, who has a very important position providing treatment. I want to thank her for being 

here today, as she is the clinical administrator for the Southeastern 

New Hampshire Services in Dover, New Hampshire. 
1491 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Moran appears in the Appendix on page 1536. 

TESTIMONY OF HEIDI MORAN,1 CLINICAL ADMINISTRATOR, 

SOUTHEASTERN NEW HAMPSHIRE SERVICES, DOVER, NEW 

HAMPSHIRE 

Ms. MORAN. Thank you. 

Senator Ayotte, Senator Shaheen, and distinguished Members of 

the committee, it is my privilege and honor to address you today 

on behalf of my agency and all those New Hampshire residents 

who are struggling with the disease of addiction and would like to 

access treatment. 

Southeastern New Hampshire Services is a private, nonprofit 

agency dedicated to helping people recover from addictive disorders 

since 1979. Many clients come from the street or homeless, couchsurfing or living in shelters or tents. We have always been known 

as the house of hope and the place that would help anyone regardless of their ability to pay. 

Prior to 2013, Southeastern had not had to worry about billing 

or revenue sources. We were provided with our primary budget 

from the New Hampshire Board of Drug and Alcohol Services block 

grant, some funding from Federal probation and parole contracts, 

private pay resources from various DWI programs, and private donations. Our sources for reimbursement have changed and must 

now look to Medicaid and other insurance providers for payment. 

Since 2013, the payment structure with the State has changed several times without much notice or assistance. We had a deficit of 

$85,000 last year and are working at a deficit of at least $100,000 

for our current year. 

Southeastern was never asked to obtain or required to have the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) licensure 

or any other accreditation in the past. Since the changes in pay 

structure became a reality in 2013, we became aware that licensure 

is a must in order to be able to bill any and all insurance companies for residential services. Some of the obstacles to obtaining licensure have been lack of qualified staff to bill Medicaid and the 

need for an outside billing agent; lack of information and guidance 

through the process of applications for insurance companies as well 

as licensure; working with multiple agencies from town, county, 

and State, and trying to coordinate meetings and agreements as to 

what we need to accomplish for compliance; major renovations that 

need to be done to the building which include but are not limited 

to installing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant 

shower rooms, handicapped ramps, elevators, new sprinklers, and 

more. 

Some people say, ‘‘Why not just buy another building? ’’ We rent. 

We do not have the funds to buy, and renovations for compliance 

would need to be done in any other structure as well. Plus, we are 

in a location that suits the population we serve by being close to 

the courts, probation, Strafford County jail, and on the bus route. 

It has taken all this time to get the necessary agencies together so 

the architectural plans and safety plan can be completed and approved. We are still waiting for final approvals, and no hammers 

have swung as of yet. 
1492 

The county is doing all they can to work with us and to help us 

get the work done. However, we are looking at approximately 

$500,000 worth of work that we will be responsible for. The county 

will assume half of all the safety requirement costs. We will have 

to pay for the other half of safety costs and for all renovations to 

bring things up to ADA code compliance. If the county were to rent 

space to anyone else and it were not be used as a residential facility, they would not have the same requirements and codes to meet 

because the license would not be needed. 

Some obstacles for treatment for clients now and in the future 

include losing beds due to square foot requirements in the residential rooms and an inability to pay for treatment. Just because people are eligible for insurance does not mean that they can access 

it. I feel unreasonable expectations are placed on many clients who 

are still sick and suffering, who are without identification, address, 

or proof of income to back up their application information. 

My agency and others in New Hampshire need help. We have not 

had the guidance, the financial support, or the time to do what 

needs to be done. New Hampshire cannot afford to lose any beds. 

We have been working on shoestring for many years to provide 

quality treatment to the population with the greatest need. We are 

all passionate about our work and are here to promote change and 

increase the possibilitity of a life without drugs for those who continue to struggle. 

Berkeley Data Analytics Stack (BDAS) has given us through 

June 30, 2016 to get our license or have all support pulled from our 

residential programs. That would be a disaster. I have 10 shortterm residential and 15 long-term residential beds. Can New 

Hampshire afford to lose 25 beds? How many kids would die? 

We need people in our corner who will help us get done what is 

needed in order to stay operating. I have cried with clients who 

have come into treatment scared to death that they won’t be able 

to do it. I assure them that they can as long as they are willing 

to follow our suggestions and those that they receive from other 

people in recovery. I have cried with parents who want to fix their 

children and cannot let go. I have cried at the funerals of those 

who could not stop. My tears have flowed freely for over 20 years. 

I thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee 

today and share some of the challenges we are facing in trying to 

help treat those who are suffering from addiction. 

Thank you. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Ms. Moran. 

I am now going to ask questions of the witnesses and then Senator Shaheen will have an opportunity to do that. 

Chief Willard, I wanted to ask you about the proposal that you 

had mentioned, the OCDETF strike force that comes from the 

model in Chicago. 

How would that work in New Hampshire? Would it be a working 

group that would get together regularly and would bring Federal, 

State, and local authorities together with the U.S. Attorney’s Office? And where would you see that centered? 

Mr. WILLARD. The way I understand it, given the research that 

I have done, is the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force 

is a single entity made up of Federal, State, and local partners, and 
1493 

that would include a U.S. attorney full-time on staff. I would envision that they probably have room at the facility in Bedford, and 

that they would work together all the time. 

So it would be other agencies, local agencies committing personnel to it, being funded by the Federal Government. So you 

would have somebody from Nashua Police Department, Manchester 

Police Department, Merrimack, and New Hampshire State Police. 

Essentially, the more bodies, the better, so any agency that can 

contribute to them. And then you would have a funded position 

from the U.S. Attorney’s Office who would actually be embedded 

with law enforcement as they are working through these cases. 

Senator AYOTTE. So they would be specially designated to this 

group? 

Mr. WILLARD. Correct. 

Senator AYOTTE. Terrific. 

When you look at the challenges we face, how is the cooperation 

with Federal agencies? 

Mr. WILLARD. It is fantastic. The reason we are staying above 

completely sinking into the abyss is because of those partnerships. 

Now, that case that I talked about, where we took 27 kilos of 

heroin off the streets through that shooting investigation, was simply because of the partnerships that we had with the DEA, the 

State Police, Massachusetts State Police, and that type of cross-border cooperation. 

Senator AYOTTE. So this would be a more effective way to get everyone together, all working together, with the prosecution embedded? 

Mr. WILLARD. Exactly. And all at the same time, everybody sharing the same information, but also everybody bringing in additional 

resources. 

When you have a Task Force Officer (TFO) from the city of Manchester, and you are a Federal agency, we pretty much have all 

that intel at their feet when it comes to dealing with Manchester. 

So imagine expanding that to the North Country, from the farthest 

reaches north to the farthest south. 

One thing we do know is that we have a pretty good grasp of 

where the heroin is coming from. The majority of it is coming from 

the Mexican cartels. That, in and of itself, should necessitate Federal action to go after the people that are laundering the money, 

go after the people that are transporting the drugs, and go after 

the kingpins that are funneling the drugs. 

When I met with Mr. Riley this morning and I am looking at a 

map that I am sure you will see later—when you see what the 

Mexican drug cartels control of the American landscape, and they 

are selling their drugs almost with impunity—we are fighting it as 

best we can, but when you see that map, you realize just how severe of a problem that we have. 

On the street level, battling this with the fire department and 

the ambulances, and my officers going from call to call to call, we 

can only sustain that so long. We need to take these people off of 

the street and we need to get the head of the snake. And the only 

way to do that is through some sort of strike force. And that is why 

I thought it was an important thing to bring up today. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 
1494 

Mr. Griffin, you talked about what your insurance company said 

to you, and I know that Congress, before I got elected to the Senate, passed the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act to 

ensure that insurance companies were really making sure that 

they were treating substance abuse on a level playing field. But it 

sounded like your insurance company—and, unfortunately, this is 

the first time I have heard this—decided this was not a matter of 

life or death. Well, we all know this is a matter of life or death. 

So how did you feel when you tried to reach out and you got the 

runaround and what do you want to make sure that we know in 

order to help other families who are in the same situation? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. It was terrible for us because even if insurance had 

covered it, there were no beds, anyway. 

Ms. AYOTTE. Right. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. I mean, everywhere we went, there were either no 

beds or no insurance. 

We did not actually find out how bad it was until the end. I 

mean, we worked and worked and worked and worked, and then 

she died. And I deal with—now, I get two or three calls at my 

house every day, from families all around the country wanting 

help, and all I can do is steer them to the best possible person I 

know in the area. That is all I can do. Because as far as I know, 

if it is someone in New Hampshire—I will talk about New Hampshire, especially—if they have a problem, there are very few opportunities for them to enter recovery. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 

Ms. Moran, you talked about some of the challenges in wanting 

to keep bed space while following some of the regulations. What 

would you like us to know when it comes to how we could better 

help make sure that we are supporting more opportunities for 

treatment and also giving you the flexibility that you need to make 

sure that we are maximizing, obviously, the resource we do have 

to create as many beds and support and opportunities for treatment as possible? 

Ms. MORAN. Well, as I said, we have lost beds as a result of the 

compliance requirements. It is a fire and safety issue, which I totally understand, and in no way do we want our residents to be in 

an unsafe environment. 

However, I believe that when some of the compliance codes were 

written, they were written with nursing homes or other types of facilities in mind. For example, the majority of my rooms are 122 

square feet, and by code, it is required that every room is 160 

square feet in order to have two beds in a room. And that does not 

include space that gets taken away by closets and furniture and 

things like that. I have lost four beds in each of my programs and 

had to double up offices in order to not lose more, which, puts other 

stresses on our program. 

So, when you look at a grandparent, for example, that is in a 

nursing home, and Grandma lives in her room, and she has her TV 

and her recliner and all of her things in her room. 

In our facility, people sleep in their room, they get changed in 

their room, and that is it. They are not allowed to hang out in their 

rooms. It is very unhealthy for people in early recovery to be iso-
1495 

lated and be by themselves, as well as to be housed in a room by 

themselves. That is dangerous. 

We had a situation last winter where somebody overdosed and 

they were in a room by themselves. Fortunately somebody going 

down the hallway heard the gurgling and was able to get staff and 

they were revived by cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). But if 

that had not been the case, that person probably would not have 

made it. 

So, it is dangerous to not have two people in a room as well as 

this code issue. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 

I would like to turn it over to Senator Shaheen for her questions. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. 

Chief Willard, Senator Ayotte and I got to go with you and members of the department this morning to see the neighborhood where 

some of the recent drug busts have happened and you talked about 

the challenges facing the police on the street. And one of the things 

you showed us were some pretty dramatic photos of the people who 

you brought out of those apartments during those drug busts. 

And I wonder, can you talk a little bit about what kind of training there is for officers to handle drug addicts in those situations? 

Because one of the things that struck me, that you and other members of the force talked about, was that you had not seen a bust 

where addicts were in as awful a condition as the people who you 

worked with that night. 

So can you talk about the training that officers get and whether 

it is adequate, whether it needs to be improved upon, and what 

more we can do to help in that situation? 

Mr. WILLARD. I think our training is adequate. We do a lot of 

training through the DEA on these types of issues. We also do Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training, and the Manchester Police 

Department is actually sending two sergeants out to be instructors 

for CIT. So I think our training is pretty robust. 

I think what you saw in those photographs, which I have here 

if you wanted to put them in the record, is that it was a drug house 

where the drug dealer would not let you leave. You had to shoot 

your drugs up while you were there. So we hit it just at the right 

time and we had 21 people in this two floor apartment. 

Again, these are competing drug dealers that are not fighting 

with each other. And what it tells you is that the addiction pool 

is large. The reason a lot of people are coming to Manchester to sell 

drugs is because in New Hampshire, they can get two to three 

times the profit compared to Lawrence or even New York City, depending on where they are coming from. So it is a target-rich environment is what some of the dealers will tell us during our debriefs, because there is a lot of heroin addicts here, because they 

can make a lot of money. Those 21 people are a perfect example 

of that phenomenon. 

Now, law enforcement can do what we can to disrupt the supply, 

which we have. I think we are well over 30 kilos of heroin coming 

into Manchester that we have taken off of the street. Officers in 

the Manchester Police Department routinely are making car stops 

and finding heroin—62 grams, 33 grams, 40 grams. It is astounding to see the numbers. It is so plentiful. It is everywhere. So even 
1496 

though we are conducting major disruptions in the flow, unless 

that pool of heroin addicts or fentanyl addicts or now we are seeing 

crack cocaine is shrunk, we are going to be swimming against the 

tide. So I am a big advocate for treatment. 

Now, how you get funding for treatment and what that looks 

like—I know that there were changes in the insurance company 

years ago. And once the insurance company said, ‘‘We are no longer 

going to pay out on detox’’ or ‘‘Now we are not going to treat for 

addiction,’’ you saw beds in New Hampshire shrink down from well 

over 600 to nearly nothing today. 

So that discussion needs to be with the insurance companies. 

Can you change the way you do business? Can you now consider 

or classify detox as something that you can insure? And if you do 

that, then the beds will increase, because the treatment facility 

currently cannot put more beds in a facility if the money is not 

there. I mean, they still have to make money. Even though in their 

hearts they want to end rediction through recovery—addiction— 

there is no doubt in my mind. But if there is no money in it, they 

still have to pay their bills. So there needs to be a way to find, insurance companies or to work with the insurance companies to expand the coverage. 

I think, most importantly, when I am talking about shrinking 

that pool of heroin addicts, we really have to focus on these doctors 

that are giving out dirty scripts and are putting more and more addicts on our streets. And the worst thing you can probably think 

of is a doctor who, by the very nature of what he does, is willing 

to put an unbelievable amount of scripts illicitly on our streets that 

would actually create more drug addicts. Because as soon as those 

pills dry up, they are going to go to heroin. 

So that is a whole other piece that we need to look at. We need 

to look at the medical community and what they are going to do 

to change their pain management protocol, as well as look at the 

checks and balances to monitor that. 

Unfortunately, the State of New Hampshire is well behind the 

times when it comes to what other States are doing, and we need 

to make our prescription monitoring program more robust. We 

have seen some advances, but on a State level, we need a little bit 

more. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much. 

I certainly agree. We have heard testimony on the importance of 

how doctors prescribe medication and guidelines. I had a chance to 

question the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Director, Tom 

Frieden, about this issue and he acknowledged that this is one of 

the real challenges that we face. 

And also, we have to make sure that insurance companies appreciate the changes that we have seen in addiction over the years, 

and that, as Mr. Griffin said so eloquently, that it really is lifethreatening. 

Mr. Griffin, first of all, I want to thank you and your family for 

sharing Courtney’s story with us. I know that it is not easy and 

it is really important for people to speak up, so I am so glad that 

you did. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Trying to get better at it. 

Senator SHAHEEN. You were great. 
1497 

As you said, you have people calling you—I have heard, and I am 

sure Senator Ayotte has heard, from families who are desperate to 

know how to respond to family members and to children who are 

addicted. 

Do you have advice that you can give to families who may be in 

this situation? What would you urge them to do? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes. I am about a year into this now and there is 

a tremendous support community out there that does not have licenses. They are not clinicians; they are people. Our church is 

amazing. We have a service once a month for addicts and their 

families, and they come in and they change. I do not know if you 

have ever seen it happen, but they come in and they are afraid. 

And parents that have lost kids come in, and they are like me. 

They are a mess. And, we sit with them, and they come every 

month. The camaraderie of other people sharing the same experiences, they are helping each other. 

There is a lot of little Ma-and-Pa things starting up all over the 

State to help people out. As a matter of fact, we have started one 

ourselves. And I refer someone to the person I know who is best 

at it who is closest to them. And I will take anybody’s call any hour 

of the day. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, thank you. That is very good advice, the 

importance of support for families. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Get them into the church. I had not been to church 

in 40 years. And since my daughter died, I am a huge proponent 

of the support you can get by going to church. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Ms. Moran, you talked about the challenges of providing treatment and facilities for people who need it and how regulations need 

to be reasonable. 

Can you talk about what you are seeing in terms of waiting lists 

for those beds that you have available and how you could better 

provide services? Do you have a long waiting list and is it consistent? Does it turn over? What do you see in terms of people waiting for treatment? 

Ms. MORAN. As of this morning, I believe I had between six and 

eight people on my list. And what we do is that when we have 

somebody call in and do a telephone screen for a bed, once they are 

screened and we figure that we are an appropriate fit for them, 

then there are certain things that may be required. We may need 

them to get a physical. If it is somebody that has a lot of legal involvement, we may ask that they provide us with their legal history. There may be a few things that we need them to do. Or it 

may be a situation where we say, ‘‘Well, we will bring a doctor inhouse. If somebody can pay for the physical, we will have the doctor meet them here and have the physical in-house.’’ And, unfortunately, what I found is a lot of the people that get on our waiting 

list are young. With the heroin epidemic, we have seen a lot of 

younger people that are abusing heroin to, a great degree, more 

than ever before. Most of these people are under the age of 30. And 

today I reviewed a couple of screens before I came here, and I had 

three people that were 18 and 19 years old. That was not happening a few years ago. They were not even thinking about coming 

in to treatment at that age. 
1498 

1The photos introduced by Chief Willard appear in the Appendix on page 1529. 

So, I mean, it is good that they are thinking about that, but a 

lot of the problem is motivation is being created either because 

they do not want to go to jail and so they are trying to make things 

look good for the court or Mom and Dad are going to throw them 

out if they do not get into treatment, and then getting them to follow through with staying connected to us, calling us, coming in and 

doing what needs to be done next. We are having a hard time 

hanging onto them. 

As far as getting people into treatment, usually it is within wo 

weeks. And, it is not that long of a waiting period for somebody 

who is actually doing the legwork to get into treatment. But, so 

many of the young ones, they say that they want it and they might 

want it as they come out of the hospital after having Narcan, but 

in 10 hours they have forgotten about it and they are back out on 

the street doing the same thing. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Senator Ayotte, can I ask that Chief Willard’s—that those 

photos1 be introduced to the record. 

Senator AYOTTE. Absolutely. I think that will be important. 

Thank you, Chief. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Well, I want to thank all of you for being here today to present 

your testimony. And, in fact, we really appreciate your being here 

and your courage for being here. We consider this an ongoing dialogue here in New Hampshire. And we will have our Federal witnesses come here. I am glad they have had an opportunity to hear 

from all of you from New Hampshire today. 

So thank you for being here and we will call up our second panel. 

Thank you. 

Panel Members. Thank you. 

Senator AYOTTE. I want to thank our second panel of witnesses 

for being here and for having the opportunity to hear directly from 

our first panel on the challenges that we are facing in New Hampshire. This is certainly a public health epidemic. 

Our first witness is Michael Botticelli, who is the Director of the 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. Director Botticelli has more 

than two decades of experience supporting Americans affected by 

substance abuse disorders. 

So Director Botticelli, we appreciate you being here. 
1499 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Botticelli appears in the Appendix on page 1544. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL P. BOTTICELLI,1

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY 

Mr. BOTTICELLI. Thank you, Senator Ayotte and Senator 

Shaheen for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the Administration’s response to the epidemic of opioid abuse, particularly the 

rise in heroin and overdose deaths. 

I also want to thank the first panel, and particularly Mr. Griffin, 

who often at great pain have turned tragedy into action. I think it 

is important that we carry Courtney’s story with us as a reminder 

of why we do what we do. So thank you very much for sharing 

that. 

During my time as the Director of the Office of National Drug 

Control Policy, we produced the National Drug Strategy, the Administration’s blueprint for drug policy. Our strategy treats our nation’s substance use problems as public health problems, not just 

as criminal justice issues. 

And I do have to pause and thank the gentleman to my left, 

Commissioner Kerlikowske, who was my boss at ONDCP, for setting this Administration’s strategy, and I stand on his shoulders in 

terms of the work that we are doing. 

Having led the Bureau of Substance Abuse Services at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, I am personally familiar 

with substance use issues in New England. The stark increase in 

the number of people using heroin in recent years has become a serious public health issue in our country. Overdose deaths involving 

heroin have increased sharply in recent years. Of the nearly 44,000 

drug overdose deaths in 2013, heroin was involved in over 8,200 of 

those, up from 5,900 in 2012. And in New Hampshire, the rates of 

opioid analgesic-involved deaths and drug-poisoning deaths involving heroin are above the national average. 

As we have heard, communities and law enforcement are struggling with an increased number of overdose deaths, increased heroin use, and increased heroin trafficking. It is important to note 

that plentiful access of opioid drugs via medical prescribing and 

easy access to diverted opioids for nonmedical use is feeding our 

opioid drug use and opioid epidemic. Approximately 18 billion 

opioid pills were dispensed in 2012, enough to give every American 

18 years or older 75 pills to relieve pain. 

Even though data indicate over 95 percent of prescription drug 

users do not initiate heroin use, four out of five newer users to heroin have experience as nonprescription drug users. Given this 

interrelationship, we must develop a response to heroin use that is 

part of a response to nonmedical prescription opioid use. 

A further complicating factor in addressing this epidemic is law 

enforcement reporting of heroin that is laced with fentanyl, an 

opioid drug that we have heard to be estimated at 80 times as potent as morphine and hundreds of times more potent than heroin. 

Fentanyl can serve as a direct substitute for heroin in opioid-dependent individuals, but its increased potency can result in even 

more overdoses, particularly in those users who are not experienced. 
1500 

ONDCP uses its role as a coordinator of Federal control agencies 

to bolster support for substance use disorder treatment and overdose prevention. In the Administration released a plan to address 

the sharp increase in prescription opioid drug misuse. This plan 

contains action items over four areas: education of prescribers to 

support safer opioid prescribing, increased prescription drug monitoring programs through State-based prescription drug monitoring 

programs, proper medication disposal, and law enforcement efforts. 

The Administration has also convened an inter-agency heroin 

task force, cochaired by ONDCP and the Department of Justice 

(DOJ), to more closely examine heroin issues and to determine 

what further actions the Federal Government can take. We look 

forward to their report later this year. 

We have seen overdose from prescription opioids leveling off, but, 

unfortunately, this has been coupled with a dramatic 39 percent increase in heroin-involved drug abuse deaths from 2012 to 2013. To 

address the overdose death issue, we are working to increase access 

to naloxone for first responders and individuals close to those with 

opioid drug use disorders. Hand in hand with this effort are efforts 

to promote Good Samaritan laws, so witnesses to an overdose will 

take steps to help save lives. I am pleased that, in New Hampshire, 

measures to expand naloxone access and to provide Good Samaritan protection was signed into law this summer. 

Law enforcement nationwide has risen to the challenge of these 

increases in opioid use disorders and death. We are working in coordination with members of the public health community. As an example, ONDCP announced earlier this month that we will be providing funds under our High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program to develop a heroin response strategy based on a proposal 

submitted by a coalition of five HIDTAs across 15 States, including 

the NewEngland HIDTA. The heroin response strategy will foster 

a collaborative network of public health and public safety partnerships sharing best practices, innovative pilots, information sharing, 

and identifying new opportunities to leverage resources. 

We are also working with our Embassy in Mexico, the DEA, the 

Department of State, and have engaged with the government of 

Mexico to initiate actions that they can take to reduce the supply 

of heroin. But it is also critically important that the medical establishment work with us to meet the challenges of overprescribing of 

prescription drugs and increasing access to treatment. Primary 

care and emergency physicians have the opportunity for early 

intervention and treatment before they become chronic, and it is 

vital that individuals with opioid use disorders receive evidencebased treatment. Medication-assisted treatment with DEA-approved medications, when combined with behavioral health therapies and recovery supports, have been shown to be the most effective treatment for opioid use disorders. 

In July, the United States Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) announced an additional $33 million in funding to 

States to expand the use of medication-assisted treatment and an 

additional $100 million in funding to improve and expand substance use services at community health centers. The Administration’s fiscal year budget proposal includes $133 million in new 
1501 

1The prepared statement of Commissioner Kerlikowske appears in the Appendix on page 

1568. 

funding to reduce opioid misuse and overdoses, with most of that 

funding going to efforts at the State level. 

In addition to the connection given between injection of opioid 

drugs and infectious disease transmission, public health strategies 

are necessary to prevent the spread of infectious disease. The recent HIV and hepatitis C outbreak in Indiana is a stark reminder 

of how opioid use can spread other diseases, how comprehensive 

public health measures such as syringe service programs need to 

be part of our response, and how rural communities with limited 

treatment capacity may experience additional public health crises. 

In conclusion, our administration will continue to work with Congress and our Federal, State, and local partners on the public 

health and public safety issues resulting from the epidemic of nonmedical prescription opioid use and heroin. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you so much, Director Botticelli. 

We also are very honored to have Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske 

here. He is the Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and 

we have to also say Commissioner Kerlikowske is the former director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. 

So Commissioner Kerlikowske, thank you for being here. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE R. GIL KERLIKOWSKE,1 COMMISSIONER, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Senator Ayotte and Senator Shaheen, thank 

you very much. 

I was last in New Hampshire in which role to work with the legislature on the prescription drug monitoring program, and I am so 

glad that that is passed and in place. And thank you for holding 

the hearing today on what really is an incredibly important, complex, and difficult challenge to the Nation: the increasing trafficking and abuse of heroin and other opioids. 

Certainly, as I heard from Mr. Griffin, the abuse of heroin in 

America continues to take too many lives and to tear too many 

families apart. As a police officer and police chief for 37 years, I 

understand the strain that this epidemic also places on local governments and communities across the Nation. I commend you for 

holding a hearing about working together. 

Customs and Border Protection is the one unified border agency. 

We have a critical role in the effort to keep heroin and other dangerous drugs out of our communities, and we continue to intercept 

narcotics at the border, all as a key part of addressing this crisis; 

but interdictions, arrests, and convictions alone, as you have both 

stated, cannot solve the heroin epidemic. 

My efforts focused on prevention and treatment in my earlier 

role, and we certainly support that now. In conjunction with those 

things, we have to deter drug trafficking through taking down the 

transnational organized crime routes, cartels, and other distribution networks. And to do that effectively, we need to better inte-
1502 

grate our efforts and share information. Our vision and strategy in 

CDP outlines how we plan to enhance our capabilities through 

more collaboration, more innovation, and better integration to meet 

the challenge. 

Secretary Johnson’s Southern Border and Approaches Campaign 

unifies all of the capabilities of the Department of Homeland Security components to integrate intelligence, law enforcement efforts, 

and to provide a targeted and effective response to these threats, 

including drug trafficking. I am pleased to support ONDCP’s heroin 

response strategy as recently announced by Director Botticelli and 

that fosters a collaborative partnership. 

Our seizures of heroin have been increasing over the past several 

years, and so far this year, we are 32 percent ahead of last year, 

and that is on top of continuing increases of seizures. Almost all, 

of course, are along the Southwest border. We interdict heroin in 

all the modes, air, land, and sea and in both the travel and cargo 

environments. Interdictions of regulated opioids, such as fentanyl, 

have also increased. The majority of that, by the way, is seized at 

our international mail and express consignment shipments. 

At the nation’s ports of entry, CDP officers use technology, canines, and advanced techniques to spot vehicles modifications and 

other indicators of smuggling. Between the ports of entry, the border patrol maintains checkpoints and vigilance along the border. 

The CDP’s Office of Air and Marine monitors the complex airway 

and maritime traffic to identify threats and to interdict contraband. 

They work with our other agencies, DEA, FBI, ICE, and others, to 

provide support to them. Because drug traffickers are known to use 

legitimate modes of travel and transportation, forging partnerships 

with the private sector is particularly crucial. It is a program that 

carry your initiative program. We provide training and site surveys 

for commercial transportation carriers with route systems that are 

at high risk for drug smuggling. 

CDP is committed to keeping drugs from crossing the borders, 

but we are also very committed to the safety of the public we serve. 

A million people come into the country through our ports of entry 

every single day. We have implemented naloxone or Narcan as it 

was talked about in seven of our ports of entry, given the number 

of cases in which we have had internal carriers. And, of course, we 

know that naloxone can reverse the effects of an overdose. 

Well, Senators, thank you for holding the hearing. I look forward 

to answering any questions. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you so much Commissioner Kerlikowske. 

We are also honored to have here today the Acting Deputy Administrator for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Jack 

Riley. 

Mr. Riley. 
1503 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Riley appears in the Appendix on page 1576. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN RILEY,1 ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. RILEY. Senator Ayotte and Senator Shaheen, thank you for 

the opportunity to spend some time to talk about heroin and DEA’s 

response. 

DEA’s single mission is enforcing the Controlled Substance Act, 

and heroin has always been a major focus of our efforts. Sadly, 

today, 120 Americans will die as a result of drug overdose. Heroin 

and prescription painkillers cause over half of those fatalities. The 

abuse of these opioids is of epidemic proportions and is currently 

the Nation’s number-one drug problem. New England’s no different. 85 percent of the law enforcement agencies here in New 

England report heroin prescription drugs as the number-one drug 

threat. 

I have been with DEA almost 30 years, and I have to tell you, 

I have never seen it this bad. The vast majority of heroin used in 

the United States is manufactured outside of the country and 

smuggled across our Southwest border. In recent years, we have 

seen an increase in poppy cultivation and heroin processing within 

Mexico. As a result, Mexican heroin is more prevalent on our 

streets, accounting for almost half of the domestic supply. The role 

of Mexican organized crime is unprecedented, with Chapo 

Guzman’s brutal Sinaloa cartel dominating the New England market. 

Mexican heroin arrives in New England in a number of ways. 

There are violent gang members and heroin traffickers from New 

York and Connecticut that have established heroin distribution 

networks in and around New Hampshire. They operate out of hotel 

rooms, rental apartments, or obtain the assistance of local addicts. 

These out-of-state traffickers line their pockets by exploiting the 

distribution networks to traffic guns and bring violence to your cities and towns. 

In addition, home-grown traffickers in New Hampshire are obtaining heroin and heroin laced with fentanyl from local distributors. The growing relationship between Mexican—based drug cartels and domestic street gangs, coupled with what I consider an unlimited supply of illegal guns, has really created the perfect storm 

for law enforcement. In my opinion, this is the new face of organized crime in America. 

The DEA is evolving with this threat by targeting the highest 

levels of traffickers and the vicious organizations they run. I have 

personally spent the bulk of my career chasing the man I consider 

to be the most dangerous heroin dealer in the world, Chapo 

Guzman. He and his Sinaloa cartel dominate the U.S. heroin market and his organization has reached to the extent of New Hampshire’s urban and rural centers. DEA focuses its limited resources 

on disrupting and dismantling these organizations. That means 

targeting the intersection between Mexican organized crime and 

the violent urban gangs distributing the heroin on their behalf. 

This relationship between these two criminal entities is best described as toxic and dangerous. 
1504 

Heroin can be found now in virtually every part of our country. 

Sadly, its regional presence is growing. In New Hampshire, heroin 

overdoses have more than tripled from 2008 to 2013. In 2015 alone, 

there have been at least 176 deaths involving opioids and over 

three-quarters of those involved fentanyl. 

Today, heroin is far different than it was just five years ago. It 

is cheaper, higher in purity, and can be smoked or snorted, much 

like powdered cocaine. And there is no typical heroin addict. This 

problem transcends demographic and socio-economic lines. Knowing this drug is the source of so much violence and misery is truly 

what keeps me up at night. I know from experience that the more 

we do to reduce drug crime, the more we will reduce all violent 

crime. 

While I was a special agent in charge of the Chicago Field Division, we developed a model of cooperation and collaboration that I 

truly believe is making a difference there and across the country. 

The Chicago Heroin Strike Force began with the shared belief 

amongst Federal, State, and local law enforcement, political leaders, community leaders, and prosecutors, that together we could effectively target the violent organizations distributing heroin. This 

new and innovative approach allows us to work from the street 

level to prevent violent crime while, at the same time, to pursue 

the investigations at the highest levels of the cartel leadership, 

wherever that takes us. We are actively looking to apply this model 

to DEA divisions across the country. 

Just as we cannot separate violence from drugs, we cannot separate controlled prescription drug abuse from heroin. As a result, 

DEA has established highly effective tactical diversion squads— 

some 66 in total—that are committed to targeting the critical nexus 

between diversion, prescription drugs, and heroin. 

In addition, we are taking steps to remove unwanted, unneeded, 

and expired prescription drugs from medicine cabinets. In fact, on 

September 26, 2015, DEA will host its 10th National Takeback Initiative. 

I know, firsthand, these threats are an urgent challenge and a 

danger to our community and the lives of our citizens. Law enforcement is not the sole answer. Prevention, treatment, education, 

awareness are critical to our success. Everyone plays a role, from 

parents, community leaders, educators, faith-based organizations, 

cultures and athletics, to the medical community. 

This is a marathon, not a sprint, but together we can produce the 

results that you seek and New Englanders demand. 

Thank you. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Administrator Riley. 

I appreciate all of you for being here and I thank you. I am very 

glad to hear that DEA is reinstituting the takeback days, and that 

is a word we all have to get out that we cannot leave these medications in our cabinets. 

I wanted to ask all of you to respond. Administrator Riley, you 

talked about the Chicago model, and all of you heard Chief Willard 

talk about potentially bringing this OCDETF model here to New 

Hampshire and then to have the U.S. Attorney and the prosecution 

piece embedded with obviously a task force that would have a partnership of State, local, and Federal. 
1505 

So I wanted to get your thoughts on that and what we could do 

to move that model forward in places where we are seeing this in 

New Hampshire, so that we could get a better response with us all 

working together and have the prosecution piece there as well. 

Mr. RILEY. I think it is increasingly important that we share information. I will tell you the bad guys really count on law enforcement not talking to each other and not connecting the dots. This 

particular approach, the strike force idea, really cements relationships across State, Federal, and local lines. You heard the chief 

say—by the way, the citizens of Manchester are lucky to have a 

chief like that. He sees it for what it is. 

Senator AYOTTE. He is excellent. 

Mr. RILEY. He is willing to attack it. He understands the role of 

treatment and prevention. And I do think the strike force was successful in Chicago because of that same commitment. 

Senator AYOTTE. So what would we need to make it happen? 

What are your thoughts, certainly, Director Botticelli, Commissioner Kerlikowske? 

Mr. BOTTICELLI. I think it is a really excellent idea. Part of the 

design and delivery of the HIDTA program is precisely along those 

points. So we can follow up with the chief and Jay Fallon from our 

HIDTA program to talk about what are the opportunities here to 

replicate that kind of model, to really look at how we go after the 

criminal organizations, and not the people with addiction, I think 

that is really important to do. 

So the whole intent of actually for our information sharing, our 

HIDTA money was to support this. So we will follow up with the 

chief and with our HIDTA program and with other Federal partners to look at what are the opportunities to bring that here. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. And should it come to fruition, we would be 

happy to assign personnel to that OCDETF task force to provide 

some assistance. 

Senator AYOTTE. Great. Thank you, Commissioner. And HIDTA 

is really important and I appreciate their work here in New Hampshire. 

I wanted to ask about the nonmedical use of prescription 

drugs. And so prescription monitoring programs—Commissioner 

Kerlikowske, I know you testified in New Hampshire—how important is it that we strengthen those programs? And in addition to 

that, what should we be doing when it comes to engaging the pharmaceutical companies on this issue such as the physicians and the 

doctors—the medical community—to try to break this cyclical relationship between the overuse of prescription drugs for nonmedical 

purposes and substitute with heroin use? 

Mr. BOTTICELLI. When you look at the consequence of opioid addiction in the United States, it is a perfect track in terms of looking 

at the increase in prescriptions. And, I love your chief. But I would 

add that, while we need to go after bad doctors and over prescribing, this is much more prolific than just bad doctors prescribing. Clearly, we want to target our law enforcement efforts. 

But we really have to enhance medical education for every prescriber around this issue. States now actually mandate some level 

of continuing medical education. We at ONDCP continue to support 

Federal legislation for mandatory prescriber education. As I have 
1506 

said before, in the midst of an epidemic, I do not think it is too 

much to ask a medical provider to take some limited medical education to do that. 

Clearly, State boards play a huge role in terms of looking at both 

prescribing guidelines as well as scrutiny of physicians who might 

be overprescribing. Prescription monitoring programs play a key 

role, because we know that many people who start developing an 

addiction go from one doctor to another. So these programs need 

to be strong, they need to be real time, but they also need to be 

easily accessed by physicians. So it is not enough that we have 

these databases, we also have to make sure that prescribers are 

using them. 

So, again, this is a multi-prong issue, but dealing with both prescribing and providing good information to prescribers is particularly important. 

Senator AYOTTE. Commissioner Kerlikowske and Administrator 

Riley, you talked about heroin coming over the Southern Border 

and the drug cartels that are really at the forefront of this. 

What more can we do? Senator Shaheen and I both also serve 

on the Armed Services Committee, and we have heard from the 

Southern Commander, General Kelly, as well, about his concern 

from a military perspective of what potentially can be brought over 

the border. 

How is the cooperation with the Mexican government? What 

more can we do to—obviously, for those who are really driving and 

leading the cartels—to better stop them, and do we need to engage 

the Mexican government further on this? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I have worked with two administrations, 

President Calderon and the cooperation is very good. We have invested a lot of money in training with Mexico. They have just put 

together a force of over 5,000 highly trained individuals. We have 

invested in 10 sites on the border so that we have joint communication, so that our border control on one side of the border can talk 

directly through an encrypted system to Mexican officials, rather 

than making multiple ways of communication. 

So the cooperation can be very good. I think there is one area 

where we should look, and that is eradication. When President 

Calderon took on the cartels—courageously, in my opinion—he 

used the military, and the military had also been involved in eradicating poppy and marijuana. As he moved them into more of a law 

enforcement role, I believe their eradication numbers have decreased. I think in a classified briefing you probably get information on the amount of poppy that is being grown and produced in 

Mexico. Eradication is not the sole answer, but it needs to be part 

of the method. 

Mr. RILEY. I used to be charge of a DEA office along the border 

about 10 years ago, and I can tell you that we did not share a lot 

of information 10 years ago because it never went where we wanted it to go. 

We have vastly improved our ability to operate. Our agents now 

work side-by-side with Mexican law enforcement and military 

daily, so that relationship has improved. Our ability to extradite 

key traffickers has improved. Those, I think, are the cornerstones 

of how we are going to turn the tide. But it is really crucial for us 
1507 

to share information. There are investigations going on now where 

they share information with us that actually affects the streets of 

U.S. cities. So it is both ways. 

Now, is there room for improvement? Absolutely. But we are 

going to strive to continue that dialogue, because I think, in the 

long run, that is going to be the most effective strategy. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Commissioner Kerlikowske, I had the opportunity to visit the 

Southern Border back in March with Senator Hoeven, who was the 

chair of the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee. We 

saw some very impressive work down there by CBP. We were in 

Laredo and saw a pickup truck that was stopped and there was a 

drug-sniffing dog who went around that pickup and clearly found 

something in the gas tank. It was fascinating to watch those efforts. We visited some of the stations where technology was being 

used to X-ray trucks and other vehicles, so we could see what people were looking for in terms of those interdiction efforts. We also 

heard, as you have said, Mr. Riley, from briefings, the cooperative 

work that is going on now, not just between us and Mexico, but 

also among the various local law enforcement agencies all along the 

border. 

People are working together. 

They are following that integrated model you talked about, Commissioner. 

But one of the things that we also heard, and as Senator Ayotte 

talked about, General Kelly, who heads the Southern Command, 

talked to us when he was talking about border issues about the 

challenges that they have faced because of cutbacks from sequestration, those automatic cuts that went into effect. Southern Command was probably hit harder than any of our commands within 

the military and the impact that that it had on their ability to 

interdict drugs. 

Do you see an impact from that cutback by South Command 

(SOUTHCOM), in terms of what they can do with interdiction? 

And can you also speak to what you see as the challenges if sequestration goes back into effect at the end of this fiscal year, October 1? What is that going to mean for our ability to interdict those 

drugs and what impact is that going to have here in New Hampshire? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. You certainly have the right witness in General Kelly, and my time with General Fraser before him and my 

time with Admiral Stavridis when I came in. 

So you have an absolute model in Key West, Florida called the 

Joint Interagency Task Force South. It is from the Coast Guard to 

the military to every Federal law enforcement agency, and when 

you go into that facility, you cannot tell what badge or what uniform anybody is wearing. There is one mission and it is the most 

unified concept. It has been well written about. They are tremendous at targeting, because random patrol in a police department 

produces random results. That is why this reduction in crime over 

the last 10 years, I think is the result of putting police in the right 

locations at the right times. 
1508 

That is the same with the drug trafficking issues. And as we see 

things like semi-submersibles and others, our ability to random patrol, whether with RP–3s or the Navy, et cetera, random patrol is 

not going to produce anything. It is intelligence and it is targeting. 

Here is the difficulty—and I think you know this very well and 

that is, it is like when I was a police chief in Seattle. If you called 

and said, ‘‘They are robbing the 7-Eleven,’’ and I said, ‘‘Gee, I am 

really sorry. I do not have anybody to send.’’ And that is exactly 

the situation that Giana South and others are in. They target information and they have no resources to send to interdict that. That 

happens far too often. And I would say that those resources are 

necessary, and I think as Secretary Johnson and others, including 

myself, have expressed, sequestration would be very difficult for us 

to overcome. 

Senator SHAHEEN. And at a time when we are seeing this dramatic epidemic and an increase in the number of people being addicted, I understand that. 

Director Botticelli, you talked about the prescription drug issue 

and how much of a challenge that is. One of the programs we used 

to have at the Federal level was National All Schedule Prescription 

Electronic Reporting (NASPER), and I wrote down what that acronym stands for. It unfortunately, expired several years ago and we 

have not been able to reauthorize it. But one of the things that I 

understand it would do is to allow us to better work across State 

lines on how class B prescription drugs are getting transferred to 

people. 

So can you talk about what advantages it would give us if we 

could reauthorize a program like NASPER to address prescription 

drug overuse? 

Mr. BOTTICELLI. Sure. 

While we have had great support for our prescription drug monitoring programs, we, in essence, have the same funding level for 

our now 49 prescription drug monitoring programs as we did when 

we had 20. Clearly, we heard here, as we have heard across the 

country, that you cannot only have one robust State program, given 

the ability for people just to go across State lines, to go to another 

State if we do not have that. So information sharing and what we 

call interstate operability, the ability of state prescription drug 

monitoring programs to share data across State lines, become critically important. I am very familiar with the New England region. 

It is very easy when you have one State that has a robust program 

for people to go across to other States. 

So having a robust prescription drug monitoring program, the 

ability for States to share that information across State lines, the 

ability to share that information in a de-identified way, with public 

health and public safety folks, become really important. As the 

commissioner said, we are always going to have finite resources 

and our ability to target, whether it is at a local level or at a county level, become really important. Those programs have really valuable information in terms of looking at what are hot spots in terms 

of overprescribing in various parts of our State and our Nation. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Riley, I had the opportunity to visit the DEA office in Bedford not long ago, and one of the things that I heard from the folks 
1509 

who were there was about the challenges—and, actually, Chief Willard talked about this as well this morning when we went on the 

walk-along with him—of fentanyl now being mixed in with the heroin. 

Can you talk about what added challenges that presents for people out on the street trying to stop heroin? 

Mr. RILEY. Well, I think it is one of many things that causes me 

to lose sleep, because it is really extremely dangerous—clearly to 

the trapped person, to the addicts, but to first responders, as well 

like the hard-working policeman that pulls somebody over. It is 50 

times stronger than heroin. It can be absorbed through the skin or 

airborne and breathed in, and it is extremely toxic. We are beginning to see it more and more across the country. Unfortunately, 

what we have seen here in the Northeast is really at a much higher level. 

Fentanyl, for the most part, is being produced clandestinely in 

Mexico, primarily by the Sinaloa Cartel. You can see from the map 

where the stronghold of the cartels are located, specifically in the 

eastern part of the United States. So, again, the key for us in Mexico is to make sure that we share the information when we develop 

information here, so that we can work it back. 

And to give the police chief another shout-out, he recognizes that. 

He recognizes that we really have to work the street level to prevent violence. But for us to be successful, we have to jointly work 

these things back as far as we can go. 

So, right now, I would say fentanyl, if it has not gotten every law 

enforcement officer’s attention, it certainly will. We are doing everything we can to train and to get the word out, because it is a 

toxic substance. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Just to add to that, I was aware of the potential dangers to addicts because I have heard testimony from people 

about the impact of fentanyl mixed with heroin on addicts. What 

I was not aware of until I had that briefing was the potential dangers to law enforcement. And I am not sure that that is widely 

known to the public, so I think that is a piece of this challenge that 

we need to make sure people understand. 

Mr. RILEY. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. I think we will do 

one more round of questioning and I wanted to follow up with Mr. 

Riley on Senator Shaheen’s question about fentanyl. 

One of the things that was brought to my attention is that 

fentanyl is 50 times more powerful—— 

Mr. RILEY. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator AYOTTE [continuing]. Than heroin. 

And yet, under our laws, essentially the scheduling of fentanyl 

is not treated properly, in terms of quantities, as it is with regard 

to heroin. 

So I recently introduced the Stop Trafficking in Fentanyl Act to 

bring parity to the penalty regime, and I just wanted to get your 

thought on this issue—especially as we look at how deadly fentanyl 

is—of whether we are really making sure that we are treating it 

with the seriousness under our Federal statutes that it deserves. 

I wanted to get your thought on that. 
1510 

Mr. RILEY. Yes. We have the DEA that is reviewing the bill. We 

worked closely on the technical side with your staffers. I think it 

is extremely important for us to have a balanced approach to the 

emerging threat. 

Fentanyl is clearly the reason many people are overdosing. So 

anything we can do to balance that—I am speaking as a cop, from 

my experience—is another tool, I think, that would benefit us 

across the board. 

Senator AYOTTE. I appreciate it. I look forward to continuing to 

work with you on that, and we certainly appreciate any feedback 

you can give us. 

Mr. RILEY. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator AYOTTE. I wanted to also ask Director Botticelli about a 

couple of different issues. 

The first one, just while we have Ms. Moran here—you heard her 

testimony—and this is an issue we have heard from other treatment providers, that perhaps the regulations that have come from 

HHS have not looked specifically at the challenges of residential 

substance abuse treatment. 

And so I would ask you to work to look at this issue at the Federal level—I have written Health and Human Services about it— 

but I want to get your thoughts on it and how we can make sure 

that people who are in treatment get the support, make sure that 

the safety is all there. But we also want to make sure that we can 

maximize the resources that are directed toward treatment in order 

to get more individuals into treatment, and then, of course, hopefully after that, support their recovery. 

Mr. BOTTICELLI. Sure. as she was testifying, and as someone who 

was in charge of State licensing practices at one point, there is 

probably, I think, Federal issues, but there are also State-level licensing issues involved. 

So I think we can have a follow up conversation to learn a little 

bit more about what regulations are under the purview of the Federal Government and then determine what are under the State licensing authority, because I think it is really important. And as I 

was listening to her, I was thinking that many of the things that 

she, I think, is talking about fall under State licensing areas. But 

we would be happy to work with her in terms of those areas. 

Senator AYOTTE. We really appreciate that very much. Thank 

you. Just to open up a dialogue so hopefully we can sort through 

this and really help make sure that we are able to use the resources that we do have and hopefully get more support. 

I wanted to ask also, I know, Director Botticelli, you have been 

at many forums that we have been having in Washington on this 

issue, as well, and as a result of that, one of the pieces of legislation that we have reintroduced is called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA). 

I wanted to get your thoughts on that legislation and what you 

think about it, as Senator Shaheen and I look to work together on 

what we are hearing today, and also hopefully push our colleagues 

in Washington—I keep saying to my other colleagues ‘‘Do you have 

a heroin problem? ’’ 

And they say, ‘‘Well, I don’t know.’’ 
1511 

I say, ‘‘Well, go ask your public health officials, and go ask your 

first responders, and I guarantee that you have a heroin problem.’’ 

So I just wanted to get your thoughts on some of the areas we 

can work together on at the Federal level. 

Mr. BOTTICELLI. I want to thank both you and Senator Shaheen 

in terms of your leadership at the Federal level. There are significant pieces of Federal legislation that I think speak to many of the 

issues that we talked about today. Certainly, CARA, I think, highlights many of the issues and fills really critical gaps, not only in 

terms of funding, but in terms of policy around this issue. 

So we know it is not enough just to reduce—to reverse overdoses. 

Addiction is a chronic disease and we need to have really good continuum of care, including prevention, treatment, and recovery support. And so that is critical to be able to do that. 

I think there are lots of additional opportunities that we can continue to work on together, particularly around prescribing behavior 

and about continuing to look at enhancing our prescription drug 

monitoring programs, as well as thinking about critical treatment 

resources that I know the State and locals critically need in terms 

of dealing with addiction issues. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you very much. Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. And, again, thank 

you all very much for your testimony. 

We have heard a lot of specific responses today to what is obviously a very complex challenge that we are facing. But if I were 

to ask each of you to talk about what is the number-one priority 

that you would urge us, as members of the Senate, Members of 

Congress, to address when we go back to Washington, what would 

it be? Director Botticelli. 

Mr. BOTTICELLI. I think that is, at least from my standpoint, a 

simple question. It is really about resources. I think that we know 

that New Hampshire—we heard from providers who were talking 

about wait lists. When people are ready to get care, we should be 

able to give them care. So, resources, but also, clearly insurance 

plays a huge role in this. We know that only about 11 percent of 

people who have an addiction get care at a specialty treatment center, and often addicts cite lack of insurance coverage as a reason 

for not seeking care. 

So we need to make sure we have good insurance coverage, both 

private and Medicaid, but we also know that there are people who 

will remain uninsured and who also need services that insurance 

will not pay for. So, clearly, having those resources at the State 

and local level become very important. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. Commissioner. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. As I think it has been agreed on, we are not 

going to interdict or arrest our way out of the problem. And as important as it is to take down the cartels and the organizations, the 

traffickers with significant penalties, both civil and incarceration 

for them, I think that the prevention programs, the community coalitions that do the prevention work that have been underfunded, 

and they are incredibly inexpensive. And yet when you go to any 

of those meetings, and you sit and listen to these people that spend 

so much of their time, especially like listening to Mr. Griffin taking 

calls at home—and I do not think that is probably part of his job 
1512 

that he is being paid for—those community coalitions could really 

use some help with resources. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. Mr. Riley. 

Mr. RILEY. From a law enforcement point of view, the one thing 

that would help is if law enforcement across the country really recognized the critical link between Mexican organized crime and 

urban street gangs. I do not think we can go anywhere throughout 

the country where we do not see that connection. So education and 

resources, things like the OCDETF strike force, where we target 

those intersections that affect the quality of life in our community, 

but at the same time make sure that we go after the highest level 

traffickers we can, it is evolving across the country and we have 

to face it. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. Thank you all very much. 

Senator AYOTTE. First of all, I want to thank all of our witnesses 

for being here today, our Federal panel and certainly the first 

panel for being here. 

This is a very important issue, and I look forward to working 

with Senator Shaheen on some of the testimony that we have 

heard today. There are some excellent ideas that came forward 

here, and I hope the Federal partners I heard from, certainly the 

ideas that came forth, whether it is the OCDETF strike force and 

other ways that we can work together, whether it is with the insurance issues and the regulatory issues, I appreciate your being here. 

And, again, this is about lives. We heard from Doug Griffin about 

Courtney, a beautiful young woman whose life was taken. And, unfortunately, there are too many other families in our State that are 

suffering like the Griffins. We need to do something about it, and 

I think the only way is for all of us to work together. And I look 

forward to working with Senator Shaheen on this, to take the feedback that we have gotten today and to really bring this to Washington, so that hopefully we can get some Federal legislation 

passed to make sure that we are all giving you the support at the 

State and local level that you need to combat this epidemic. 

And with that, I have a couple of closing formalities, but I would 

like to turn it over to Senator Shaheen for any final comments. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Senator Ayotte, and, again, thank 

you for hosting this field hearing. 

As the title of this hearing suggests, this really is an all-handson-deck challenge that we have all got to respond to at the local, 

State, and Federal level, in our communities, in the private and 

public sectors, in families—the kind of support that you talked 

about, Mr. Griffin. If we are going to meet this challenge, we have 

all got to work together, and I think that came through loud and 

clear as part of everyone’s testimonies today. We appreciate that, 

and I will certainly be doing everything I can to work with Senator 

Ayotte and my colleagues in Washington, as well as people on the 

ground here in New Hampshire, to address this challenge. 

And I hope you all will stay in touch with us. Call my office, let 

us know what challenges you see, and any ideas that you have to 

address this issue. Because that is the only way we are going to 

be able to solve this problem. 

Thank you. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 
1513 

1The prepared statement of Senator Ayotte appears in the Appendix on page 1519. 

2The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 1515. 

3The prepared statement of Senator Carper appears in the Appendix on page 1517. 

4The prepared statement of Senator Shaheen appears in the Appendix on page 1523. 

And I certainly echo Senator Shaheen’s comments and appreciate 

her being here today and appreciate her leadership. 

I also, before we close out this hearing, I just want to thank the 

staff that has come here from Washington from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee: Brooke Ericson and Scott Wittmann, who are both here, and Brian Papp, who 

is here to help us with this committee. 

I would like to thank Sam Roberts and Chris Connelly from my 

staff. I know Senator Shaheen’s staff was very helpful. And if there 

is anyone you want to—— 

Senator SHAHEEN. Yes. Chris Scott and Scott Merrick, who are 

here. Thank you. 

Senator AYOTTE. Terrific. Thank you very much. 

And before we close out this hearing, just for the record, I would 

like to request unanimous consent to enter my prepared opening 

statement for the record,1 and also unanimous consent to enter 

Chairman Johnson’s prepared statement2 as well as Ranking Member Carper’s prepared statement3 for this hearing. 

Senator SHAHEEN. And mine.4

Senator AYOTTE. As well as yours, Senator Shaheen. Sorry. 

So if all of those statements could be entered for the record, I 

would appreciate it. 

And the hearing record will remain open for 15 days until September 29 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions 

for the record. 

And with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

Thank you all. 

[Whereupon, at 3:46 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(1515) 

A P P E N D I X 
1516 
1517 
1518 
1519 
1520 
1521 
1522 
1523 
1524 
1525 
1526 
1527 
1528 
1529 
1530 
1531 
1532 
1533 
1534 
1535 
1536 
1537 
1538 
1539 
1540 
1541 
1542 
1543 
1544 
1545 
1546 
1547 
1548 
1549 
1550 
1551 
1552 
1553 
1554 
1555 
1556 
1557 
1558 
1559 
1560 
1561 
1562 
1563 
1564 
1565 
1566 
1567 
1568 
1569 
1570 
1571 
1572 
1573 
1574 
1575 
1576 
1577 
1578 
1579 
1580 
1581 
1582 
1583 

(1585) 

ONGOING MIGRATION FROM CENTRAL 

AMERICA: AN EXAMINATION OF FISCAL YEAR 

2015 APPREHENSIONS 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2015 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m., in room 

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

Present: Senators Johnson, Lankford, Ayotte, Ernst, Carper, 

McCaskill, and Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning. This hearing will be called 

to order. 

I want to welcome all of our witnesses. Thank you for taking the 

time to appear here, for your thoughtful testimony, and for your 

willingness to answer our questions. 

This is our 12th hearing on the lack of security on our border. 

We have also had three roundtables. This hearing, like the previous hearings, is really just a very sincere attempt on this Committee’s part to try and lay out the reality. I come from a manufacturing background. I have had to solve a lot of problems, and it 

starts with describing the reality and acknowledging it. Sometimes 

you do not like looking at the reality, and I would say that is certainly the case with the problem of our unsecure borders and the 

level of illegal immigration out of certainly Central America and 

Mexico. These are tough problems. It is what I call the true definition of a problem, something that does not have real easy solutions, 

which is why we have been grappling with this thing for decades. 

Later this month, in further fact finding, we are going to be taking a trip, the Members of the Committee, to Central America to 

see the conditions on the ground there, which, let us face it, we acknowledge the fact that people love to live in America. This is the 

land of opportunity. It is a land of immigrants. Through our history, generation after generation, waves of immigrants have come 

here and made our country strong. But it has to be a legal process. 

It has to be an orderly process. 

In a few weeks, maybe a couple days; I am going through the 

final editing process—we are going to be releasing a report on 
1586 

1The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 1831. 

those 12 hearings and what we have learned. I think I can describe 

it a little bit in terms of, what the conclusions of that report are. 

First and foremost—and this is, I think, shared by my Ranking 

Member and everybody on this Committee—our borders are not secure. They are just not secure. If you want to have one piece of information, one metric that tells you how unsecure our border is, 

General McCaffrey testified that they were only interdicting 5 to 10 

percent of illegal drugs coming through the Southern Borders. That 

is how unsecure it is. 

Now, we have to secure our borders for a number of reasons, not 

just the illegal immigration issue but for national security, for public health and safety. This is a serious matter. It deserves serious 

attention. And, again, that is the purpose of these hearings. 

I think one conclusion of our report of these hearings is also that 

there are multiple causes, multiple root causes. But from my standpoint looking at this, probably the root cause of our unsecure borders is literally our insatiable demand for drug in this country that 

for decades basically gave rise to the drug cartels that are businesses. They developed those drug-trafficking routes, and they 

started expanding their product line to human trafficking, to sex 

trafficking, and all manners of deprivations as a result of those 

things. So, we bear responsibility in this country for our insatiable 

demand for drugs. We need to understand that. 

We also have to understand, too, that within our immigration 

system we have created, unintentionally—with the best of intentions, quite honestly—a number of incentives for illegal immigration. We need to honestly look at those incentives, and we need to 

ask ourselves, Is there anything we should do to change those laws, 

change those regulations that actually incentivized people to come 

here illegally as opposed to coming here in a legal and orderly process? 

I would argue—and, of course, the purpose of this hearing today 

is really talking about the continuing crisis. And it is a continuing 

crisis of unaccompanied children coming across our borders illegally. 

I would turn everybody’s attention to our first chart1 here, which 

shows the history of unaccompanied children coming to this country illegally since 2009. And you can see the line of demarcation 

there, being Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals in 2012, which 

I would say goes a long way toward explaining why we have had 

this explosion. 

Now, it is true that the biggest problem we have is in 2014, but 

now that the figures from 2015 are in, yes, we are down from 

51,705 unaccompanied children from Central America coming to 

this Nation from 2014, but in 2015, it is still 28,387. I would say 

by any measure still at crisis levels. 

Now, we have gotten better at processing them. We have gotten 

better at dispersing them in a humane fashion, and that is not a 

bad thing that we are treating these people with humanity. We are 

America. We are going to show that kind of compassion. But, unfortunately, I think it continues to incentivize more individuals com-
1587 

1The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 1832. 

2The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 1625. 

ing here, and I think the next graph1 is something we also have 

to take a look at. Because we often just talk about unaccompanied 

children. We have also created some additional incentives now for 

family units, and so we have seen a real spike in the number of 

family units coming in here because, you know, our policy now is 

to no longer really hold them in detention centers, but also send 

them throughout the country, again, in a human fashion—I understand that—but it is incentivizing more individuals to come into 

this country illegally, and we have to really face that reality. 

I would ask unanimous consent to enter my written statement 

into the record.2 We have five witnesses here, so I do not want to 

belabor the point any further. But the bottom line is we have to 

face these realities. We have to ask ourselves some hard questions, 

and we have to start solving this problem for the reasons I have 

stated. 

With that, I am happy to turn it over to our Ranking Member, 

Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for 

pulling this together again. 

I want to thank you for calling this hearing on the ongoing surge 

of Central American migration that we are experiencing at our 

southwest border. This is an important challenge for the region and 

for our country as well. I think it is a moral challenge. I look forward to working together, continuing to working together with the 

Chairman and the rest of the delegation toward lasting solutions. 

I look forward to joining him and several of our colleagues—I think 

Senator Peters, maybe Senator Heitkamp, and maybe a House 

Member—to go down to several of these countries, including, I believe, Guatemala and Honduras, later this month. 

Last summer, as the Chairman has said, we were shocked by the 

flood of migrants arriving across our borders from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, particularly the thousands of unaccompanied children and families with young kids. When they arrived, 

most did not try to evade our Border Patrol agents. Instead, they 

sought them out for protection. Some of their stories—and those of 

migrants who did not survive the journey—were, frankly, heartbreaking. 

Our government took emergency steps to shelter and process 

these individuals, but also put into place strategies to stem the 

flow. These included public information campaigns on the dangers 

of the journey, expedited court hearings, an increased focus on 

human smuggling and trafficking rings, and support for Mexico’s 

efforts to better police its own Southern Border. 

I was pleased that these efforts had an impact—I think we all 

were—for a time in slowing migration. But many observers warned 

that as long as the Northern Triangle countries remained mired in 

violence and poverty, migration would continue. And that is exactly 

what appears to have happened. This time, we should not be surprised. 
1588 

Although for a number of months significantly fewer Central 

Americans were apprehended at our Southern Border, the flow 

never really stopped. In fact, much of the decrease was due not to 

fewer people fleeing the Northern Triangle countries, but from the 

unprecedented new enforcement efforts by Mexico, which we encouraged, on its Southern Border with Guatemala. 

Between July 2014 and June 2015, for example, Mexico reportedly apprehended nearly 157,000 Central American migrants. That 

is a 70-percent increase compared to the same period for the previous year. 

But since this summer, even this enhanced effort on the part of 

our Mexican partners has not been enough. Border Patrol apprehensions of Central American children and families began slowly 

climbing toward last year’s levels early in 2015. In August, they 

surpassed the number of new arrivals in August 2014. 

In September, arrivals have remained relatively high as well. I 

think this is particularly striking given that apprehensions usually 

peak in the spring and they decline over the summer and early fall. 

There are different theories as to why we are seeing more Central 

American migrants again, particularly children and families. Some 

people point to increased violence in El Salvador, others to drought 

conditions that have worsened poverty for many in the region. Still 

another theory is that the smugglers have found new routes that 

have allowed them to get around Mexico’s enhanced apprehension 

efforts and our own. 

Of course, there are also pull factors—and they have been alluded to already—particularly a desire on the part of migrants to 

reunite with family members who are already here. Smugglers may 

also be marketing real or perceived changes in our immigration 

policy—such as current litigation calling into question family detention—to persuade migrants that now is the right time to make 

this trip. We are going to discuss today some of those factors and 

also what we can do to try to change the dynamic. 

I think the increased apprehensions we are seeing this summer 

and fall are an important reminder that we must—in addition to 

ongoing efforts to better secure our borders—work with our partners to address the root causes of Central American migration. 

The Governments of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador 

have joined in an unprecedented regional agreement, as we know, 

called the ‘‘Alliance for Prosperity.’’ It seeks to change the underlying conditions on the ground that compel so many people to flee. 

Our own government has proposed a $1 billion investment in foreign aid in the current fiscal year for initiatives to complement the 

Alliance for Prosperity. These funds are intended not only to improve security, but also to provide more economic opportunity for 

the citizens of the Northern Triangle and improve the rule of law 

in the region. I like to say that the focus of these investments 

largely is to create a more nurturing environment for job creation 

and job preservation, mostly job creation, in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, which is a key part of what needs to be 

done. 

This is clearly a daunting undertaking that will not yield immediate results, yet we cannot continue to neglect the underlying conditions that have led to the current migration crisis. 
1589 

It is also worth remembering that it is our appetite for drugs— 

the Chairman has already mentioned this, but it is worth mentioning again. It is our appetite for drugs that fuels much of the 

violence and corruption in this region. As a result, I believe we 

have a moral obligation to try and help to undo that damage. The 

United States of America is complicit in creating a situation in El 

Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala that people want to flee. They 

want to get out of there. And for us to say we are helping to create 

a situation which is unbearable for you, intolerable, we would not 

want to live there, we would not want to raise our kids there, we 

are going to be complicit in creating that situation; and then when 

you try to get out and escape, we are going to make sure you do 

not come to our country. That is a moral dilemma and one that I 

am not comfortable with, and I suspect none of us are. 

But several of us on the Committee, as I said, are going to be 

traveling to the Northern Triangle in a couple of weeks to explore 

more fully what is fueling this ongoing migration and how U.S. engagement in the region might help turn the tide. 

I think our efforts and those of others working on this issue are 

very much in keeping with the valuable message that Pope Francis 

delivered here just a couple of weeks ago during his visit. We need 

to see these migrants as people, not simply as numbers, and work 

in partnership to try to alleviate the desperate conditions that 

cause so many to risk life and limb to flee to the United States, 

and to remember we have a moral obligation to—and I am not 

preaching—but maybe I am. I am preaching to the choir. We have 

a moral obligation, I think, to put ourselves in their shoes, how 

would we want to be treated, and to act accordingly. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

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. GIANOPOULOS. I do. 

Mr. CABRERA. I do. 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. I do. 

Mr. WOOD. I do. 

Rev. SEITZ. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Our first witness is Kimberly Gianopoulos. 

Ms. Gianopoulos is the Director of International Affairs and Trade, 

Government Accountability Office (GAO), one of our favorite agencies. 

Ms. Gianopoulos recently authored a report that reviewed U.S. 

assistance in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. To research 

this report, Ms. Gianopoulos traveled to Central America to observe 

U.S. programs and interview migrants on their perceptions of U.S. 

policies and laws. She will testify today on the findings and recommendations of her report. Ms. Gianopoulos. 
1590 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Gianopoulos appears in the Appendix on page 1628. 

TESTIMONY OF KIMBERLY M. GIANOPOULOS,1 DIRECTOR, 

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRADE, U.S. GOVERNMENT 

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. GIANOPOULOS. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of 

the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to 

discuss our recent work on child migration from Central America. 

Unaccompanied alien children (UACs), crossed the U.S.-Mexican 

border in record numbers in fiscal year (FY) 2014. Most of these 

UACs were from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. A recent 

surge in August 2015 has renewed concerns about the efforts being 

taken by U.S. agencies to address the causes of migration. We 

issued a report in July 2015 that focused on U.S. agency efforts to 

address these causes. Today my statement will focus on our conclusions and recommendations from that report, as well as some updated information on the recent surge. 

According to U.S. officials, the increase in migration since 2012 

was likely triggered by several factors, such as the increased presence and sophistication of child smugglers, or coyotes, and confusion over U.S. immigration policy. For example, agency officials 

told us that in some cases coyotes led many people to believe children could migrate to the United States and receive permission to 

stay indefinitely if they arrived by a certain date. 

Additionally, Honduran youth and coordinators of community 

centers who were interviewed as part of a U.S Agency for International Development (USAID) focus group indicated that they believed the United States would allow migrant minors, mothers 

traveling with minors, and pregnant women to stay for a period of 

time upon arrival in the United States. 

Social media also plays a factor in migration. Officials in Guatemala told us that social media outlets enable migrants who arrive 

in the United States to share messages and pictures with families 

in their home countries. This can serve as a powerful and influential endorsement of the decision to migrate. Additionally, officials 

noted that persistent conditions such as violence, poverty, and the 

lack of economic opportunity have worsened. 

We met with children in all three countries, and they echoed 

many of the same reasons for migrating to the United States. 

For example, children at a USAID outreach center in San Pedro 

Sula, Honduras, noted the lack of educational and job opportunities 

in their communities as a reason for migrating. Children from a 

particularly violent neighborhood told us it was even more difficult 

for them to find employment since potential employers would sometimes choose not to hire them simply because of where they lived. 

A number of U.S. agencies have programs providing assistance 

in areas such as economic development, community development, 

law, citizen security, rule of law enforcement, and education. 

Some program address longstanding concerns while others were 

developed to address the recent surge in migration. For example, 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)-led units supported an 

increased focus on investigating and dismantling smuggling operations in all three countries. We found that U.S. agencies chose to 
1591 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Cabrera appears in the Appendix on page 1641. 

locate programs in the three countries based on various factors, including high poverty and crime, but adjusted their efforts to locate 

more programs in high migration communities. 

With regard to evaluation, we found that most agencies had developed processes to assess the effectiveness of UAC migration-related programs, but there were weaknesses. For example, DHS had 

established performance measures such as arrests for units combating UAC smuggling, but had not established numeric or other 

types of targets for these measures which would enable the DHS 

to measure the unit’s progress toward a stated goal. 

In addition, DHS and State had not always evaluated the information campaigns intended to combat coyote misinformation. For 

example, DHS launched its 2013 campaign in April of that year, 

but launched its 2014 campaign in late June, which was after the 

migration levels had peaked. Neither agency evaluated the effect of 

its 2014 campaign. 

Public affairs officers from all three countries expressed uncertainty or doubt concerning the effectiveness of campaigns centered 

on the dangers of migration. Specifically, they were uncertain 

whether such campaigns resonated with citizens of the three countries since the dangers were already well known. 

Accordingly, we recommended that the agencies integrate evaluations into their information campaigns intended to deter migration 

and that DHS establish performance targets for its investigative 

units. 

This concludes my opening remarks. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this very important topic, and I am prepared 

to answer any questions you might have. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Ms. Gianopoulos. 

Our next witness is Agent Chris Cabrera. He is a Border Patrol 

agent in the Rio Grande Valley Texas Sector. Mr. Cabrera can 

draw on his experience as a Border Patrol agent in the Rio Grande 

Valley to discuss migration trends in the Rio Grande Valley Sector 

and the recent increase in unaccompanied minors and family units 

from Central America arriving at the border. He can explain how 

apprehensions in fiscal year 2015 compare to last year as well as 

share anecdotes he has gathered through interviews with migrants. 

Mr. Cabrera. 

TESTIMONY OF CHRIS CABRERA,1 BORDER PATROL AGENT, 

RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER 

PROTECTION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL 

Mr. CABRERA. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, 

thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify on behalf of 

the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC). 

The Council represents the interests of 16,500 line agents of the 

Border Patrol. My name is Chris Cabrera. I joined the Border Patrol in 2001, after serving 4 years in the Army. I have spent my 

entire career in the Border Patrol in the Rio Grande Valley of 

Texas. 
1592 

Last year, the American people were shocked by the massive 

surge in unaccompanied children. In fiscal year 2014, the Border 

Patrol apprehended 66,000 unaccompanied children primarily in 

the Rio Grande Valley. Although the apprehensions of unaccompanied children are down 50 percent fiscal year 2015, this is no 

cause for celebration. We will still apprehend 35,000 unaccompanied children this year and an additional 34,000 in family 

groups. 

There are a number of factors that are driving the UACs to 

come. Many point to the endemic violence in Central America. 

Without a doubt, violence and instability in Central America, 

where the vast majority of the UACs and family groups are coming 

from, is a factor. It is not, however, the primary factor driving this 

mass migration at this point in time. Unfortunately, many of these 

countries have been suffering violence, corruption, and poverty for 

decades, yet they did not leave in large numbers with the exception 

of the Salvadorans during their civil war 30 years ago. 

When Border Patrol Agents detain a UAC or family group, we 

interview them, and they are typically very forthcoming about their 

motivation for coming into the United States. Most believe they 

will either not be caught or, even if they are caught, they will not 

be deported back to their home country. The UACs and family 

groups we detain are acutely aware of the fact we will not hold 

them until they are adjudicated. They know that they will be released and issued a Notice to Appear (NTA). What we have right 

now is essentially a catch-and-release policy. This coupled with violence and instability in their home country is what is driving the 

continued flow into the United States. Unless we hold them until 

we adjudicate their cases, they will continue to come. 

The second driver is the idea that they need to get here before 

some ambiguous deadline. Some of them do not even know when 

that deadline is; they only know that they need to beat it if they 

want to stay in the United States permanently. We call this the 

‘‘myth of the permiso,’’ and it is most likely being advanced by the 

drug cartels that are controlling the illegal alien and drug smuggling across the border. 

For cartels, human smuggling is big business worth hundreds of 

millions of dollars each year. Most are paying $10,000 per person. 

Higher-value aliens, such as Middle Eastern and Asians, pay double or triple this figure. The UACs and family units serve another 

purpose. They are human screens that tie up the Border Patrol 

Agents while the cartels smuggle narcotics and higher-value aliens 

behind them, who, if caught, will be deported back to their home 

country. 

When the crisis hit last summer, we soon realized why they are 

doing this. The cartels are driving these kids and families into the 

middle of nowhere to cross the Rio Grande River. Most of these 

people cannot swim, and crossing the Rio Grande on a flimsy rubber raft is incredibly dangerous. Why didn’t they simply march up 

to the port of entry (POE) and turn themselves in to Customs? Customs could just as easily have detained them. The cartels know 

that a group of 30 UACs will tie up an entire shift of Border Patrol 

agents. All they are doing is sending these children to tie up our 

agents and leaving the border completely unguarded. 
1593 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Casas-Zamora appears in the Appendix on page 1643. 

If there is one thing that could be done to correct this problem, 

it would be to end the catch-and-release policy. If they knew that 

if they were caught they would be detained, adjudicated, and repatriated to their home country, the calculus changes dramatically. I 

guarantee that if this was the case, the numbers would fall dramatically. 

The second action deals with resources. I know the budget is 

tight, but I would estimate that in Rio Grande Valley we are apprehending 40 percent of illegal immigrants caught crossing into this 

country. This low capture rate again leaves the perception that 

crossing the border illegally is a viable option. I am happy to discuss this in greater detail during the question-and-answer period, 

but I believe we are at least 5,000 agents below where we need to 

be to effectively secure the borders. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Agent Cabrera, for your service 

and your testimony. And I would point out this is your second time 

before this Committee, and we appreciate that. 

Our next witness is Kevin Casas-Zamora. Mr. Casas-Zamora is 

the senior fellow and program director, Peter D. Bell Rule of Law 

Program, Inter-American Dialogue. Mr. Casas-Zamora can speak to 

the need of prioritized U.S. funding to ensure programs are effective in improving the security and economic stability in Central 

America. Mr. Casas-Zamora can also discuss the conditions in El 

Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras that are contributing to increased migration from the region, the current status of the rule 

of law in these countries, and how these conditions affect U.S. aid. 

Mr. Casas-Zamora. 

TESTIMONY OF KEVIN CASAS–ZAMORA,1 D.PHIL., SENIOR FELLOW AND PROGRAM DIRECTOR, PETER D. BELL RULE OF 

LAW PROGRAM, INTER–AMERICAN DIALOGUE 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. Thank you, Senator. I am grateful for the opportunity to address the honorable Members of this Committee. 

Over the past 5 years, 100,000 migrant children from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have been apprehended at the 

U.S. border. They are a particularly tragic subset of the approximately 3 million migrants from Central America’s Northern Triangle that have reached U.S. shores over the past two decades. 

Four factors are at the root of those migration flows: 

First, the weakness of the State. States in the Northern Triangle 

are very feeble. At just below 16 percent of gross domestic product 

(GDP), the region’s average tax burden is among the lowest in the 

world. Such fiscal starvation impinges on the ability of the State 

to mitigate the impact of the very high levels of poverty and inequality that afflict these countries. Also, fiscally weak States have 

great problems exerting effective control over their territory. 

Second, corruption. The effects of fiscal weakness are compounded by endemic corruption, notably in Guatemala and Honduras. Relative to the size of the economy, the fraud recently uncovered at Honduras’ social security system dwarfs the massive 

bribery scandal of Brazil’s Petrobras by a factor of 20. 
1594 

The state of judicial institutions is a critical factor in explaining 

these levels of corruption. In all three countries, political interference in judicial and overseeing institutions is rife. The struggle 

for democracy and development in the Northern Triangle is, above 

all, a fight for the rule of law, for accountability and against all 

forms of impunity. 

Third, economic vulnerability. For the majority of migrants from 

Northern Central America, economic reasons underlie the decision 

to leave their countries. Despite the efforts made by these countries 

to open up their economies, they appear unable to generate the 

kind of growth that could make a real dent in their poverty levels. 

Over the past decade, per capita income growth in all three countries has been mediocre at best. Given their distributional problems, it is unsurprising that the majority of the population remains 

mired in poverty or economic vulnerability. Today remittances contribute 10 percent of GDP in Guatemala, nearly 17 percent in El 

Salvador, and over 18 percent in Honduras. The truth is that it is 

remittances from migrants that keep these economies afloat. 

Fourth, crime and violence. The most pressing challenge faced by 

the Northern Triangle concerns high levels of crime. Last year, 

Honduras alone had more homicides than the 28 member States of 

the European Union combined. 

Senator CARPER. I am sorry. Would you say that again? 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. Sure. Last year, Honduras alone had more 

homicides than the 28 member States of the European Union combined. Violence levels in Northern Central America cannot be understood but in terms of the pervasive presence of organized crime, 

particularly drug trafficking. 

All these mythologies are not just complex, but are deeply intertwined. None of this can be corrected by foreign assistance alone, 

yet none of this will be corrected without foreign assistance. Let me 

suggest a few ways in which the United States could play a constructive role. 

One, fund generously the Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern 

Triangle. The alliance is a timely and well-conceived program. It 

embodies the long-term and integral approach that is essential to 

bring about structural change and hopefully contain migratory 

flows. It would be a loss if the program were to shed its holistic 

conception and wind up as yet another narrow counternarcotics effort. 

Two, support Guatemala’s International Commission Against Impunity (CICIG) and expand it. The United States played no small 

part in the creation of CICIG. You should be commended for that. 

Even before its crucial role in the investigation that led to the resignation of President Otto Perez Molina, the Commission had 

proved a very valuable resource for Guatemala. The United States 

continued support for CICIG is vital for the whole region. Its experience provides a blueprint for similar bodies that could and should 

be adopted in other countries, certainly Honduras. 

Three, insist on structural reforms. There are clear limits to 

what even a generous and soundly conceived program of foreign assistance can achieve in Northern Central America. It is a legitimate question whether the United States will find in the region’s 

political elites suitable partners to make this effort worthwhile. 
1595 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Wood appears in the Appendix on page 1656. 

The case of Perez Molina and the popular mobilization against corruption in Honduras suggest that some of the best partners are to 

be found in the region’s civil societies. One can also point to brave, 

isolated reformers that defy impossible odds to bring about institutional change in all three countries. Identifying those champions of 

reform is difficult but possible. 

I will submit that the United States can gauge the seriousness 

of political partners in the region according to two criteria: first, 

their readiness to push for robust and progressive tax systems; 

and, second, their sincerity about introducing checks and balances 

and promoting judicial independence. Hence, attempts to pack the 

supreme court or to introduce indefinite reelection, for instance, 

ought to be taken for what they are: preludes to the corruption, 

power abuse, and impunity that have sadly been the historical 

norm in much of Central America. 

Introducing progressive tax reform and real checks and balances 

on are the crux of the matter. If the United States is serious about 

helping the Northern Triangle, it should not be shy about demanding those structural changes. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Casas-Zamora. 

Our next witness is Duncan Wood. Mr. Wood is the Director of 

the Mexico Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for 

Scholars. Dr. Wood recently visited the Mexico-Guatemala border 

to assess Mexico’s border enforcement efforts. He can describe the 

State of Mexico’s border enforcement efforts and how these efforts 

impact Central America migration to the United States. Dr. Wood. 

TESTIMONY OF DUNCAN WOOD, PH.D.,1 DIRECTOR, MEXICO INSTITUTE, WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR 

SCHOLARS 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you, Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member 

Carper, for the invitation. Good morning, everybody. 

As you just said, I am here to talk about Mexico’s Programa 

Frontera Sur, the Southern Border Program, based on two recent 

study tours that the Wilson Center has taken to the border with 

Guatemala and Belize, and there are two main messages I would 

like to leave with you today: 

One, the Southern Border Program is very much a work in 

progress, but it is having an impact in multiple ways that are of 

enormous interest to the United States’ homeland security. 

And, second, based upon what Mexico is attempting to do on its 

Southern Border, migrant roots are changing as migrants and 

smugglers learn how to get around Mexican Government controls. 

Let me begin by just talking about the border a little bit between 

Mexico and Guatemala. The map here—which, of course, is too 

small for you to see, but I think you have a copy of it somewhere— 

between Mexico and Guatemala there are eight formal crossing 

points, so eight border crossings where you can cross legally between the two countries. And there are identified by the Mexican 

Government 57 informal crossing points where people regularly 

cross back and forth, often for entirely innocent reasons of doing 
1596 

some shopping for the Sunday lunch, for example, or buying basics 

for their house. 

The border region is, of course, a divers region, difficult terrain, 

rivers, forest, hills, and also urban areas. There is an active border 

life. As I said, people cross regularly, formally and informally, to 

engage in commerce, visits, et cetera. And local communities are 

very wary of a thickening of the Guatemala-Mexico-Belize border. 

And, in fact, there have been examples, cases of protests from local 

communities when efforts have been made to try to restrict traffic. 

And Mexican Government officials have told us that that is actually one of the issues they are struggling with. 

Mexico’s interest in its Southern Border is, of course, not new. 

It really began in recent times, in the mid-2000s, a growing awareness of the importance of the Southern Border for organized crime 

and for the question of transmigration. And, of course, there have 

been many criticisms from Mexican civil society of Mexico’s record 

of protecting Central American migrants. 

The Mexico Comision Internacional de Limites Y Aguas—the 

Mexican international commission for boundaries and waters—has 

done impressive work in actually mapping the border and understanding the reality, the day-to-day reality there. They were of 

enormous help to us when we actually conducted our tour. 

And, in fact, just to give you an idea of where we began with all 

of this, it is only in the last decade that the border itself between 

Mexico and Guatemala has been adequately demarcated so that 

you actually can now visit the actual borderline and know when 

you are crossing over the territory from one country to another. 

That is the starting point. So there is a lot of work to be done 

there. 

The Southern Border Program in Mexico has existed for a number of years, but it was reinvigorated under the current presidency 

of Enrique Pena Nieto. The program has two official objectives: 

one, to protect migrants who enter Mexico; two, to manage the 

ports of entry in a way that promotes the security and prosperity 

of the region. It aims to do this in five ways: one, through bringing 

about regular and orderly migration; two, improvements to infrastructure for border security and migration; three, protecting migrants; four, regional shared responsibility; and, five, interagency 

coordination. We saw elements of all of those things on our tours. 

The most important thing that I would say we saw there was the 

impressive investment in facilities, procedures, and controls that 

the Mexican Government has put in place. They have put in place 

a regional visitor visa program and a visiting border worker program, which is allowing people to actually cross over legally in a 

formal fashion to visit southern Mexico from Guatemala and 

Belize. And I have the numbers of those visa permits if you need 

them. 

This attempt to provide a formal way for Guatemalans and 

Belizeans to enter Mexico is very important. The facilities at the 

border are multimodal. You see the migration agency, the military, 

customs, health, agriculture, everybody is actually there. This 

means that there is a growing presence of the Mexican State in the 

Southern Border region which has not been there before. 
1597 

1The prepared statement of Bishop Seitz appears in the Appendix on page 1666. 

What are the challenges that remain? Well, it is an impressive 

attempt to establish some sense of order and to raise the visibility 

of the Mexican State in the south. And in many ways, it is positive 

for local communities in terms of security. However, it is clear that 

the flows are not going to diminish as long as conditions in Central 

America continue to be as harsh as they are. Migrants learn and 

migrants adapt, and we saw multiple examples of migrant routes 

going around Mexican attempts to control. So it is a problem of 

abuses, many criticisms of Mexico’s treatment of migrants. We saw 

evidence on both sides of that that, in fact, there are actually some 

respectable conditions in detention centers in southern Mexico. But 

we also heard stories that told an opposite story. 

And, last, on the question of regional cooperation, Mexico is going 

to face a very big challenge in evolving its regional cooperation 

with countries like Guatemala simply because of the lack of capacity in their counterpart. Interestingly enough, military cooperation 

between Mexico and Guatemala has advanced very rapidly and 

there is good understanding. Working with the rest of the government agencies has been much more challenging. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Dr. Wood. 

Our final witness is Bishop Mark Seitz. Bishop Seitz is a member of the diocese of El Paso, Texas, U.S. Conference of Catholic 

Bishops (USCCB). Bishop Seitz can describe the programs his organization is employing to assist youth and other vulnerable populations in Central America in order to deter migration and assist 

in repatriation proceedings. Bishop Seitz is also an original native 

from Wisconsin, so, again, we welcome you here. Thank you for 

your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE MOST REVEREND MARK J. SEITZ,1

BISHOP, DIOCESE OF EL PASO, TEXAS, ON BEHALF OF THE 

U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS 

Rev. SEITZ. Thank you very much, Chairman Johnson, Senator 

Carper, Ranking Member, for holding this hearing today. 

Mr. Chairman, we are witnessing a humanitarian situation in 

our hemisphere in which vulnerable children and families are fleeing for their lives in search of protection. If we cannot respond justly and humanely to this challenge in our own backyard, then we 

relinquish our moral leadership and influence globally, where much 

greater crises are being experienced. 

Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Bishops sent a delegation led by myself 

to Central America to assess the situation there and were among 

the first groups to warn of a possible outflow of children and families fleeing from that region. 

Since then, the violence in the Northern Triangle region of Central America has only worsened. El Salvador, victim of a new gang 

war, now rivals Honduras as the Nation with the highest murder 

rate in the world. A recent study by the United Nations (U.N.) determined that more than 6 in 10 of those who arrived at our borders or were leaving had legitimate asylum claims. 
1598 

1The stories referenced by Bishop Seitz appears in the Appendix on page 1833. 

I would like to recall with you a very distinguished visitor who 

graced these hallowed halls just last month. In his speech to Congress, Pope Francis urged us to show compassion to those fleeing 

to our land, and I quote: ‘‘We must not be taken by their numbers 

but, rather, as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation.’’ 

We should listen to the story of Maria, a 14-year-old from El Salvador who was kidnapped by a gang member and held captive, 

raped, and drugged. She managed to escape and fled to the United 

States. 

We should listen to the story of Manuel, a 17-year-old boy who 

was severely beaten by gang members and threatened with death 

if he did not join the gang. He escaped to the United States and 

was granted a Trafficking Victims eligibility letter by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit their stories and those of 

other children for the record.1

While the number of children and families arriving at our border 

has dropped in this past fiscal year by 40 percent, that does not 

mean that the number of persons fleeing Central America has 

dropped, as we have noted. Instead, it means that they are fleeing 

to neighboring countries or, worse, are being intercepted by Mexican authorities at our behest and sent back to danger, without 

proper screening and protection mechanisms. 

Mr. Chairman, according to the Migration Policy Institute, the 

Mexican Government has returned 70 percent more migrants, 

mostly women and children, back to the Northern Triangle over the 

past fiscal year ending September 30. They have returned six times 

more children than at this time last year. We have transferred the 

authority—or the responsibility for this crisis to others, and in so 

doing perhaps we have abdicated our own. 

But as we have heard, children and families continue to arrive 

at our Southern Border, and more recently we have seen a spike 

in their numbers. By increasing interdiction efforts, we have driven 

them into the hand of more sophisticated smugglers who are charging them $7,000 and more per trip and are finding ways to circumvent enforcement efforts using private cars and bribes along 

the way. 

However, Mr. Chairman, there are more serious humanitarian 

consequences to this interdiction policy. According to the Mexican 

Human Rights Commission, abuse of migrants by enforcement personnel has increased by 40 percent over the past year, including 

physical and sexual assault. 

There have also been reports that migrants sent back to their 

countries have been killed with at least 90 such deaths documented 

over the past year and a half. 

Mr. Chairman, if we export enforcement, we must also export 

protection. 

As my testimony details, we recommend that Congress and the 

administration, No. 1, approve and increase the $1 billion administration request for aid to Central America, directing assistance to 

youth development and reintegration programs. 
1599 

No. 2, that we halt our punitive deterrence strategy and instill 

a regional protection system based on the best interest determinations for children. 

Third, that we improve the Central American Minors (CAM), 

program. 

And, fourth, that we end family detention and replace it with 

community-based alternative to detention programs. 

Fifth, that we ultimately get comprehensive immigration reform. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to sum up the current situation with 

an analogy. Our current enforcement posture toward children and 

families fleeing the violence in Central America is akin to firemen 

arriving at a house fire and locking the doors. Instead of locking 

the doors, Mr. Chairman, we must put out the fire and rescue 

those inside. 

As I conclude, perhaps we could recall our Holy Father’s words 

during his visit. He also invoked a basic rule of life that should 

guide all of our actions: the Golden Rule. He reminded us that it 

is not only right but in our long-term best interest to practice that 

wise dictum. As he explained, ‘‘In a word, if we want security, let 

us give security. If we want life, let us give life. If we want opportunity, let us give opportunity. The yardstick we use for others will 

be the yardstick which will be used for us.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I pray that time and history will conclude that 

we honored this rule in meeting this humanitarian challenge. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Bishop. 

I will start with the questioning. Again, there is no doubt about 

the fact that this is an enormous problem, and as we talked about, 

one of the root causes is our insatiable demand for drugs, the lack 

of opportunity in Central America, the violence being driven a lot 

because of the drug cartels, that type of thing. 

The question always is, well, OK, what is an achievable goal 

here? I do not think it is good for Central America that those individuals that actually want to seek opportunity flow out of the country. I think the goal of our policy should be to stop the flow—again, 

understanding how complex that is, if you could wave a magic 

wand and, make Central America corruption-free so they actually 

had a rule of law, so that their economies could actually grow, that 

is what we are trying to achieve. And the hard questions are, in 

terms of aid programs, are we just pouring money down a rat hole? 

Is there any chance that money spent in Central America will be 

utilized effectively? So if we put the money in there, what kind of 

controls do we have? 

Ms. Gianopoulos, I would like to talk to you in terms of the GAO 

study because I think one thing I really want you to comment on, 

the reality of the situation, regardless of what Deferred Action on 

Childhood Arrivals (DACA), what those memorandums say, regardless of what our marketing programs are in terms of the danger of 

the journey, and the Bishop spoke very eloquently about the harm, 

I mean, the migrants are being abused. It is a dangerous journey. 

But the reality is if those children, if those families can get into 

America, they are staying. Since 2009, less than 7 percent have actually been sent back. So by the use of social media, those that are 
1600 

here are communicating back into Central America, so it is a gamble that pays off. 

Now, some people are abused along the journey. That is a tragedy. But the bottom line is they were willing to take that dangerous journey because they are able to stay here. Can you just expand on exactly how they are using social media? 

Ms. GIANOPOULOS. Sure. When we traveled to the region, we 

heard from a number of different children, from U.S. officials in 

Guatemala and El Salvador that the use of social media has absolutely exploded, not just for the families of the children who are 

making the journey, but also for the coyotes, that they are actually 

advertising their immigration services on various social media and 

getting the word out that way as to what the options are for the 

various families who want their children, or the families themselves, to make that trek. 

So the social media cannot be ignored as a major push factor in 

getting families to actually consider taking all of these risks and 

sending their children or themselves to the United States. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Casas-Zamora, you talked about the 

rule of law. Can you expand on that a little bit in terms of how 

crucial that is? Let us face it. You are not going to get investment 

to grow an economy unless you have some stability in terms of the 

rule of law, lack of corruption. How far are we away from having 

low enough levels of corruption and a strong enough rule of law to 

actually provide the type of economic activity, to provide the opportunities that is admittedly lacking in Central America? 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. Thank you, Senator. The short answer is 

very far from that. And the question here is, What is to be done? 

And my short answer to that would be that there are basic things 

that need to be put in place before we go on to more sophisticated 

policies or proposals. 

The most basic thing that needs to be in place if these countries 

are going to be serious about corruption—but also about the impunity that comes with the problems concerning citizen security. I 

mean, the most basic thing is to protect judicial independence, and 

to protect the autonomy of overseeing institutions such as the General Accounting Office, the ombudsman, all the institutions that 

are meant to control the exercise of power. Those institutions are 

in terrible shape in Central America, and my contention would be 

that one of the ways in which one can gauge the seriousness of 

your partners in Central America is by the willingness that they 

are willing to display in doing those basic things. Then we can go 

on to other things. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Basically I would interpret your remarks, 

any kind of aid would have to have enormous strings, very strong 

strings attached to it so that we do not just waste the money. 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. Very much so. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Dr. Wood, you talked about the increased 

effort on the part of Mexico to secure their Southern Border. Can 

you just tell me why they are doing it? 

Mr. WOOD. Yes, first, let me just make one quick comment on the 

last question. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Sure. 
1601 

Mr. WOOD. I think that we are witnessing right now throughout 

Latin America a civil society awakening over the question of corruption, and that is something that we should celebrate and we 

should reinforce. I think working only with governments is the 

wrong way to go. We need to be reinforcing what civil societies 

throughout the region are doing. We have seen it in Guatemala. 

We have seen it in Brazil. I think that is one thing that we could 

do. 

Why is the Mexican Government engaging in their Programa 

Frontera Sur? Well, first of all, this was a preexisting program that 

had never really had the investment that it required to make it effective. So the question is: Why are they actually investing in it 

now? Partly it is in reaction to pressure from the United States to 

try to bring about some order for the migration flows northwards. 

But there is also very much a Mexican Government interest in this. 

I think there is a crossover, a very clear crossover, between what 

we are seeing on trying to control migration flows and trying to 

control organized crime on Mexico’s Southern Border. 

When you visit these facilities, both border facilities and facilities 

that are remote from the border inland, the presence of not only 

migracion but also the military, the police, health, et cetera, those 

multimodal interagency facilities are designed to establish the 

presence of the Mexican State in a territory where it was not really 

visible before. 

This means that the costs of moving through southern Mexico 

have been increased, not just for migrants but for organized crime 

as well. It does not mean they do not adapt. Of course they do. But 

it raises the cost, and it makes it much more complex for them to 

do that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So the good news is really there is mutual 

benefit to the United States as well as Mexico for a continued effort 

to secure the Mexican border there. 

Mr. WOOD. There are definitely mutual benefits in terms of 

homeland security. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Agent Cabrera, I do want you to talk a little 

bit more about—we toured the Southern Border with you—the use 

of the economic immigrants for diversion for drugs. Can you just 

expand on that a little bit more? Because I thought that was pretty 

telling, that when you really thought about it, these children, these 

families could just walk across the bridge and turn themselves in, 

and, they would be processed the exact same way, but that is not 

what happens. They actually do make the more dangerous trip 

across the river. Just describe some of those stories that you described at the border with us. 

Mr. CABRERA. Yes, Senator. In actuality, if these individuals that 

were crossing would cross through the bridge, it would not be a 

criminal crossing. It would not be an illegal crossing. They could 

walk up to the bridge and ask for asylum, much like they do when 

they come to us. However, when they cross the river, then there 

is that added charge of illegal entry. So it is more beneficial for 

them to cross through the bridge as opposed to the river, not to 

mention the safety factor. 

What happens is these kids or these family units or even regular 

migrants, they are walking up to the bridge to claim asylum, and 
1602 

they get intercepted by the cartel members, the smugglers. And at 

that point they take them to a certain area, they charge them and 

tell them when and where they are going to cross. The reason they 

do that is once they occupy us, we will have to send multiple 

agents out there to ensure their security, their safety. And it opens 

up various holes along the border because our agents are having 

to come from other areas to secure them, to transport them, to 

make sure they are OK, make sure they are healthy, make sure 

they do not have any weapons, and get them into the station. 

Chairman JOHNSON. How often does that happen? 

Mr. CABRERA. Every time they cross. 

Chairman JOHNSON. You have multiple groups every night, every 

day? 

Mr. CABRERA. Every night. It slows down during the week. 

Maybe Tuesday, Wednesday, it is at its lowest. Thursday it starts 

to pick up. Friday, Saturday, Sunday, it is just bodies everywhere. 

At our station we are looking on the weekend 600 to 700 a day. 

And that is just one station. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So it is extremely effective diversion for 

their drug trafficking. 

Mr. CABRERA. Exactly. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And potentially the higher value—you mentioned the Middle Eastern—— 

Mr. CABRERA. Yes, we have the Middle Eastern, you have people 

that are criminals, whether they come from Mexico or, anywhere 

in the country, they have criminal charges in the United States, 

and they know that if they get caught, they are going to face some 

real jail time. So those guys will pay more so that they can get 

around different ways. If you have cartel people that are coming 

back and forth, obviously they cannot cross through the bridge, so 

they are going to be another one of those high-value illegal aliens 

that they are going to cross in an area where we are not. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. CABRERA. The drug smuggling, we are seeing an uptick in 

not just marijuana but of cocaine, of heroin, of methamphetamines 

coming in. And it is taking its toll. It is spilled into our streets. The 

violence is spilling into the United States. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. And we have held hearings— 

and we are going to have more hearings—just on the tragedy of 

heroin addiction and deaths here in America coming through the 

Southern Border. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I really want to thank 

each of you for what you do with your lives and for spending part 

of your lives with us today and testifying and responding to our 

questions. 

Bishop Seitz, you are a dead ringer for my first cousin, Dan Patton, who is a lay minister in a church in Columbus, Ohio. And I 

have never seen him wear a collar like this. But I walked in and 

I looked at you, and I said, ‘‘What is my cousin doing here?’’ But 

he would probably say, to what you have said, ‘‘Amen.’’ And I do, 

too. 

Listening to all you testify this morning, I was reminded of something that Winston Churchill once said. I do not know if Senator 

McCaskill and others will recall this. But he once said, ‘‘If you are 
1603 

young and not liberal, you do not have a heart. If you are old and 

not conservative, you do not have a brain.’’ And what we need to 

do in addressing this dilemma, moral dilemma and human dilemma, is we need to act with our hearts and with our brains. And 

there are a number of things that we need to do, and some of them 

we need to do I think all at once. 

There is the idea of us—a great analogy you used, Bishop, I 

think you were the one who said, the firemen show up at the 

house, lock everybody inside, and leave. That is pretty close to 

what we have done. We have contributed enormously to the misery 

of the folks who live in these three countries, and then to walk 

away and say, ‘‘Well, do not try to get into our country,’’ that is just 

morally wrong. 

I believe you have outlined for us very nicely ways that we can 

act with our hearts and with our brains, one, to deter the likelihood, reduce the likelihood that people are going to come, one, by 

making it clear that it is going to be hard to get into our country, 

and if you do, you may not get a chance to stay; but, two, to say 

to the folks who live there, you are going to have a better future, 

and you are going to have some economic hope and not have to live 

in the kind of misery that you face today. We need to do both. And 

we can. 

Harry Truman used to say that the only thing that is new in the 

world is the history we forgot or never learned, and actually I think 

we learned something from Colombia where, about 20 years ago, a 

bunch of gunmen rounded up the entire supreme court of the country of Colombia, took them into a room, and shot them to death. 

And today that country is regarded as a reasonably strong, sound, 

vibrant democracy. We helped them do it with something called 

‘‘Plan Colombia.’’ And it is not something that we did by ourselves. 

It is not something they did entirely by themselves. But there were 

a number of other folks—it was a shared responsibility. We did our 

parts; others did their part. Colombians did their part. 

What lessons are there for us today from Plan Colombia? I like 

to say find out what works and do more of that. What did we learn 

from Plan Colombia that may be transferable and usable here in 

this situation? Anyone? And just be brief, please. Yes? 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. Thank you—— 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Casas-Zamora. 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. That is me, hailing from Central America. 

Senator CARPER. Where? Donde? 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. Costa Rica. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Great place. 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. Thanks. Glad to hear that. 

I think the single most important lesson that one can draw from 

Plan Colombia and similar experiences is that unless there is real 

serious buy-in from the political elite in the country, very little of 

this will have any success. The lion’s share of transforming these 

countries, of reforming and, establishing real structures, the rule of 

law, and accountability, really falls on the shoulders of those countries. Unless they get serious about that, no amount of foreign assistance will do the trick. 

Senator CARPER. Yes. Bishop Seitz. 
1604 

Rev. SEITZ. I might also suggest we could learn a lot from Nicaragua. It is very interesting that when you look to the region, you 

realize that so many of those who are fleeing the Northern Triangle 

are going to the border countries, also. They are not just—— 

Senator CARPER. That is right. They are not just coming here. 

Rev. SEITZ. They have seen increases of something like 1,200 percent in the last, I do not know, 6, 8 years. 

Senator CARPER. And it is a lot easier to get into those countries 

than into this one. 

Rev. SEITZ. Yes. They are going wherever they can go, fleeing the 

burning house, if you will. 

Some of the things that happened there, when a new government 

entered in, they turned over the police force, and they established 

a means of community policing. They increased the pay of the police and so on to avoid situations where they could be easily corrupted. Nicaragua is a poorer country than even these countries 

that we are speaking about, but it is much safer—not without its 

problems, but most of the country is much safer. We could learn 

a lot from them. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Let us talk a little bit about the Alliance for Prosperity that the Central American countries have 

launched that our administration has proposed that we fund to the 

tune of about $1 billion. I think there is some money in the appropriations bill in the Senate that would, I think, fund—maybe not 

$1 billion, but maybe $600 million. What are some things that that 

money should be spent on to help address some of the root causes 

that we are talking about here today? Where might it be well 

spent? Because I am not interested in wasting money, and I know 

none of you are either. Mr. Wood. 

Mr. WOOD. Yes, and it is kind of in response to your previous 

question. If you look at what the aid is going to Mexico right now 

through the Merida Initiative, there is all the traditional stuff, sort 

of, aiding the military, law enforcement agencies, et cetera. But one 

of the most interesting aspects is actually the concept of building 

resilient communities, and this is working with government at the 

three levels—Federal, State, and local—working with the private 

sector, working with civil society to really try to help communities 

to bounce back after violence has broken out. And I would say that 

some of these community-based approaches at the local level really 

do provide an opportunity, not to stop the violence but really once 

a community or a nation has taken the decision to act upon it, to 

help them recover. 

So I would say the community-based approaches are going to be 

crucial in improving conditions. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Others, please? Kevin. 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. Thank you, Senator. I have no doubt that 

helping rebuild law enforcement institutions in these countries 

should be one of the priorities of the alliance. It should not be only 

that, but that has to be at the center. And my impression is that 

foreign assistance in this field can only hope to bring about visible 

changes if it picks a few urgent institutional programs that can 

have a catalytic effect in the transformation of the image and the 

efficacy of law enforcement bodies—things like improving internal 
1605 

control and anticorruption units within law enforcement bodies; 

adopting modern information technologies (IT), and that means 

from regular victimization surveys to the kind of—the CompStat 

kind of system for data gathering; and to have those information 

technologies and adopt them as part of the policymaking process; 

creating vetted units to handle complex multinational investigations; improving investigation and prosecutorial capacities with regards to complex financial crimes; and support CICIG. 

Senator CARPER. Tell the folks what CICIG is. 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. It is the UN-sponsored International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala that, on balance, has been 

extraordinarily successful. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks. 

Mr. Chairman, this is a timely hearing given the codel that we 

are going to lead to several of these countries in a couple of weeks. 

I have been down there any number of times, as you know, and my 

sense is there is sort of a public uprising that is occurring in some 

of these countries that led in part to the incarceration of the President of Guatemala. I will close with just a real quick story. 

I remember visiting down there a couple of years ago. We were 

down in Guatemala, and we were meeting with the President of 

the country. And I said to him, ‘‘Mr. President, do you realize that 

you have in your prisons—like the guards are actually providing 

cell phones to the inmates so they can continue their illicit criminal 

business?’’ And he said, ‘‘Really?’’ 

And I said, ‘‘Did you know that there is technology that would 

enable those cell phones not be usable in prisons?’’ And he said, 

‘‘Really?’’ 

And I said, ‘‘And did you know that you have that technology installed in a number of your prisons?’’ He said, ‘‘Really?’’ 

And I said, ‘‘And did you know you do not use it?’’ And he said, 

‘‘Really?’’ 

And I said, ‘‘And do you know’’—the Interior Minister of the 

country was sitting next to me. And I said, ‘‘Do you know the guy 

who is in charge of this is your Interior Minister?’’ And he said, 

‘‘Really?’’ 

Well, that President is in jail today. He is in prison today. I am 

going to see if I can reach him on the phone later. But the people 

down there are fed up, and some of them are voting with their feet 

to try to get out. Others are voting with their feet to try to create 

a situation where people like the President are arrested and put 

where they belong—in jail. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. And let us hope 

they succeed. Senator McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Johnson, I would like to thank you for holding this important hearing 

today, and I would like to thank the witnesses for sharing their insights. I will ask questions about this subject matter for the record, 

but I would like to use my time today to raise concerns regarding 

your investigation of Secretary Clinton’s private email server. 
1606 

As you know, I am a former prosecutor and a former auditor, so 

I have decades of experience in conducting investigations. I have 

also conducted oversight investigations since I first got to the Senate, and I have led Subcommittees focusing on oversight and investigations on this Committee since 2009, including my current position as the Ranking Member on the Permanent Subcommittee on 

Investigations (PSI). 

I think I have shown I am not afraid to go after this administration and my own party when it comes to investigating complicated 

issues of national public interest. In the last Congress, as you may 

recall, we worked together to issue document requests, interview 

witnesses, and release a report related to a former DHS Deputy Inspector General (IG). 

It is because of my experience as an investigator that I am troubled by the recent letters you sent regarding Secretary Clinton’s 

email server. I would never quarrel with your right as Chairman 

to conduct any investigation that is within this Committee’s jurisdiction. But the letters, which were sent to companies named Datto 

and SECNAP, contain substantial quotes and excerpts from documents received during the Committee’s investigation. These letters 

were posted on the Committee’s website and received significant 

press attention. 

My concern is that the selective release of information has created a public narrative that prejudices the outcome of the investigation and creates an incomplete and potentially misleading picture for the public of the record before the Committee. I understand that you have sent more than 10 letters asking for information about Secretary Clinton’s email server, but so far the documents from Platte River are the only ones that have been received 

and reviewed by the Committee. Nor has the Committee conducted 

any interviews or depositions. 

Now, generally on this Committee and on PSI and all of the Subcommittees I have chaired, it is our practice and custom of the Senate to conduct interviews, to get information and documents from 

multiple parties, before making any information public. That is dictated by basic fairness. Context and balance matter. 

Nevertheless, you have chosen to release substantial portions of 

internal emails from Platte River as part of your additional requests to two different companies in a manner which created the 

impression in the media and the public that the Committee’s investigation had found there were shortcomings related to the server 

backups and its security. 

You have also made a substantial number of public statements 

regarding Secretary Clinton’s ‘‘reckless disregard’’ and ‘‘wanton disregard’’ for security. I am concerned that the totality of the record 

before the Committee, which is currently limited to one set of documents from one company and includes no interviews at all, is not 

a sufficient basis to draw those dramatic conclusions. 

It also appears that Platte River Network documents now before 

the Committee provide additional relevant information which leads 

me to further question the accuracy of your statements. I asked my 

staff to review all of the Platte River Network documents controlled 

by the Committee, and they were given access to some of those materials late yesterday, although they have not been able to see all 
1607 

1The information submitted by Senator McCaskill appears in the Appendix on page 1681. 

the documents, including many of the documents cited in your letters. 

Based on that limited review, I believe there is additional information that the public has a right to know. Right now, the only 

available information on these topics can be found in your letters 

and the excerpts from the documents that you have decided to cite. 

Because those documents and the other materials are not yet public, I am limited in what I can say about them and what they tell 

us about Secretary Clinton’s email server. But I can say that I believe that having already put out selected information that paints 

one particular picture of what happened, the Committee has an obligation to ensure that the public record is accurate and complete 

with context and balance. 

While an argument can be made that all of the Platte River documents should be released, at a minimum I would now ask unanimous consent to include in the hearing record the documents and 

emails cited in your letters to Datto, Inc., and SECNAP, including 

the complete email chains and all attachments.1 Those are part of 

the documents that you have already determined should be released in part, so I am asking that the entire documents be made 

available. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Without objection, so ordered. 

Did you have questions for—this is a hearing on unaccompanied 

children, so—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. I will have questions for the record. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I will say, by the way, I appreciated us 

working together on our investigation of Charles Edwards. Obviously, that investigation was, quite honestly, pushed when we were 

in the minority. And the reason those things came to light, those 

revelations, was because of the transparency of the investigation. 

We are here with GAO, we are here with this Committee deals 

with Inspector Generals. We have seen the problem of not being 

transparent, which is exactly how Charles Edwards got in trouble. 

We saw 140 inspections, reports on inspections, investigations of 

the Inspector General Office within the Veterans Administration 

(VA), creating real problems in the VA. So this Committee is all 

about transparency. We have certainly been working with the minority staff on these things, and they have been aware of the letters we are sending. We have been making many letters public so 

that we have that type of transparency to put pressure on the political process and on the agencies to comply with, for example, our 

subpoenas and those types of things. 

So if you are truly serious about working with me, I think you 

probably would have first talked to me privately as opposed to politicizing this in a hearing on unaccompanied children, a really serious problem. But I think you had a couple minutes, if you would 

like to ask questions here as opposed to—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I 

think that the investigations that I have been a part of, there has 

not been one member who has released selective information from 

those investigations without any bipartisan buy-in. That has just 
1608 

not occurred. And that is why this is an extraordinary situation, 

and that is why I did it in this manner and this way today, because 

I think it is important that if we are going to unilaterally 

cherrypick information out of a closed investigation and make it 

public, it is important that the public have context. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Do you have questions for the witnesses? 

Senator MCCASKILL. I do not. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, could I just make a very brief 

comment? You and I discussed this over—I guess last week, and 

I share the concerns raised by the Senator from Missouri. As 

Chairman of the Committee—well, frankly, as Ranking Member, 

we have staff to do investigative work, and we are free to do that 

investigative work, and it is appropriate for us when the investigations are complete hopefully for us to share information staff to 

staff. But it is appropriate, as we discussed, to release that information to the public. 

What is troubling here is the concern about whether only part of 

the information was being released, and I think the term used by 

Senator McCaskill was whether or not it is being cherrypicked. 

As I have said to you before, in terms of Secretary Clinton, who 

I have served with, have great respect for, the person that I will 

support for President, if he announces, is the Vice President. So I 

am not in this for, trying to support or promote her candidacy. We 

talked here several times about the Golden Rule, and it really applies in almost everything that we do. How would we want to be 

treated if we were in the other person’s shoes? And I think we just 

want to be fair, and what we are really asking for here is just fairness and to treat in this case her or anybody else the way we would 

want to be treated. That is a good rule to follow. 

Chairman JOHNSON. The issues at stake here—and, again, this 

is very unfortunate that you have politicized this important hearing here. The issues at stake involve national security issues. We 

need to assume, because in other hearings we have had in this 

Committee on cybersecurity, we have to assume that everything 

that was on Secretary Clinton’s email is in the hands of our enemies. The purpose of my involvement in this, this is my responsibility. This Committee is charged with national security processes 

and Federal records. It is the responsibility of this Committee. 

I think it is also the responsibility of this Committee to put pressure on the agencies to make sure that they conduct a thorough investigation so that we can, if possible, recover every email—even 

those deleted that were supposedly personal, because we need to 

find out what classified information might be on those emails that 

now may be in the hands of our enemy or enemies so that we can 

mitigate any kind of harm. This is a very serious effort on the part 

of this Committee. It is unfortunate that Senator McCaskill had to 

politicize this particular hearing on a very serious problem in and 

of its own self. 

But, again, I am happy to discuss this. Again, we have had a 

good working relationship, as you are aware of the fact. Our staffs 

have been working together. We have not sent out a letter that you 

have not reviewed first or your staff has not reviewed. But, again, 

I want to move on to Senator Peters. 
1609 

Senator CARPER. Let me just say in conclusion, thank you for 

agreeing to the unanimous consent request. Sunshine is the best 

disinfectant. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I am all about transparency. Senator Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

panelists for your testimony here today. 

As was mentioned, we will be heading to Central America in a 

couple weeks and have an opportunity to see some of these conditions firsthand and ask questions. Certainly the testimony we are 

getting here today helps us prepare for that and to make sure that 

we are asking the right questions, which is usually more important 

than the answers, to make sure first you ask the right questions 

to make sure you get the right answers to them. 

Ms. Gianopoulos, I want to pick up a little bit on your testimony 

in relation to what you have seen through your report and, in particular, with the social media as well as the information campaign 

being done by the coyotes and others who are trying to manipulate 

information. We know the power of misinformation and how folks 

could use that to get their way and to make money and to profit. 

This Committee has had a number of hearings related to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the amount of information 

that they put out to recruit individuals and the power of that. 

If you could speak a little bit from your knowledge and from your 

report, what is the U.S. Government doing in terms of public information campaigns to get the true information out? And, more importantly, how effective are we in actually doing that? In past hearings, we have been disappointed by our effectiveness versus adversaries. Is it a similar situation here? Are we waging effective campaigns? If you could elaborate on that, please. 

Ms. GIANOPOULOS. Thank you, Senator. When we visited the 

countries, as well as when we spoke with U.S. agency officials here, 

we learned about a variety of different information campaigns that 

both DHS and the State Department have engaged in over the past 

few years to try to counter some of the misinformation that the 

coyotes have put out there with regard to the dangers of the journey and what is involved and what the immigration policy actually 

is here in the United States and what the children and the families 

would be eligible for once they arrived, if they chose to make that 

journey. 

Our recommendations in our report specifically focus on the evaluations that are necessary to ensure that the resources being put 

into these campaigns are meaningful and useful and are done at 

the right times. 

For example, as I mentioned in my oral statement, in 2013 the 

public information campaign that was put out there was done in 

April, which was an appropriate time since it was aligned with the 

major surge for the year. Or that was what was anticipated. However, in 2014 that effort, that information campaign, actually took 

place starting in June, which was after the major surge for that 

year. So the usefulness or the efficacy of that program was brought 

into question. And then DHS and State did not even do an evalua-
1610 

tion of their information campaigns that year, so they did not even 

know if those campaigns were having any effect or were useful or 

were using the right format or any of that. So our recommendations were specific to those agencies, and they did agree with those 

recommendations that in the future they spend some of their resources evaluating the efforts that they have taken and the resources that they have invested to try to counter that misinformation. 

Senator PETERS. It sounds as if not a lot is going on as well. Not 

only are we not evaluating what is happening—I am looking at this 

report. It says that DHS—and correct me if I am wrong—does not 

currently have an active campaign, so the Department of Homeland Security is not involved. Then I also see here that the U.S. 

Embassy in El Salvador is distributing information in the consular 

waiting area, which—is that the extent of what we are doing? Or 

is there more? Please tell me we are doing more than just that? 

Ms. GIANOPOULOS. When we heard back from the agencies after 

we had given them a draft report to review, we understood that 

DHS was going to engage in an additional campaign, and they do 

expect to do an evaluation of that campaign as they go forward to 

see how useful it is. So we can follow up with that afterwards and 

see how useful that was and if they did do an evaluation. But in 

July, when we issued our report, they had just started the campaign. 

Senator PETERS. In your prepared remarks, you also mentioned 

that State and DHS are collaborating to implement a new in-country refugee and parole processing program that was going to start 

accepting applications in December 2014, which is an attempt to 

focus on legal immigration and to address this issue. To the best 

of your knowledge, how is that program performing? 

Ms. GIANOPOULOS. We would have to get back to you with additional information on that. 

Senator PETERS. OK. I think that would be important to know 

how that is progressing, so I would appreciate any information you 

have in the future. 

Ms. GIANOPOULOS. Of course. 

Senator PETERS. Mr. Zamora, you mentioned the importance of 

having the political elite buy into these programs, and I certainly 

took great interest in your testimony, and the need particularly to 

increase security, rule of law, and a judiciary free from corruption. 

Walk us through exactly how we can accomplish that, in your estimation, given the fact that, in your testimony, you also mentioned 

that I believe up to 20 percent in some countries is from remittances, so the government certainly benefits from folks leaving the 

country and sending remittances back. Given the corruption there, 

I would imagine many of those elites also probably profit from the 

illegal trafficking of individuals as well. What concrete steps should 

the United States take? What resources should be put into that? 

And how do you see that working? 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. Thank you, Senator. There is a limit to what 

any foreign actor can do with regards to this. I mean, cleaning up 

rotten law enforcement institutions is something that the country 

itself has to do. But the one thing that you can do in a constructive 

way is to lay out some conditions, and I suppose also, be willing 
1611 

to say something when certain behavior is done by the political 

elites in this country. 

I have the impression that if you are serious about establishing 

the rule of law in any of these countries, the idea of introducing 

indefinite reelection is probably not a good idea. The idea of packing the supreme court with your acolytes is probably not a good 

idea. 

So my humble suggestion is that you measure the seriousness of 

your partners, of your political partners in Central America by the 

extent to which they are willing to be serious with regard to judicial independence and the autonomy of overseeing institutions. The 

rest is really up to them. 

And the other thing that I would humbly suggest is that some 

of the programs that I mentioned before that can be done in the 

area of law enforcement, they should be done on the basis of 

matching funds from these countries. I am going to be very blunt 

about this, but I do not think that it is fair, regardless of the level 

of responsibility that the United States may have on what is happening in Central America—there is some responsibility, but the 

elites in these countries should not be left off the hook. 

Senator PETERS. And if I may just follow up, and, Mr. Wood, too, 

if you would add, both of you have mentioned that the way to have 

that countervailing force—because, you are right, it has to come 

from within the country—is the strength of civil society and of 

those organizations in there. How would you assess the strength of 

civil society? And is that a primary focus for you? How can we best 

engage that in order to allow that sunshine and accountability to 

come from within the country? If both of you could briefly mention 

how we would assess civil society strength and what we need to do 

to strengthen it. 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. It is very difficult to do it in the abstract, but 

I think you can identify champions of reform. People on the ground 

will tell you who is serious about these things, and I can give you 

a few examples of people that defy impossible odds; not just from 

civil society but also from within institutions, defying impossible 

odds has managed to promote change: former Attorney General 

Claudia Paz y Paz in Guatemala, an exceptionally brave woman; 

police reformer Helen Mack, in Guatemala, another exceptionally 

brave individual; some of the judges and prosecutors that just recently stood up to President Perez Molina in Guatemala; the judges 

of the constitutional court in El Salvador that have been willing 

over the past few years to assert their independence from political 

power. 

All those people are champions of reform, and I think they at 

least deserve the backing of the international community in what 

they are trying to do, which is change their countries. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you. 

Mr. WOOD. First of all, I would just like to say that in all of these 

cases—and I know everybody understands this, but there is no silver bullet. I mean, these are complex—there have to be complex solutions, and we have to address it at multiple levels. 

On your question on civil society, one of the most interesting 

things I think we have seen in Mexico over the past year or so has 

been the rise of civil society organizations that are focused on rule 
1612 

of law but in particular on anticorruption issues. And we have seen 

a number of very well respected think tanks actually doing active 

work trying to understand what international best practices are in 

terms of anticorruption and transparency, and they have worked 

very closely with the government to design the new national 

anticorruption system. 

That was brought about because the Mexican Government came 

under intense pressure from civil society to do so, and they engaged 

with academic institutions and think tanks and civil society to try 

to create at least a good legal framework. But that is not enough. 

What you now need is you need the oversight and the vigilance of 

civil society and from foreign governments to make sure that that 

happens. 

As Kevin just said, it is relatively easy to identify who the reliable local partners are. You just need to spend some time in-country, and the missions, you know, U.S. Government missions incountry, should be able to pick up that information very quickly by 

talking to universities and to think tanks themselves. 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. Can I just say something really quickly? 

Maybe the takeaway point here is there are people you can work 

with in Central America, and that is very important. It is not fair 

just to, throw up our hands in despair and say, well, we are going 

to waste our money. I think there are good people to work with 

there. There are not many, but identifying those champions of reform is certainly possible. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I think the question is can you work with 

the governments, and it is identifying them. Senator Lankford. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony 

today and for what you have done already in this process. I, like 

many others on this panel, have visited the Northern Triangle 

area, have had the opportunity to be able to ask questions and be 

able to walk through both with government leaders and see what 

our government is doing on the ground and be able to visit with 

people there, watch the repatriation process as it happens in multiple countries, be able to interact, and there is a great deal that 

can be learned there, and it is incredibly complex in the issues that 

we face. 

I also am one that believes that all people are created in the 

image of God and have value and worth. I think every individual 

is to be respected. So the way that we talk about and treat people 

shows our value for individuals, but also reinforces our value, what 

we believe, that God has put His unique stamp on every individual. 

So we speak about people and we treat issues differently when you 

have that type of perspective. 

I do have a couple broad questions. Then I want to take things 

into some specifics. 

We speak often of the Northern Triangle and the complexity of 

the issues there. We do not see the same flood of migrants coming 

in from Belize, from Nicaragua, from Costa Rica, no other places 

in Central America, other places like Belize where it is not any farther to go. Why? What can we learn by saying we are not seeing 
1613 

this flood from Belize but we are seeing it from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador? 

Mr. WOOD. If I can just jump on this, we visited Belize when we 

were on our recent tour. We had a visit to border management 

agency facilities on the Mexico-Belize border. What we learned 

there was that there is a political will on the part of the Belize 

Government to actually establish not just order but really to gather 

data. And these are professionals. They actually do not have huge 

financial resources behind them, but they are willing to cooperate 

with their Mexican counterparts. 

Just to give you one example, there is one point on the border 

where there are in fact, two Mexican border posts but only one 

Belize border post. The Belize Government did not want to actually 

spend to build another border post, which is only a few miles away. 

So what they did was they worked with the Mexican Government 

to build a new road that brought both of these Mexican border 

crossings to the one Belize border management station right there. 

The highway is walled in on either side, so you cannot sort of 

jump off it and enter the country illegally in that way. And when 

you get to the border crossing on the Belize side, they are making 

an effort to actually gather biometric data on all people coming in 

and leaving the country. 

This is a political will question, and what you do not see is you 

do not see that on the side of the Guatemalan authorities. When 

you cross over from Mexico into Guatemala, you see very minimal 

presence of the State and an absence of a will to do anything. 

I will give you one example there. The Mexican Government paid 

for an electricity line to go from southern Mexico across the border 

into Guatemala so the Guatemalan border authorities would have 

access to electricity rather than burning a dirty diesel generator, 

as they were doing before. Three years ago, the electricity line was 

put in place. The Guatemalan Government to date has not paid for 

the enchufe, the socket to be put in there so the government agencies can actually use that electricity. The Mexican Government is 

providing that for free. They have done it all. That lack of will and 

perhaps lack of capacity is one of the crucial elements of it. 

Senator LANKFORD. Have you also seen some things in the lack 

of shared data between the countries in the Northern Triangle and 

the United States? How are we doing with records and data and 

individuals that are traveling back and forth? Officer Cabrera, do 

you want to comment on that? 

Mr. CABRERA. Yes, sir. Thank you. We do not really share—we 

do not get the information from these countries, from any other 

countries, unless there is an Interpol issue, some type of major 

international criminal—— 

Senator LANKFORD. So when individuals are returned back to the 

country, we are not getting that information from them that is incountry data as far as criminal records or any of that kind of—— 

Mr. CABRERA. For instance, if we get somebody from, say, Honduras that comes in, we have no idea what crimes he may have 

committed in his home country. 

Senator LANKFORD. Even in the return? 

Mr. CABRERA. When we return them back there? 
1614 

Senator LANKFORD. When we return them back. The key is if we 

have apprehended someone and we are returning them back to 

their country, is there no way to be able to complete the records 

to say that those records, now we know more about this individual, 

we have apprehended them, we have our records, we obviously are 

turning that information over to them who we think we have, but 

they are not sharing their information with us. 

Mr. CABRERA. No, they are not. As far as we know, as far as Border Patrol knows, we do not get that information. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Mr. Zamora. 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. Thank you, Senator. I would just go back for 

a second, if you will allow me to go back for a second to the previous question. I think your question hints at something that is 

crucial to understand here, which is that the reason why these 

countries are, say, vulnerable to organized crime is not merely an 

accident of geography. It is not simply due to the fact that they 

happen to be between the main producer of drugs and the main 

consumer of drugs. I mean, there is more to that. 

These countries of the Northern Triangle are vulnerable to organized crime primarily because their States are just so anemic that 

they are not able in some cases to exert effective control over their 

territory, which is obviously a boon for crime syndicates. 

They are vulnerable because their public institutions, which are 

debilitated by corruption, are incapable of making the investments 

that would prevent them from having—I mean, one of the tragedies 

of this story is that these countries have 25 percent, 30 percent of 

their young people that are neither studying nor working. 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. And that is a tragedy. I mean, they are vulnerable to organized crime because their law enforcement institutions have all but collapsed. So, I mean, there is more than geography. 

Senator LANKFORD. There is a lot more to it, and that is part of 

the challenge that we have. We have this belief that immigration 

is only an issue with us. When I was in the region not long ago, 

I was visiting with some of the officials from Costa Rica, who I will 

leave unnamed, who in the course of conversation were discussing 

Nicaraguans will do the jobs that Costa Ricans will not do, and 

that they have immigrants coming over from Nicaragua into Costa 

Rica, and they have to manage their border and figure out how to 

be able to do that and how they are actually trying to increase 

their enforcement in Costa Rica to be able to protect jobs for Costa 

Ricans from Nicaraguans coming over. 

So this is not unique to the United States. The challenge that we 

have is to try to find the uniqueness of it. I think that is part of 

the emphasis right now with dealing with the Northern Triangle, 

and what we are trying to do as the United States and what we 

have done for a long time to try to help their legal system through 

the process that, until we get to that spot, it does not get better. 

One thing I do want to be able to highlight, though, is the social 

media question on it, because it was my understanding when I visited with many families there and individuals over there that it 

was not just they were posting on social media, ‘‘Hey, I made it’’; 

it is that they were holding up their Notice to Appear, taking a pic-
1615 

ture with their Notice to Appear and saying, ‘‘I have legal paperwork here in the United States, here I am, come join me.’’ Officer 

Cabrera. 

Mr. CABRERA. Yes, sir. In Border Patrol circles, that paperwork 

is now known as the ‘‘Notice to Disappear.’’ Eighty percent, 90 percent of those folks will not show up for that hearing. And when we 

have our Commissioner come down or go to these countries and say 

there will be no permisos, yet that same day we release people with 

the NTAs, technically they are not called a ‘‘permiso,’’ but, in effect, 

that is what they are. We are allowing them to travel further into 

the country. They hit these sanctuary cities where they will never 

be seen again. 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 

Mr. CABRERA. And that seems to be the issue. We can talk about 

all these, Ms. Gianopoulos over here, she said there are social 

media issues, and there are. And when you have this compounded 

with the NTAs, we will never see these folks again. And unless we 

are talking about the rule of law in other countries, but we are not 

enforcing the rule of law in this country, but we are concerned 

about helping others enforce their rule of law. We need to enforce 

our rule of law. 

Senator LANKFORD. Correct. So we are on the one hand telling 

people it is very dangerous to come, do not make the trip. On the 

other hand, individuals that just made the trip are sending the 

message down, ‘‘I made it. And not only did I make it, this government gave me a Notice to Disappear,’’ as you just mentioned, ‘‘I am 

allowed to stay. I am not going to have 2 or 3 years where I carry 

this paperwork around, where I cannot be stopped, basically, I do 

have legal status basically for 2 or 3 years until there is a Notice 

to Appear.’’ Then you do not actually appear, and you blend into 

society, and no one actually tries to pick you up at that point. 

So we are sending this double message. We can put a commercial 

out that says it is dangerous, but it is not going to compete with 

someone who says, ‘‘Hey, I am with family in the United States 

and have legal status. What the government said you will not get 

I just did get, and no one is actually following up with me on us.’’ 

And the records show from 2012 at this point we have actually removed to date 11.7 percent of the individuals that came in during 

that time period from 2012. And so we are actually not doing removals, we are not actually following up with people, and it has become a big issue. 

So any other final comments on that, Ms. Gianopoulos? 

Ms. GIANOPOULOS. Yes, Senator. I wanted to make two quick 

comments on the line of questioning that you had over the last few 

moments. 

First of all, when we were in-country, a USAID grantee told us 

they were trying to gather some data on the returnees to the countries at the repatriation centers. This is the International Organization for Migration (IOM). It is one of the grantees who is helping 

the repatriated folks get back into society and find a person, especially if it is children, to find someone in the country to come and 

get them and take care of them once they have been returned to 

one of the Northern Triangle countries. 
1616 

I also wanted to point out—we talked a little bit about the willingness of the individual countries to be partners in some of these 

efforts. One of the things that we found in Honduras is that there 

is a State and the Department of Justice (DOJ) effort to try to 

train prosecutors in order to effectively put some of these folks behind bars or at least get them into a courtroom and prosecute 

them. 

There is a program where the Honduran Government is supposed to provide prosecutors that would be available for at least 18 

months to not only be trained but also to effectively carry out these 

duties. 

When we were in-country, we found that though there has been 

prosecutors participating in the program prior to our visit, there 

were no active prosecutors in this program from the Honduran side 

at the time of our visit. Even though State and DOJ were working 

together and trying to get this well-intentioned program off the 

ground, there was nobody to train. So even though we are putting 

money into these efforts—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Do we know how much money is being put 

into that effort? 

Ms. GIANOPOULOS. I can get that information for you, Senator. I 

do not have it off the top of my head. 

But some of the information that we got that was very disturbing 

to us, that even though U.S. agencies are doing their best to make 

some effort and make some inroads into this big problem, sometimes the lack of sustainability in the country, either by the government or by other factors, is inhibiting our ability to do what we 

need to do. 

Senator LANKFORD. All right. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Lankford, I have asked the Chairman 

if I could just intercede here just for a moment. I am not sure 

which country it is, but in at least one of the three countries we 

are talking about, the criminal elements have targeted police and 

members of police families in an effort to deter them from doing 

their job. And when you hear about prosecutors that do not prosecute or folks who will not even show up to be trained to be a prosecutor, judges that do not judge, somebody is going to kill you or 

your family, that is pretty good intimidation. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Lankford. 

Ms. Gianopoulos, you talked about the marketing efforts on the 

part of America, talking about, you are not going to be able to stay, 

it is a dangerous journey, and all those types of things, and the effect of that versus the social media. 

I recall at least hearing from the government officials down in 

Central America that they had their own marketing campaign, or 

at least slogan: ‘‘Hey, these are our kids. These are our children. 

Let us protect them.’’ 

Was that just a message they were telling us here, or did they 

actually try and convey that? And, again, the fact that there was 

nobody showing up for that training, are they serious about that, 

actually trying to keep their citizens in their country? 

Ms. GIANOPOULOS. Well, we saw some of the posters when we 

visited the repatriation centers. We saw some of the posters, not 
1617 

just those from the U.S. agencies but also from the individual governments themselves trying to deter folks from making that dangerous journey. 

But we also saw some issues, as I mentioned, with the Honduran 

Government without the prosecutors available to fulfill their roles 

in this program. Also, in El Salvador, we heard a lot about the lack 

of economic opportunity for kids that either they cannot cross gang 

territory to go to school once they have reached a certain level or 

else they will, be either conscripted into the gangs or raped or 

whatever. But we also heard about some good programs that we 

saw that the U.S. Government is supporting. 

For example, there was a computer training program in El Salvador that we went to visit, a beautiful room full of computers but 

there was no computer teacher because the El Salvadoran Government had not provided the computer teacher at the time of our 

visit back in March. And we did not know, was there someone 

eventually coming? I mean, certainly we heard that there was an 

intention of someone there to fulfill their role and be the partner 

to the U.S. agencies who had provided the infrastructure. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Again, I am just looking for the willingness of these societies to reform to the point where their citizens 

actually want to stay in their country. 

Mr. Casas-Zamora, I think it was in your testimony, you talked 

about how much of their GDP is actually derived from remittances 

from America back to Central America. That is a pretty powerful 

incentive to have more people leave, take advantage of the wage 

differential, take advantage of this line of opportunity to fund their 

economy. Can you speak a little bit more to that? 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. Thank you, Senator. That is one of the crucial questions here. It is a powerful incentive. I mean, the only way 

to counter that is to generate alternative sources of opportunity in 

the country. And to tell you the truth, that is not easy. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, that requires the rule of law. Let me 

just ask you a macro question here. How many people in the world 

do you think want to come to the United States? Just off the top 

of your head, just go right down, how many people throughout the 

world? What is the population now? More than 7 billion people? 

Ms. GIANOPOULOS. Despite the fact that I was a math major in 

college, I am not sure I could give you a number. 

Chairman JOHNSON. It is a lot, isn’t it? I mean, that is my point. 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. I mean, I cannot possibly for the life of me 

answer that question, but I will give you—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. I was not expecting an accurate answer. It 

was a rhetorical point. 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. But I will give you a number that really 

made my jaw fall to the floor a couple of days ago. A recent opinion 

poll in Honduras said or found that 63 percent of Hondurans are 

willing to leave their country if given the chance to. So that in 

itself is a very powerful number. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, that is not a good State of affairs. It 

is simply not. Dr. Wood. 

Mr. WOOD. Yes, the question is an interesting one, but I would 

say that if you gave those same people who want to come to the 
1618 

United States the chance to stay in their own country, many of 

them would choose that instead—under the right conditions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So that is the gold policy. Stop the flow, but 

the way you have to stop the flow is you do need to stop 

incentivizing people to come here. 

Mr. WOOD. But look at what has happened in the case of—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. We need to figure out some way to provide 

opportunities, and, unfortunately, without a rule of law, with the 

corruption that is pretty endemic in these nations right now, it is 

going to be difficult, which kind of gets me to my next question in 

terms of nongovernmental organizations. I will go to you, Bishop. 

I have a great deal of respect for the Catholic Church. I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran, worked hard, helping the Catholic school 

system in Oshkosh to survive to the point were I was actually on 

the Finance Council of the Diocese of Green Bay. I love what the 

Catholic Church does in terms of your charities and globally. 

Talk to me about the ability of the Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Catholic Charities, in order to effectively operate 

without influence, without corruption from those governments. 

How effective can they be? And can we strengthen their hand in 

those countries? 

Rev. SEITZ. I think that is part of the answer to these difficult 

problems, is public-private partnerships down there, because some 

of the agencies that are least subject to influence by the forces of 

corruption are church agencies, for instance, and other NGO’s. We 

are working very hard in these countries through Catholic Relief 

Services, for instance. We have a program called ‘‘Youth Builders’’ 

that tries to provide skills to these young people and, more important than that, hope that gives them a way to see some future and 

helps to reintegrate those who are returned. 

I think one of the most effective programs that we have going is 

not real visible, but it is the youth programs that every single 

Catholic parish does in these countries. They have some incredible 

youth ministry going on. I think there might be some way to connect with these organizations and other NGO’s in order to provide 

a safer—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Part of my point is I am trying to point out 

that Catch-22. I mean, the very people that are leaving the country 

are the very people those countries need to stay in the country to 

make it an acceptable society. 

Rev. SEITZ. They are losing their best and brightest. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes, and that is tragic. 

Dr. Wood, do you want to speak to those NGO’s and what the 

prospects are of them working effectively within those corrupt systems? 

Mr. WOOD. Yes. I think that what we are seeing is—we are in 

the middle of a learning process right now about how society can 

hold government accountable. And there is an interesting process 

that we are seeing where governments are being forced, partly because of civil society, partly because of international media attention, partly because of foreign investors—and I would make that 

point strongly. What we have in the United States with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, U.K. Bribery Act in great Britain, those 

are very important international norms that can have a big impact. 
1619 

I have just been witness to the Mexican energy reforms, oil auctions. What they have done there in terms of transparency is extraordinary. Every single step of the way in the contract, in the 

bidding process, is exposed to sunlight, as it were. You can literally—when they announce the bids, the bid is there on camera, 

written and signed by the company concerned. It is possible to do 

these things. The technology exists. What you need to have is you 

need to force governments to actually have the will to do that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. By the way, I do appreciate your use of the 

word ‘‘transparency.’’ We were using it in a different context earlier. Mr. Casas-Zamora. 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. Thank you, Senator. This is really the crux 

of the matter. The paradox that you alluded to is really central. I 

mean, I think we have to be aware of the risk, the real risk that 

the economic future of the Northern Triangle ends up hinging on 

the ability to continue exporting its young people. And that would 

be enormously sad because truly, as I see it today, in the absence 

of a dramatic change of heart by the political and economic elites, 

these countries will have to give up their best hope for the future 

in order to have any kind of future. And there are no easy ways 

to prevent this, but I think the question of economic opportunity 

is really at the heart of this. 

Chairman JOHNSON. First of all, my manufacturing background 

forces me to go to root cause and acknowledge those realities. And 

it may be counterintuitive, but probably the most compassionate 

thing we can do—and, again, the goal we should be achieving is to 

stop the flow because it is—in the long term, it is the most compassionate, it is the best thing to do. To have those countries empty 

60-some percent of the populations, on a compassionate basis, flowing to the United States, that would not be good for those countries 

long term. 

So, again, I am just trying to look at that overall macro point 

that somehow—and it is extremely difficult—somehow we have to 

try and get those societies to succeed and recognize all the problems. 

Bishop, I will let you have the last word before I turn it over to 

Senator Carper. 

Rev. SEITZ. I am glad you are looking at the macro issues. I 

think we need to. But we also need to look at the root causes if 

we are going to deal with the macro. We cannot simply say, well, 

for this overarching goal we have to send children back without 

due process, without representation, back into situations that they 

are fleeing from, fleeing for their lives. And that seem very clear 

to us that is exactly what is happening. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I think that is when we start talking about 

where should aid flow. Maybe it should be flowing into those countries to provide and support those types of—again, this is, obviously, from this hearing an incredibly complex, incredibly difficult 

problem. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. I am going to telegraph—in baseball, they say a pitcher telegraphs his pitch or her pitch. That tells 

you what kind of pitch he is going to throw. I am going to telegraph 

my pitch and say that the next question, not this first one but the 

next question I ask, is: Where do you think there is agreement 
1620 

among members of this panel as to the priorities for us going forward, us, our government, to an extent this Committee? But where 

do you think there is agreement, consensus? And one of the things 

I love—this is a great Committee hearing and a great panel, but 

I want you to think about where is the consensus for us to go forward. So that is going to be my second question. 

The first question I would ask, for Mr. Casas-Zamora and for 

Bishop Seitz, and it has been alluded to, but we know that there 

has been violence in these countries for years. I was sent down 

when I was a House Member many moons ago by our Speaker, Jim 

Wright from Texas, and he sent about half a dozen U.S. Representatives to Costa Rica to attend a summit of Latin American Presidents. And we heard from any number of the Presidents there 

about the violence in their own countries. So we know that violence 

in that part of the world is not something that is new. 

But if you could, just to help us understand the migration surge 

over at least the last couple of years, just explain for us the ways 

in which the violence may have changed in the Northern Triangle. 

In particular, how is it affecting kids? 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. Thank you, Senator. Well, I will start with 

the obvious. None of these countries has ever been Denmark, right? 

But I think it is very clear from the figures that at least criminal 

violence—they used to have a lot of political violence, and that subsided after the peace accords and all that. But the level of criminal 

violence that we are witnessing today is unparalleled. It is unparalleled. It is unprecedented and unparalleled. It is unprecedented because the homicide rates that we are seeing in countries like Honduras and this particular year in El Salvador really, are of a level 

that has not been seen even in Colombia in its darkest days. So 

there is a big difference there, and that you do not see anywhere 

else in the world. The current intensity of the problem is really beyond doubt. 

As to how this affects children, well, in all sorts of ways. I mean, 

I would guess that a fearful society as these societies are is not a 

good place to raise children, is not a good place to educate children. 

And, by the way, States that are anemic in terms of their revenue 

are not able to do the most basic things. They are not able to provide an education to all these kids. And as long as they do not have 

an opportunity to get an education, as long as they do not have an 

opportunity to get proper job training, they are going to fall for the 

lure of organized criminal syndicates. 

So, it is a very difficult situation. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. All right. Where is there consensus 

for us, for our country, for a path forward? Please, Bishop Seitz. 

Rev. SEITZ. If I might at first just add—— 

Senator CARPER. Just very briefly. 

Rev. SEITZ. It was mentioned earlier why is there such a difference between these three countries and the others surrounding 

them? Nicaragua may be poorer. Again, the violence is the difference, and so we have to be alert to that. It is something we cannot even as Americans really identify with. Even the schools are 

taken over very often in Honduras and El Salvador by the drug 

gangs. They are in charge. They can get payments from the teachers and so on. It is just hard to imagine, and not hard to under-
1621 

stand why they would flee. And how can we even begin to calculate 

the economic impact? 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Rev. SEITZ. So we are certainly in agreement that it is better to 

create a better situation in these countries so that they do not need 

to flee. I hope we are also in agreement that we need to make sure 

that the basic human rights of those who are fleeing and have legitimate asylum claims should be respected. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Is it Dr. Wood or Mr. Wood? 

Mr. WOOD. I have a Ph.D. Whatever you want to call me. 

Senator CARPER. All right, Doc. 

Mr. WOOD. Thanks. I think we have come to more or less a consensus here on this panel that this is a very complex problem and 

it requires a very complex solution, a multidimensional approach. 

Enforcement alone is not going to do it. Aid alone is not going to 

do it. Governments alone are not going to do it. And that is the 

only way that I see is we are actually going to make real progress 

on this, is by looking at all of the factors and trying to work on a 

comprehensive solution to this. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. I will just ask this rhetorical question, but I wonder if—you call it the Alliance for Prosperity. I wonder if that is sort of a comprehensive approach. It 

sounds to me like it is intended to be. Mr. Casas-Zamora. 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. Yes, I mean, I would echo what has just 

been said. I would only hope that we are also in agreement that 

there has to be buy-in from political elites in these countries—— 

Senator CARPER. In Colombia. I have been told repeatedly that 

was one of the keys in Colombia. 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. For any external effort to have an impact in 

the way you want it to have an impact. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. Cabrera, one of the things you said, Chris, that really resonated with me—and it was in your testimony; I read it, and then 

you said it again—is when you have a large group of particularly 

young people, young families trying to get across the border, they 

can take—literally, like capture a whole bunch of your people and 

sort of freeze up—at least on the rest of the border, they are just 

unprotected, unguarded. That is a really good takeaway from you. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. CABRERA. Yes, Senator. Thank you. I think for me, I think 

we should all be in agreement on the health and safety of these 

children that are coming across as well as the preservation of their 

innocence. I think where we are differing here is how to attack that 

point right there. It is a very dangerous trip. And I think that is 

at the core of the problem, at least in my eyes. I am a father. I 

see these children every day, and, quite frankly, it strikes a nerve 

with me to see what these children have to go through. 

And as the Bishop mentioned a few minutes ago, legitimate asylum claims, I think that is the key, is the legitimate asylum claims. 

All too often we are seeing people come across with rehearsed stories of asylum claims, and there are a lot of people that have legitimate asylum claims. But when you have so many, you get desen-
1622 

sitized, and so many people are claiming it that it is watering down 

the word ‘‘asylum.’’ 

Chairman JOHNSON. Let me quickly jump in here, because we 

went down to the border, and what the Border Patrol has done is 

really extraordinary in reaction to this. The humanity that you 

have, having to grapple with an incredibly difficult problem, the 

agents down there really are doing an extraordinary job, and I am 

sure Senator Carper would agree with me on that. I just wanted— 

as long as you were making that point, I wanted to point that out. 

We truly appreciate that in terms of what you have done. 

Mr. CABRERA. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Ms. Gianopoulos. 

Ms. GIANOPOULOS. I would say we have quite a number of different opinions on the mechanisms and factors that would go into 

a successful campaign. But what I think is consistent is that we 

all want the campaign to meet its policy goals. And in order to do 

that, we need to go back and check after we have taken these steps 

and after we have invested these resources to make sure that the 

goals that we have established are the right ones, the ones that 

Congress wants to achieve, and that whatever actions are being 

taken by the U.S. agencies are actually moving us in the direction 

of those goals. And if they are not, then we need to change course 

in order to meet those goals in the future. 

Senator CARPER. Sort of a way of saying what you do not measure you cannot manage, and there was a guy named Vince 

Lombardi—what was that team that he coached? Some team up in 

Green Bay. He used to say that if you are not keeping score, you 

are just practicing. 

Ms. GIANOPOULOS. And if you do not have a map, you do not 

know where you are going. 

Senator CARPER. We could do this all day. [Laughter.] 

Thank you all you have been a terrific panel. Thank you so 

much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. And we may 

have just done this. We normally give the witnesses a last opportunity to say something to kind of summarize things. But we will 

do it again because Senator Carper had a little more specific question. So we will start with you, Bishop, and just kind of go right 

down the line before we close out the hearing. 

Rev. SEITZ. Once again, I thank you very much for this opportunity. I am really delighted we have looked at the in-country situation with the focus that it deserves. We have not spoken a whole 

lot about the situation in Mexico. I am concerned that while this 

is, in many ways a huge initiative on their part, we really need to 

look at the potential for abuses in the way that they are responding, because these children deserve an opportunity to tell their 

story and for due process as offered by international law. 

We need to see ourselves, as we have been in the past, a moral 

beacon in the way that we respond to these refugee situations. 

There are other countries that have received so many more than 

what we are looking at here, up to half of their population in refugees in the Middle East. And if we balk at our responsibility in this 

small case, it is difficult for us to make a claim. 
1623 

I would also encourage us to look at ways that we can protect 

the rights of children who arrive here also. I know it is complicated, but they are going to be hesitant to tell the whole story 

of the violence they have experienced. That has been my experience. You have to get to know them. And a person in a uniform 

is not necessarily going to be trusted, even though in our country 

they should ordinarily be. That has not been their experience in 

their home country. We need to give them a good opportunity to 

truly assess their situation and give them representation. That is 

the best way, by the way, that we can assure that they will appear 

in court. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Bishop. Dr. Wood. 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you. Let me just focus my closing comments 

on the case of Mexico, because I think the Bishop makes a very 

good point here. It is an impressive advance that has happened in 

Mexico. It is a work in progress. Abuses have gone up, obviously. 

That is in large part, I would argue, because of increased interaction between authorities and migrants, opening the door for 

those kind of abuses. 

I think there is a great deal that can be done in terms of U.S.- 

Mexico cooperation and sharing the experiences, some of the very 

positive experiences on the U.S.-Mexico border, showing how migrants are treated in the United States, and basically I would say 

focus on due process. 

One of the incidents that we saw in Mexico at a detention center 

was that we asked how migrants were registered when they were 

brought in, and we were told there is no computer system at this 

holding facility, it occurs at the bigger facility. And I said, ‘‘Well, 

they are in your hands for a couple of hours. How do you actually 

maintain those records?’’ They said, ‘‘Oh, we have forms that we fill 

out.’’ 

So the guy shows me the form, and the form actually had all the 

usual questions, name, place of origin, et cetera, et cetera, thumbprints. But there were some questions that were already filled out, 

that were already answered on that form, on a supposedly blank 

form. One of them was, ‘‘Are you claiming refugee status?’’ And it 

said, ‘‘No.’’ 

Now, those are the kind of things of due process that I think we 

have to be very vigilant about, and we have to push the Mexican 

Government to make sure that they are doing what they should be 

doing to give people fair treatment. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Dr. Wood. Mr. Casas-Zamora. 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. Thank you so much, Senator. It has been a 

pleasure and an honor to be part of this hearing. 

I think the United States can and perhaps should play a very important role in helping these countries help themselves. I think the 

Alliance for Prosperity is a good way to start. I hope that it leads 

to a more permanent engagement of the United States, reengagement of the United States with the region. But I would also say 

that you should not lose sight that it is ultimately the responsibility of the countries themselves to be serious about reform, and 

that has a very practical implication. Do not let the political elites 

of these countries, the political and economic elites of these countries off the hook—the political and economic elites that have made 
1624 

a hash job in running these countries. And that means that the 

task of nudging them toward enacting robust, progressive tax systems, which they do not have, and the task of making sure that 

they protect judicial independence and protect the autonomy of 

overseeing institutions are really essential. 

And my humble suggestion is that the United States should not 

be shy about demanding those structural changes. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. And, of course, you are describing the strings I would be talking about for any kind of financial 

aid. Agent Cabrera. 

Mr. CABRERA. Thank you, Senator. As you know, I am a law enforcement officer and I am paid to enforce the law. The taxpayers 

expect me to enforce the law. However, the powers that be are prohibiting us Border Patrol agents from enforcing those laws. 

We keep talking about waging a campaign. If we are waging this 

campaign, we are not doing a very good job. The only thing we are 

succeeding in doing is giving credence to the smugglers, the 

coyotes. We are giving credence to their campaigns by letting people go. And until we can enforce what we have on the books and 

send a clear message, not a double-sided message, then we are 

going to continue in the process that we are going. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Agent, for your service as well. 

Mr. CABRERA. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Ms. Gianopoulos. 

Ms. GIANOPOULOS. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today. As I was just mentioning a few moments ago, it is important 

for us—we talked a lot about social media here today at the hearing. It is important for us as the U.S. Government and our agencies 

and our practices that we keep in mind that things are changing. 

They are changing continuously, whether it is the use of social 

media, the misperceptions about immigration policy, or what have 

you. So we need to as the U.S. Government continually provide 

oversight and evaluation for what it is that we are doing to try to 

combat some of these concerns and the flow of migrants, especially 

migrant children, into the United States. So continuously looking 

back to see: Are we doing what we said we wanted to do? Are we 

reaching the goals, the policy goals, the procedural and program 

goals that we have established for ourselves? And if not, then we 

need to change course or make adjustments. And hearings like this 

and other hearings that the Committee has had are perfect tools 

and operations to be able to allow the U.S. Government to do that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. And, again, thank you for the 

time you have taken, your thoughtful testimony. I think we are 

looking at the reality. I think we are very seriously exploring these 

issues and laying out how difficult the problem is. But that is no 

reason to shy away from making sure we understand what the full 

extent of the problem is. 

Again, thank you all. The hearing record will remain open for 15 

days until November 5 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements 

and questions for the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(1625) 

A P P E N D I X 
1626 
1627 
1628 
1629 
1630 
1631 
1632 
1633 
1634 
1635 
1636 
1637 
1638 
1639 
1640 
1641 
1642 
1643 
1644 
1645 
1646 
1647 
1648 
1649 
1650 
1651 
1652 
1653 
1654 
1655 
1656 
1657 
1658 
1659 
1660 
1661 
1662 
1663 
1664 
1665 
1666 
1667 
1668 
1669 
1670 
1671 
1672 
1673 
1674 
1675 
1676 
1677 
1678 
1679 
1680 
1681 
1682 
1683 
1684 
1685 
1686 
1687 
1688 
1689 
1690 
1691 
1692 
1693 
1694 
1695 
1696 
1697 
1698 
1699 
1700 
1701 
1702 
1703 
1704 
1705 
1706 
1707 
1708 
1709 
1710 
1711 
1712 
1713 
1714 
1715 
1716 
1717 
1718 
1719 
1720 
1721 
1722 
1723 
1724 
1725 
1726 
1727 
1728 
1729 
1730 
1731 
1732 
1733 
1734 
1735 
1736 
1737 
1738 
1739 
1740 
1741 
1742 
1743 
1744 
1745 
1746 
1747 
1748 
1749 
1750 
1751 
1752 
1753 
1754 
1755 
1756 
1757 
1758 
1759 
1760 
1761 
1762 
1763 
1764 
1765 
1766 
1767 
1768 
1769 
1770 
1771 
1772 
1773 
1774 
1775 
1776 
1777 
1778 
1779 
1780 
1781 
1782 
1783 
1784 
1785 
1786 
1787 
1788 
1789 
1790 
1791 
1792 
1793 
1794 
1795 
1796 
1797 
1798 
1799 
1800 
1801 
1802 
1803 
1804 
1805 
1806 
1807 
1808 
1809 
1810 
1811 
1812 
1813 
1814 
1815 
1816 
1817 
1818 
1819 
1820 
1821 
1822 
1823 
1824 
1825 
1826 
1827 
1828 
1829 
1830 
1831 
1832 
1833 
1834 
1835 
1836 
1837 
1838 
1839 
1840 
1841 
1842 
1843 
1844 
1845 
1846 
1847 
1848 
1849 
1850 
1851 
1852 
1853 
1854 
1855 
1856 
1857 
1858 
1859 
1860 
1861 
1862 
1863 
1864 
1865 
1866 
1867 
1868 
1869 
1870 
1871 
1872 
1873 
1874 
1875 
1876 
1877 
1878 
1879 
1880 
1881 
1882 
1883 
1884 
1885 
1886 
1887 
1888 
1889 
1890 
1891 
1892 
1893 
1894 
1895 
1896 
1897 
1898 
1899 
1900 
1901 
1902 
1903 
1904 
1905 
1906 
1907 
1908 
1909 
1910 
1911 
1912 
1913 
1914 
1915 
1916 
1917 
1918 
(1919) 

AMERICA’S HEROIN EPIDEMIC AT THE 

BORDER: LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL 

LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS TO COMBAT 

ILLICIT NARCOTIC TRAFFICKING 

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2015 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Phoenix, AZ. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:59 a.m., in the Historic Senate Chamber, Arizona State Capitol Museum, Third floor, 

Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, McCain, and Flake. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning. This hearing of the Senate 

Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs is now 

called to order. 

I want to thank the State of Arizona, Governor Ducey, and my 

colleagues, Senator Flake and Senator McCain, for inviting us here 

and discussing an incredibly important topic: The security of our 

border, an enormous problem facing this Nation. 

The title of this hearing is ‘‘America’s Heroin Epidemic at the 

Border: Local, State, and Federal Law Enforcement Efforts to Combat Illicit Narcotic Trafficking.’’ 

When I became chairman of this Committee in January of this 

year, one of the top priorities of the Subcommittee was really border security, and this is our 13th hearing, trying to lay out the reality of the situation. 

I was talking to the Governor earlier. And coming from the business world, particularly in my case, manufacturing, I have solved 

a lot of problems. And there is actually a process to go through 

solving a problem. It starts with laying out the reality of the situation. And based on that reality, you set yourself up with achievable 

goals. Then you start to design the strategies. 

We have an enormous problem in this Nation. What is my true 

definition of a problem? One that does not have any solutions. It 

is multi-faceted, multi-cause. One thing I will say, having spent 

now the better part of the entire year fully exploring this with 

hearings, with trips to the border, with trips to Central America, 

there are multiple causes. I think a number of Members on the 

Committee would agree with me on this—the root cause of the fact 

that we do not have a secure border is America’s insatiable demand 
1920 

1The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 1961. 

2The prepared statement of Senator Ayotte appears in the Appendix on page 1964. 

for drugs, because that demand has given rise to the rise of the 

drug cartels. 

And I always point out, the drug cartels, it is a business. And 

they have learned to expand the product line. They have a smuggling route, and then they begin, to think well, let us just use that 

for human trafficking, sex trafficking. They start using economic 

migrants as diversion for their illicit drug trafficking. So it is an 

enormous problem. 

I know I am making no big statement. I will ask that my brief 

opening statement be entered into the record1 without objection. 

And also that Senator Kelly Ayotte’s statement also be entered into 

the record.2

We held a hearing up in New Hampshire where she was in 

charge of that hearing as the chairperson, describing the problem 

of heroin overdoses in New Hampshire. It starts: In 2008, in New 

Hampshire there were 16 overdoses from heroin. Now there’s nearly 250 overdoses reported in 2014. 

And in Wisconsin, very similarly, between 2000 and 2007, Wisconsin averaged about 29 heroin overdoses; already 200 in 2014. I 

think we are on pace, unfortunately, to break that record in 2015. 

So this is an enormously difficult problem. And it is one that we 

have to face. 

We have a very distinguished panel, two panels of witnesses 

here, including the Governor of the State of Arizona. I really do appreciate everybody’s attention to this matter. 

I am really looking forward to hearing our witnesses, lay out that 

reality. And, again, it is a harsh reality. It is not fun to look at, 

and we are going to have a number of things we have to do to start 

solving them. 

So with that, I will turn it over to my distinguished colleague, 

Senator McCain, for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. I want to thank you, Senator Johnson, Chairman, Homeland Security Committee, which in my duty you have 

done an outstanding job. And this is one, as you mentioned, series 

of hearings that the Committee has had in the Senate trying to address this very serious issue. And I thank you for leaving sunny 

Wisconsin to come here to join us in Arizona. 

Chairman JOHNSON. It was sunny, a little chilly. 

Senator MCCAIN. Yes, what, 10? 

Again, I want to thank you for agreeing to hold this field hearing 

in Arizona. As we will soon see here from the witnesses today, our 

State has the dubious distinction of being the primary entry point 

of trafficking corridor and distribution hub for drugs transported 

from Mexico to the United States by the Sinaloa Cartel. 

We have made progress in securing our border. There is no doubt 

about that. Reduction in apprehensions over the past few years 

demonstrate the effectiveness of the men and women in the Border 

Patrol that they have had in preventing illegal entry of people 
1921 

crossing our border. Increased surveillance towers and other technologies will only increase that effectiveness. 

But clearly, we are losing the war with the transnational criminal organizations (TCO) that traffic illicit narcotics into our country. But the demand for these drugs—heroin, meth, cocaine—is too 

high, and the profits the cartels make are too great to simply arrest our way out of this problem. 

We must improve our drug interdiction strategy, but we must 

also do what is possible to reduce the demands for these drugs. A 

front to Arizona is not just as a drug corridor. These drugs stay in 

our State, poisoning our children, and doing great harm to our 

communities. Deaths in overdose from heroin are skyrocketing. 

According to the Arizona Department of Health Services, heroinrelated deaths increased from less than 50 in 2004 to almost 200 

in 2014. The reality is, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) cannot interdict 100 percent of these drugs at the border or at our 

ports of entry (POE). That is why it is critical we use our intelligence capabilities and strengthen partnerships between Federal, 

State, and local law enforcement to combat these drug traffickers 

as a cohesive unit. 

Border Patrol has long used the term, quote, ‘‘defense in depth’’ 

to describe its strategy to locate and track illegal entries, using the 

terrain to the agent’s advantage. But defense in depth should also 

apply to the coordinating efforts when partnering the State and 

local law enforcement interdicting narcotics away from the border. 

That is why I am intrigued by the Governor’s plan to create a 

new drug interdiction strike force, setting up a dedicated effort, 

working as a true partner with Federal and local law enforcement 

to intercept narcotics on the highways and byways before it hits 

the streets. 

Finally, while the focus of this hearing is heroin trafficking, the 

transnational criminal organizations that are bringing these drugs 

into the United States do not limit themselves to the trafficking of 

narcotics. They control the smuggling routes and routinely trafficking humans, currency, and other illicit activities. 

There have been several recent cases of special interest aliens 

from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries being smuggled 

into the United States by Mexican nationals. No one crosses the 

border without these cartels’ permission. It is a certainty that they 

have knowledge of and are complicit in smuggling these special interest aliens into the country which is worrisome. 

I thank the Governor for his leadership. I thank the witnesses 

today. 

The Honorable Gil Kerlikowske, thank you for being here. I know 

you have a very busy schedule. But to have the top guy here is 

very important. 

We welcome Frank Milstead and the great job he and his people 

do. 

And our distinguished Maricopa County Attorney, Bill Montgomery. 

I thank all of you for being here today. 

And, Governor, I specially want to take note of your leadership 

on this issue. And it is very important. And I think that it can lay 

the groundwork for a greater cooperation and work together be-
1922 

1The prepared statement of Governor Ducey appears in the Appendix on page 1966. 

tween the State, local, and Federal authorities. That can only happen under your leadership. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator McCain. Senator Flake. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR FLAKE 

Senator FLAKE. Well, thank you. I just wanted to thank you, 

Chairman Johnson, for coming out. 

This heroin epidemic is a big and growing problem as we have 

seen in the statistics. And, obviously, Arizona, given its position 

along the border, it becomes extremely important here. We have to 

have increased and better cooperation, better government, State, 

local, and county authorities. And so that is what this is all about. 

And I appreciate the focus that is been put on this. Appreciate 

being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Flake I did fail to mention based on 

those 13 hearings, we are releasing today the State of America’s 

Border Security Report, over a hundred pages, pretty well laying 

out that reality, which I think, is the first step of solving that problem. 

So the tradition of this Committee is to swear in witnesses, so 

if you will all rise and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this 

Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Governor DUCEY. I do. 

Commissioner KERLIKOWSKE. I do. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I do. 

Colonel MILSTEAD. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Our first witness will be the Honorable Governor Douglas Ducey. Governor Ducey is the Governor of the State 

of Arizona. He began his career in the private sector where he 

helped launch Cold Stone Creamery, which under his watch grew 

from a local ice cream scoop shop to over 1,400 locations. 

In 2008 and 2009 Governor Ducey, alarmed by the State economy and the massive spending debt the government was incurring, 

sought public office and was elected on November 2, 2010, as Arizona’s 32nd State Treasurer. After serving out this term, he was 

elected Governor. Governor Ducey. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS A. DUCEY,1 GOVERNOR, STATE OF ARIZONA; ACCOMPANIED BY COLONEL 

FRANK MILSTEAD, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF 

PUBLIC SAFETY 

Governor DUCEY. Chairman Johnson, good morning. Welcome to 

Arizona. 

Senator McCain, Senator Flake, thank you for the kind words, 

and I look forward to talking with you this morning. 

Commissioner Kerlikowske, Bill Montgomery, Sheriff Dannels, 

and everyone joining me today to give testimony, thank you for 

your commitment to addressing and reversing a very severe and a 

very real problem in Arizona and in our country. 
1923 

We are here today because our Nation is plagued by a destructive, dangerous, and deadly epidemic. Heroin trafficking use, 

abuse, and overdose is a growing problem in American society. It 

is influencing and infiltrating our children’s schools. It is tearing 

apart families. It is spurring crime and creating criminals. 

It is driving up costs related to drug enforcement, courts, incarceration, treatment programs, medical care, and other unseen expenses to our taxpayers. And that is nothing compared to the 

human toll. 

There is no dollar sign on the life of a father, a mother, a sibling, 

a child, or a spouse cut short by drug abuse. There is only anguish 

and anger. 

We have come face to face with a very sad, very scary reality. 

Heroin is no longer someone else’s problem. It is our problem. It 

is Arizona’s problem. It is America’s problem. And Arizona is the 

front door. 

It is not news to any of us that Arizona has been and continues 

to be a major smuggling corridor and distribution hub for illicit 

drugs being supplied to the United States. We share roughly 370 

miles of continuous international border with Mexico. The area consists of rugged terrain that makes it extremely difficult to patrol 

and secure, a prime environment for trafficking activity. 

Right across our border is home to the Sinaloa Cartel, a 

transnational drug trafficking organization (DTO) with a stronghold in the region. Unless we act and act soon, these cartels and 

the poison they are bringing to our communities are not going anywhere. 

Let us look at the facts. From 2010 to 2014, heroin seizures increased 223 percent in Arizona. Why? Sadly, because prescription 

opiate drug abuse often leads to heroin addiction, and that is because heroin’s a cheaper, quicker, and more intense high. The effects have been staggering. In 2015, drug apprehension efforts in 

Arizona resulted in 5,282 drug-related arrests. An arrest for heroin 

alone increased 76 percent over the past 2 years, which constitutes 

the largest rate of heroin arrests in a decade. Studies have also 

shown heroin treatment admissions increased approximately 77 

percent from 2008 to 2012. 

And here is why it should matter to all of us. The impact of heroin reaches far beyond user and supplier. 

It is having a cumulative effect on the standard of living in Arizona and throughout our country. 

More than 75 percent of inmates in Arizona’s prison system have 

a substance abuse problem. There are more than 17,000 children 

who are wards of the State because their parents are unfit to raise 

them. If we found them all homes tomorrow in foster care, there 

would be thousands more waiting right behind them unless we address the corrosive nature of drug addiction. 

Babies, newborns exposed to substances rose from 597 cases in 

2008 to 1,248 in 2014. That is a 109 percent, more than double, increase in just 6 years. Each one of these is a tragedy, a terrible, 

preventable tragedy. 

There is no shortage of the harmful effects of heroin and illicit 

drug trafficking in our communities. Some of these damages can 

not be undone, but they can be prevented in the future. It is up 
1924 

to us right now to act. And we are taking action by aggressively 

targeting the supply. 

As we know, Arizona is ground zero in the fight against drug 

trafficking, a direct nexus through which these cartels are infiltrating our States and ravaging communities in every corner of our 

country. 

That does not sit well with me, which is why we are taking action and why I have created the Arizona Border Strike Force Bureau. 

Here are the highlights: The mission of the Border Strike Force 

Bureau is to partner with local and Federal agencies to deter, disrupt, and dismantle criminal organizations responsible for smuggling drugs and humans into Arizona. The success of the bureau 

is founded upon strategic partnerships we have created at all levels. 

The most significant so far have been with U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection and the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office. 

I want to take a moment to acknowledge Commissioner Gil 

Kerlikowske and Sheriff Mark Dannels for their willingness to 

partner with the State of Arizona to the Border Strike Force Bureau. In a State like Arizona, the cost of combating drug cartels 

alone would be too large to bear. A successful long-term strategy 

to take the fight to the cartels requires multilayered collaboration 

and cooperation, intelligence sharing, better communication. All of 

these serve as a force multiplier that is magnifying our individual 

efforts. 

This strike force has been in operation for a little over 2 months 

utilizing these partnerships, and our successes speak for themselves. 

Since September we have seized over $2.2 million in cash, multiple firearms, nearly 4,000 pounds of marijuana, 73 pounds of 

meth, nearly 19 pounds of heroin. It is important to note that in 

2014, Arizona and DPS seized 14 pounds of heroin total. And we 

have seized nearly 19 pounds in just the last 2 months. 

To paint a picture of how much that really is, there are 45,000 

individual hits to one pound of heroin. We have made over 150 felony arrests and 30 misdemeanor arrests. We have taken down 14 

documented gang members and over 70 undocumented aliens. And 

we have done it in just a short time with a short list of personnel, 

scarce resources, and through minimal targeted operations. It was 

important to build a partnership, prove the concept, and to get 

some wins. 

Now imagine what we could do with more. This is a significant 

concrete example of what we can accomplish when we take a multilevel, collaborative, and cooperative approach to dealing with public 

safety. It is also a loud wake-up call that our current strategies 

have fallen short. We need a plan that is robust, that leverages resources, manpower, and money from local, State, and Federal levels. 

I have spent a lot of time meeting with ranchers, families, law 

enforcement, and residents near the border. I know you all have as 

well. The greatest concerns among them are the cartels and the 

traffickers in a place where they live and work and raise their fam-
1925 

ily. Border-related crime is a frequent occurrence. If there were 

ever a time to get serious about protecting our homeland, it is now. 

In addition to the drug epidemic, I would be remiss if I did not 

mention another potential threat to our country as a result of Arizona’s border. In light of the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris, new 

threats on the United States from ISIS in a video released last 

week and recent apprehensions of Middle Eastern nationals near 

the Southern Border, one thing’s for sure: It is time to step up our 

game. 

On behalf of the citizens of the State of Arizona, I want to thank 

Commissioner Kerlikowske and his hard-working, talented, and 

dedicated team who made these apprehensions last week. 

After what we have seen in the past couple of months with the 

Border Strike Force, I am encouraged about our partnership. I believe this is the most meaningful step toward securing Arizona that 

we have seen in decades. But more vigilance, collaboration and resources are needed if we are going to be successful in keeping our 

State and our citizens safe. 

As Governor of Arizona, I took an oath of office to protect Arizona and our country. Arizona must hold the line for the sake of 

every State, every community, and every family in this country, 

and we intend to do so. But we can not do it alone. 

Arizona can do a lot, and we will, to combat this epidemic, to 

slam the door on these cartels and to protect the safety, security, 

health, and quality of life for our citizens. But we need your help. 

This is not just Arizona’s problem. It is America’s problem. And it 

is going to need to be met with State, local, and Federal resources: 

More funding, more assets, more planes, helicopters, radios, and 

equipment added to our arsenal. More personnel, troopers, analysts, pilots, people to gather intelligence on these criminals, and 

people to take them down. 

Ask yourself: What is our primary duty, our highest priority as 

elected officials? 

The answer should be defending our homeland and protecting 

our citizens. 

For the first time in recent memory, we have a plan that can 

yield real, meaningful results in this effort. We are ready to do 

something about this problem, and we are ready to do it now. 

This could mean the difference between saving one life or countless lives, bringing down one criminal or an entire cartel. It could 

mean preventing a tragedy in Arizona or somewhere else. 

Data shows that from 2012 to 2014, there were at least 458 drug 

seizures in 30 other American States with a nexus back to Arizona. 

I ask you, as Federal representatives of the people, to deliver Arizona’s message to Congress. If you are serious about taking the fight 

to drug cartels and turning the tide on the drug epidemic ravaging 

our Nation, join us. Arizona is on the front line, and we need your 

support. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Governor Ducey. 

Our next witness is Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske. 

Commissioner Kerlikowske is Commissioner of U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). Commissioner Kerlikowske is also the former director of the 
1926 

1The prepared statement of Commissioner Kerlikowske appears in the Appendix on page 

1971. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). Commissioner 

Kerlikowske has four decades of law enforcement and drug policy 

expertise. And it’s also his birthday today. 

So welcome. Happy birthday. And we look forward to your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE R. GIL KERLIKOWSKE,1 COMMISSIONER, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Commissioner KERLIKOWSKE. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, 

Senator McCain, Senator Flake. I appreciate the opportunity to be 

here and discuss this important hearing. I testified at Senator 

Ayotte’s hearing in New Hampshire. I think it speaks volumes 

when you are having a hearing on this issue from New Hampshire 

all the way to Arizona on the southwest border. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Commissioner Kerlikowske, if you could 

move your microphone up. 

Commissioner KERLIKOWSKE. And I think this really speaks volumes about the difficulties of the problem and the fact that the 

heroin issue is so wide ranging. 

On a typical day, Customs and Border Protection seizes about 6 

tons of illegal drugs. For the past several years, our heroin seizures 

have been increasing. Last fiscal year (FY), they increased 23 percent. So far to date, they have increased about 17 percent. 

Now, while the vast majority of heroin entering the United 

States comes in through the southwest border, it does so through 

the ports of entry. We have a variety of sophisticated technology 

and people, the use of canines and others. I would tell you that the 

most important thing and the most impressive thing I have seen 

is the resulting of these seizures. 

It is between two areas. One is the quality of our people. They 

are very good at spotting everything from drugs coming in through 

cut flowers at Miami airport, to internal carriers at JFK, to taking 

apart cars at the border, use of the canines. But it is also, as the 

Governor mentioned, and Senator McCain mentioned, it is also the 

collaboration and the importance of that collaboration with State 

and local partners. 

These continued efforts are important to intercept narcotics at 

the border, and they are a key aspect of addressing the crisis. But 

we clearly, all of us, recognize that merely doing interdictions and 

arrests is not going to be enough to solve this heroin epidemic. 

When I got out of the Army in 1972 and joined the police department, several years later became a narcotics detective, several 

years later, commanded a narcotics unit. And then was police chief 

in two of the nation’s largest cities, along with being the President’s drug policy advisor, and now with Customs and Border Protection, I have had some real experience with this issue. 

We have skipped a generation of young people that are naive 

about the dangers of heroin; and as we all know, as we have all 

been talking about, it is making a strong resurgence. 
1927 

Secretary Johnson’s Southern Border and Approaches Campaign 

is important in the creation just recently of the three joint task 

forces (JTF) using all of the DHS components as a particular step 

forward, and it moves to increase our collaboration across the border with State and local law enforcement. 

I want to commend the Governor and certainly Colonel Milstead 

for the work that Arizona is doing. We have been involved, and 

they have kept us involved in all of the different discussions on this 

new strike force. We could not be more proud to be a partner and 

to be collaborative on that. 

I am also pleased that the Office of National Drug Control Policy 

and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have a National Heroin Task 

Force that they jointly chair. We also do a lot of training for the 

private sector, because they are an important partner in all of this. 

So when you have people that are driving the trucks and operating 

the rails and operating in the maritime environment, the more that 

we can educate them about what smugglers may use to try and get 

these drugs in, the better partner they become. 

And our Office of Air and Marine (AMO) has a program called 

SKY PRO, which I will be happy to talk about later. 

Last, I will tell you that in the over 6 years that I have been 

with the Administration, the opportunity to meet with many officials in the government of Mexico has presented itself to me. I 

think that to a person, whether it is the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Customs and Border Protection, and others, would 

tell you that the cooperation and the information being shared with 

the government of Mexico officials to combat this issue on both 

sides of the border is at a very high level. 

So I look forward to your questions and thank you for the opportunity to be here. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Commissioner. 

We are going to kind of open this up a little bit in terms of being 

too structured where we each get our 7 minutes. We are going to 

start going down different lines of questioning. And I encourage 

Senator McCain and Senator Flake to just chime in when it makes 

sense. 

Let me start, though. This is obviously a complex problem. There 

are all kinds of things we have to do. 

But what I would like to ask both the Governor and Commissioner, understanding we need resources, we need the resource to 

do any of these things—set that aside; that is just a given—what 

is the top one, two, or three things that we must do to address this 

problem? 

Governor DUCEY. So there are a number of things. First and foremost, I would say it is the cooperation between the State level, the 

Federal level, the county level, and the local level. Rather than 

being a confrontation, the fact that we are bringing these agencies 

and this enforcement together can make a real measurable difference in this. 

And I think you touched on this as well, Chairman. It is the insatiable desire and demand for drugs that we have in this country 

is the other part of the equation that we have to deal with here. 
1928 

And then, last, I will reiterate it because it is critical, that the 

funding and partnership with the Federal Government with set objectives is what success looks like, is critical to the success of this. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. So out of that, not to complain, but— 

so you had cooperation. That is obviously natural. But to do what? 

So address the demand side and, of course, the need for funding. 

Commissioner, I will ask you: The actions, I mean, what must we 

do in a cooperative fashion with proper funding? 

So one thing is to address the demand side. I mean, I completely 

agree. When I was down in Guatemala with General Kelly, we 

were obviously just talking about the drug cartels and how basically they are off limits and destroy those public institutions. 

General Kelly asked me the question: When was the last time as 

a nation we actually had concerted public relations education campaigns to try and dissuade Americans, but particularly our young, 

from doing drugs? And according to General Kelly, it was under 

Nancy Reagan: Just Say No. 

And he talked about that famous commercial with a couple of 

eggs, ‘‘Here’s your brain.’’ Scrambled up, ‘‘Here’s your brain on 

drugs.’’ So, again, so that is the address on the demand side. What 

are other things? Actions that cooperatively with proper funding 

must do. 

Commissioner KERLIKOWSKE. For us it would be congressional 

support for technology. We have a lot of boots on the ground, but 

the technology is truly the game changer in all of this. Whether it 

is our unmanned aircraft that you got to see when you visited the 

border, whether it is replacing our nonintrusive inspection devices, 

just big x-rays that have reached the most useful life cycle, we need 

that type of new equipment. And the research and development 

(R&D) that goes into that technology is huge. 

We could not be more appreciative of the Department of Defense 

giving us the remote video surveillance systems, the tethered 

aerostats. All three of you have seen a lot of this technology, but 

it needs to be supported, and it needs to be improved upon. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. So technology to detect people coming 

to this country illegally. Do we have the manpower once we detect 

to actually apprehend? 

Commissioner KERLIKOWSKE. Well, one is that the Border Patrol 

is more than doubled in size since 2007, 2008. We are having difficulty hiring right now in the United States Border Patrol (USBP). 

We are having difficulty hiring our Customs and Border Protection 

officers. A lot of law enforcement agencies that I know at the State 

and local level are having that difficulty. 

Your support for the veterans hiring. I can not think of another 

Federal organization that has done as well as we have when it 

comes to the number of veterans in CBP. But the fact that we are 

aggressively working with the Department of Defense (DOD) to get 

the people that will be leaving the Army as it restructures, to get 

them to come and be a part of Customs and Border Protection is 

a great opportunity. And that congressional support, your ability to 

use the stature and the positions you hold to support veterans coming into CBP, is a big help to us. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So let us say we have the manpower to detect, we apprehend, what are we doing in terms of our own laws 
1929 

in terms of processing and in many cases releasing? Can you kind 

of speak to that and the incentive that creates? Because, bottom 

line is: If the people come into this country illegally, and they are 

caught, and they are released, and they are in the State illegally 

without consequence. Or, for example, the drug traffickers, juveniles that we do not prosecute that we also face, criminally speaking, can you speak to that problem? 

Commissioner KERLIKOWSKE. If they are caught with drugs, I do 

not think we have seen any problem with prosecutions either at the 

State level or at the Federal level. I think the State prosecutors 

will probably tell you that they would like to be reimbursed by the 

Federal Government for some of those costs involved in that, and 

I think that is important. 

So the prosecution of, particularly for a drug smuggler, is critical 

because that is the way that we also get the information about who 

is behind it, who is part of the pipeline. If there is no sanction and 

they are just released, even if it is a smaller amount of drugs, I 

do not think that is helpful. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Governor, you spoke about, obviously your 

initial success now in terms of breaking up some of these drug cartels on the Arizona side of the border. What do you know in terms 

of the drug cartels’ control of the Mexico side of the border? 

Governor DUCEY. That is definitely part of this equation. I mean, 

I am in my first 11 months in office here, but I do have the commitment of the Governor of Sonora, Claudia Pavlovich, in terms of 

cooperation and communication to combat this issue. 

In addition to that, I want to amplify what the commissioner 

said. It is not only about law enforcement assets, but it is about 

proper prosecution. And having the prosecutors available and competitively paid so that when there are arrests, we can complete 

that to return people to their country of origin, but also to lock up 

the bad guys. 

Chairman JOHNSON. When I toured the border through the Rio 

Grande Valley, touring with some local officials that complained to 

me that unless, for example, that the quantity of marijuana was 

5 pounds or above, locals did not even bother with the prosecution 

of it. 

Is that something similar here in Arizona? 

Governor DUCEY. I hear those stories as well through the county 

prosecutors and county sheriffs. And to your point, Chairman Johnson, on the wrong incentives, I think if we are telegraphing what 

you can get away with, we are going to have more distribution and 

more trafficking. And that is why I think we need to tighten the 

screws on this. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Let’s talk for a minute, Mr. Kerlikowske, about 

the Sinaloa Cartel. 

Is it true that they have significant control over the areas in Sonora and further south and are able to bring these drugs with relative impunity to the Arizona border? 

Commissioner KERLIKOWSKE. Yes. 

Senator MCCAIN. That is true? 

Commissioner KERLIKOWSKE. Yes. 
1930 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Montgomery appears in the Appendix on page 1981. 

Senator MCCAIN. Sinaloa Cartel is the most vicious of all, particularly now that Chapo Guzman is back. 

Commissioner KERLIKOWSKE. I know they are vicious, and I 

know no one crosses a plaza of a cartel without paying a price. 

Senator MCCAIN. So the old days where some individual or 

groups of individuals decided they wanted to bring some drugs, 

that is not the case anymore. It is all orchestrated by the Sinaloa 

Cartel? 

Commissioner KERLIKOWSKE. Or it passes through them for a 

fee. 

Senator MCCAIN. And then, Mr. Montgomery, the drugs come 

across the border, and then they come to Tucson, and then they 

come to Phoenix, Arizona, which is, according to testimony, a major 

distribution point throughout the country. 

By the way, I was just in New Hampshire over the weekend. In 

New Hampshire, they view this as an epidemic. 

I want to tell you. They view it as an epidemic because of the 

dramatic rise in these deaths. 

What happens then, Mr. Montgomery? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BILL MONTGOMERY,1

COUNTY ATTORNEY, MARICOPA COUNTY 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Senator McCain, the drugs get up here into 

the Phoenix metropolitan area, and they go to what we term stash 

houses where from there they may be sold to additional distributors or repackaged for further trafficking, either west or east. We 

have the benefit of having a pretty intricate interstate highway 

system here where several different highways come together, and 

they exploit that. 

Senator MCCAIN. Do we have enough assets to do the job you 

want to do? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Absolutely not. 

Senator MCCAIN. Absolutely not? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. No. In order for us to be able to deal with all 

the drugs that are getting through—and I would underscore, too, 

that seizures at Arizona ports of entry are substantially on the increase. But the cartels are still getting enough drugs through to 

make it financially lucrative to continue to try and exploit Arizona’s border. 

Again, going to some of the prepared remarks, but just with a 

few local investigations, local law enforcement has seized 131 

pounds of heroin just within the last several months. So while we 

have seen the percentage and the size of seizures increase at Arizona ports of entry due to great fortified Customs and Border Protection, there is still so much getting through. 

And right now I have 15 prosecutors assigned to my Drug Enforcement Bureau, all of whom are more than gainfully employed 

right now. And we do not have the luxury, I would say, as a local 

law enforcement prosecutor to turn away cases. I have no arbitrary 

thresholds below which I will not take cases. Because if I do not 

do it, it will not get done. 
1931 

1The chart referenced by Senator McCain appears in the Appendix on page 2053. 

Senator MCCAIN. Commissioner Kerlikowske, I appreciate your 

comments about hiring vets. I was recently down at Mariposa Port 

of Entry, and I found that they are 200 short, which then, even 

though we have expanded the port of entry and there is many more 

lanes, they are not all open because we are so short of personnel. 

Now, what is the—hiring veterans, I think, is a step forward, the 

program for that. I am glad that it has been inaugurated. 

But what are we going to do to get more people? 

Commissioner KERLIKOWSKE. Well, I think the difficulty has 

been, Senator, is that when Congress authorized a lot of money, 

particularly for the Border Patrol in 2007 and 2008, we rushed 

very quickly to get a number of people on board. 

Not all of those people would be hired today. We stopped doing 

a polygraph examination during that period. As you know, Congress has made that mandatory with the work of leadership of Senator Cornyn on that. So the process to get very good people who 

have been clearly vetted is time-consuming. 

The job market is better right now. And, frankly, if you are a talented Customs and Border Protection or Border Patrol officer, you 

have a college degree, you are fluent in Spanish, there are a lot of 

other opportunities out there for you. So particularly with the Border Patrol, we are losing more people than we are actually able to 

hire. And we just have to support it. 

And as I think all of you know, right now this is a difficult time 

for any level of law enforcement in the public’s eye. And we really 

need to kind of turn that and work to turn that image around. 

Senator MCCAIN. One of the benefits, obviously, of hiring veterans, you can short-circuit this extensive background process that 

you have to go through. 

Finally, Governor, I am sure you have seen this chart.1 It shows 

the cost of illegal drugs. For example, heroin in 1991 was almost 

$1,500 per gram. And now today it is down around $465. And there 

is substantial reductions. That can only mean to me that there is 

a supply. The old rules—laws of economics: If there is a greater 

supply, the cost goes down. 

So I would finally ask if you think that we are winning or losing 

in this effort to try to control this flow of drugs, which clearly is 

becoming cheaper and cheaper? And I would point out when it gets 

really cheap, as the heroin has, it is so much less expensive than 

OxyContin that people turn to heroin as well. Governor. 

Governor DUCEY. Senator, we are losing on this front. 

You can look at the cost here, and that is a reflection of the supply. But I think what is more important than the statistics and the 

numbers is the effect that it has on our State and has on our country. 

I can tell you that everything that I am dealing with as Governor 

beyond K–12 education: Chronic homelessness oftentimes; unemployment; poverty; joblessness; the 17,000 children that are wards 

of the State; the parents that are unfit to care for them; domestic 

violence; the people, the men and women, that populate our prisons. There is a central unifying theme of drug abuse and addiction. 
1932 

1The chart referenced by Senator Flake appears in the Appendix on page 2053. 

So there is a tremendous human toll not only on the families of 

our State and our country, but the cost to our government in terms 

of public policy. 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank you. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for coming to Arizona. You have made this issue a top priority of the Homeland Security Committee. I appreciate all the work that you have done and 

many hearings and visits, and thank you for being here today. I 

think it means a lot to the people of our State. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Appreciate the invitation. Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. Commissioner Kerlikowske mentioned that the Border Jobs for Veterans Act was signed into law 

just a few months ago. 

I want to thank the chairman also. Senator McCain and I held 

hearings and talked to you and others. We were told for a long 

time the reason these jobs have not been filled partly is because 

we have too small an applicant pool that can get through all the 

hoops. And it certainly made sense to turn to our veteran community. 

And so when we brought that legislation to Senator Johnson, he 

worked quickly to move it through, and we are happy to have that 

signed, and we hope it makes a difference. It is not a solution for 

everything, but it should help a lot. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Flake, let me just quick jump in 

here because I always say when a train does not derail, that is 

good news. It is just not news. 

I mean, here is a bill that was very good news, and it was done 

because we concentrated not just amongst ourselves, but with, our 

colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I mean, that was an area 

of agreement that unified us. So we were able to get this passed 

and signed into law. I mean, everybody involved in this, and it was 

really the leadership of these two gentlemen here that really gets 

credit in that. 

But, again, there is good news. If you concentrate on the areas 

of agreement, you actually can accomplish things to get resolved, 

and Senator McCain and Senator Flake made that happen. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. Let us turn to this chart1 that Senator McCain referenced talking about this drop in price just across 

the board—less so for marijuana—but look at the top, heroin, 

$1,500 a gram back in 1991 down to $465 now, a huge percentage 

in drop. 

I am just wondering, how price sensitive is the demand for heroin? Looking at the problem we have today, you know that when 

it is more available, when it becomes cheaper than some of the prescription drugs that people either can get or can not get anymore, 

if we were to, through focusing on the supply side, bring this price 

back up here, at what point do we make progress? Or is it simply 

squeezing the balloon, and it goes to somewhere else? It goes to cocaine. It goes to other drugs. 

What are your thoughts on that, Mr. Kerlikowske? 
1933 

Commissioner KERLIKOWSKE. Well, Senator, so sadly I will tell 

you that the long history of attempting to influence the price by 

interdiction or interception is analogous to attempting to reduce 

the number of diamonds in this country by seizing the lumps of 

coal. That is a fact. Reducing the demand, as all of you have mentioned, is going to be critical if there is less demand. 

But there is two other important points in here. One is that 

under President Calderon’s administration, we all know that the 

Mexican Military is used to do an awful lot of local law enforcement. I believe they did less of eradication where the poppies are 

being grown in Mexico. 

Very hopeful with this relationship with the government of Mexico, that they will be back involved in greater efforts and eradication because the heroin problem is not just one for us. It is also 

one for Mexico. So rather than pay a smuggler to bring drugs into 

the United States, that smuggler may be paid in product. That 

product will be sold locally on the plazas and the cities and the 

towns in Mexico. 

So eradication is important. Greater interdiction is important. 

But in the long term, reducing our demand, as all of you have mentioned, is going to be one of the better aspects of how to deal with 

this. 

Senator FLAKE. Governor Ducey. 

Governor DUCEY. In addition to that, Senator, I think it is important to point out the prescription opiate drug abuse that exists in 

this country. So there are things we can do beyond law enforcement and prosecution in terms of reforms around prescriptions and 

how many of these pills are prescribed and for what, how many, 

and how many refills. 

And I will defer to Colonel Milstead on how the supply and demand has affected the consumption in terms of the pricing structure. But it is in addition to the cartels. There is always also things 

we can do right here at home. 

Colonel MILSTEAD. Chairman Johnson, Senator Flake, the price 

does change. And back 10 years ago, if you were a heroin addict, 

it would cost you somewhere between $350, $400 a day to continue 

with your habit. Today that same amount of heroin or the potency 

of the heroin would be somewhere closer to $30 or $35 for that 

same addiction, that same high. 

A tab of OxyContin in a school, in a high school in Phoenix, Arizona, is going to be somewhere around $50 or $60. A point of heroin is $10. But what the kids do not understand, remembering it 

is youth, they are risk takers, they believe it will not happen to 

them and that the reports are wrong. But the addiction rate for 

heroin, for opiates, is astronomical. And one of three things happen 

to those children: They become a slave to the drug, they overdose 

and die, or they are in a lifetime of rehabilitation and treatment. 

Senator FLAKE. Before you get to that, you may have addressed 

some of these in the opening statement, so I do not want to take 

away from that, but I would be interested, in terms of prosecutions, 

of those doctors or others’ prescription mills that we see out there. 

And, in fact, the most effective prosecution is at the State level or 

the county prosecution or if it needs to be Federal or there needs 

to be cooperation there? 
1934 

But before we get to that, since you may address that in your 

opening, Governor Ducey, can you talk a little more about the 

human cost? And you mentioned in your opening statement this is 

impacting the standard of living of folks in Arizona. 

We hear numbers. You talk about number of kids that are affected. But somebody could say, well, this is a population of 6.57 

million in this State. That is still on the margins. 

Is it beyond the margins? Is it affecting more families? What do 

you see out there? Is it really affecting the quality of life of the 

State? 

Governor DUCEY. Well, I would just ask every parent that is in 

the room: Has this affected their family or their neighbor’s family 

or your extended family in terms of drug abuse and addiction and 

the human toll that this brings to a family in terms of pain and 

anguish and anger and drug abuse? 

My experience traveling the State over the last year is that this 

affects all of our communities and, in fact, affects all of our families, either directly or indirectly. And that does not even go to the 

fact that we have so many people living in a lower standard of life 

today than they did before the downturn. And I can not tell you 

how many small business entrepreneurs tell me when they go to 

hire for a position, that they can not find people that can pass the 

drug test. So I think it is affecting us in our homes and our families, but it is also affecting our economy and our productivity as a 

State and a nation. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Flake. Just to pick up 

on the drug test. I know as I traveled around the State of Wisconsin, there is not one manufacturer that can hire enough people 

and for multiple reasons. One of them is they do drug testing. 50 

percent of the people, when they find out they have to take a drug 

test, do not show up. Of those that do take the drug test, 50 percent fail. So you are already a ways down the list there. 

Commissioner, I do want to pick up a little bit on the poppy 

issue. When I was down in Central America, we were certainly 

briefed that for the farmers, it is 50 times more profitable for them 

to grow poppies than really any other crop. The abundance of crops 

they can grow down in Central America—it is a great place to grow 

crops—50 times more profitable. Plus, they do not even have to 

transport it. So that is huge. Heroin poppies are an extremely profitable crop, and that is also part of the issue. 

But I do want to talk—in our report, in testimony, former Drug 

Czar General Barry McCaffrey testified that we are only interdicting about 10 percent of the illegal drugs coming to the Southern 

Border. I know we had testimony from the Coast Guard separately, 

only interdicting 11 to 18 percent over our maritime border. 

I will just ask the panel: Anybody want to either confirm or dispute those types of numbers? 

Commissioner KERLIKOWSKE. When I was in Seattle as the police 

chief, I was his police chief, so I would get a lot of advice from General McCaffrey. I would tell you that I think there is one big issue 

of trying to determine what percentage we interdict or do not interdict, and that is that we do not know what we do not know. 
1935 

So we are doing a much better job, as I said. Our increases last 

fiscal year, our continuing increases this fiscal year. When Senator 

McCain talked about our appetite for drugs in this country, we 

have got to work to reduce that. So I have seen lots of economists 

and, reminds me of when President Truman said: If you lined up 

all the economists end to end, would not that be a beautiful sight? 

You mentioned that I have seen lots of econometric pieces on 

this, and, frankly, I still think that there are a lot of questions 

about how much are we missing versus how much do we interdict? 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, again, those are difficult numbers to 

come up with. But we can estimate our basic total usage in America. Again, it is not just General McCaffrey. It is also the Coast 

Guard. Bottom line is: We have an enormous flow coming into this 

country illegally that we are not catching. Is that kind of without 

dispute? Mr. Montgomery. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Chairman Johnson, I think that is true. The 

cartels have a high level of tolerance for the amount of drugs that 

are being seized for them to continue the same sorts of routes that 

they try to exploit. And it is not until they suffer severe economic 

pain in trying to exploit a particular route that they are going to 

change and shift their behaviors. 

And I think that is also somewhat reflected too in the chart, the 

pricing chart. A couple of other points that I would offer to consider 

in this context is, when you look at the early 1990s, the high price 

for heroin and methamphetamine, over time the drug cartels have 

been able to improve their own economies of scale where they can 

produce these drugs at a much lower price than what it used to 

cost them. 

They do not have to import heroin from South America or import 

it in a way where it originates out of Afghanistan. They are growing it locally. It costs them less to produce. They have improved 

their ability to produce high-quality heroin by mimicking what Colombian drug cartels were able to do. 

So you have product closer to its source in greater amounts, and 

they have been able to cut out the middleman in order to transport 

their product into the country. Each one of those different improvements obviously allows you, then, to sell for less and still maintain 

a high profit potential. 

And when it comes to methamphetamine, back in the 1990s it 

used to be a product of lower yield, small labs domestically. And 

so there was a lot of danger. The product was not very good. You 

could charge more if you were a good dealer. But now you have 

super labs producing methamphetamine just across the border, and 

that is now a part of that cartel’s product mix. And they have gotten very good at producing high quality methamphetamine for less. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Talk a little bit about routes and flow. I just 

kind of want to talk a little bit about the history now and how it 

really is like damming water, and it just kind of flows around, because 25, 30 years ago the flow was really out of Colombia, through 

the Caribbean, and then up through Miami; correct? And we did 

not stop it. Maybe we reduced the flow through there. But then we 

redirected the flow through Central America. 
1936 

And same thing’s true, in our next panel we will be talking about 

the 1990 plan which really has not been updated. You shut down 

certain areas, and it just flows into other areas. 

Can somebody address where we are on that? And is that all we 

can really do is just redirect it to some other area and then destroy 

public institutions in some other area? 

Governor DUCEY. Well, I think when you talk specifically about 

this State, you look at our neighbors. California does have a wall. 

New Mexico has a mountain range. Texas has a river. Arizona’s 

border situation is different. So in terms of the history and how 

that’s affected the State over the course of decades, I will ask Colonel Milstead to comment. 

Colonel MILSTEAD. Mr. Chairman, over the—I am sorry. If you 

look at over the years of what has happened with the movement 

of drugs into the United States, I was a Phoenix police officer back 

during 9/11. When everything quit moving during 9/11, the supply 

in Phoenix, the supply for drugs, for hand-to-hand drug deals, was 

almost nonexistent after about 10 days. 

So the supply train, the chain of available drugs in Phoenix, was 

about a 10-day supply. So that was pretty much cutoff. When everything quit moving, the borders were locked down. Everything 

stopped. 

As we have looked at the changes over the years, Arizona continues to be a central focal point. And really the hard narcotics, 

they come through the ports, and we call them ports. And the other 

side, they call them plazas, and as Mr. Kerlikowske spoke of, those 

plazas are all run by a cartel. And those ports of entry are where 

your hard narcotics are coming through. Easier to secrete in 

produce. Easier to secrete in vehicles. 

And the number of vehicles coming through Nogales and come 

through DeConcini and through Mariposa, it is the busiest port in 

the Nation, so it is very hard to control. And those cars that come 

through routinely day after day, they begin to be thought of as vehicles that are coming in for work. They have work visas. They 

come in and out every day. 

Some of those are unwitting people who are moving drugs that 

they don’t even know they’re moving because they’re secreted into 

cars without their knowledge. 

The other thing that happens is through these mountainous regions, if you talk to Sheriff Dannels in Cochise County, you talk 

to the ranchers, they will tell you that the backpackers are bringing in 25 kilo loads on their backs. They are armed. 

And when you ask the ranchers, ‘‘Well, what do you do when you 

see these cartel members coming through your ranch and cutting 

your fence and disrupting your operation?’’ They say, ‘‘We step 

aside because the response time is too long, and you can not get 

law enforcement there quick enough.’’ 

So the marijuana is still coming through those mountainous 

areas through the Tohono O’odham Nation and they daisy chain 

the Indian reservations up into metro Phoenix. 

So what can we do? We have to have that presence. We have to 

have the troopers, the Federal agents, the sheriffs. Everybody’s got 

to be in alignment to make it much more difficult. And it will move 

it to some other area, but we will respond to that as well. 
1937 

But really at the end of the day what has to happen, there has 

to be a change in America’s appetite for narcotics. We have taken 

law enforcement out of every school for the most part. The only 

thing that is left is the school resource officers. There is no drug 

resistance training. There is no national campaigns on drugs. 

What we are doing in Arizona with Youth, Faith & Family and 

Debbie Moak, we are trying to close the back end of that circle, the 

treatment and prevention side. But until we do something about 

that, when there is not that insatiable demand as you spoke of, sir, 

this will continue. 

Chairman JOHNSON. By the way, that is an extremely important 

point you made earlier, though, that after 9/11 we shut down our 

ports of entry. It really went a long way for drying up the supply, 

which tells you the reality of the situation: Most of these hard 

drugs are coming through our ports of entry, not being backpacked. 

Anybody else want to comment on that? I mean, that is an insight to me. That is extremely good testimony there. 

Commissioner KERLIKOWSKE. Mr. Chairman, the majority of our 

seizures of heroin are at the ports of entry, not between the ports 

of entry. But, most police chiefs are not really known for their optimism. But if you look at cocaine, our consumption of cocaine in this 

country since 2007 and 2008 is down by half. We have made significant improvements. The crack cocaine epidemic that we talked 

about in the late 1990s is really pretty much a thing of the past. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Moved on to other drugs, methamphetamine 

and—— 

Commissioner KERLIKOWSKE. Well, methamphetamine has always been the lowest drug in drug use in the United States. The 

difficulty with methamphetamine is that it is very specific to geography. So a place like Arizona or Iowa or the West Coast can get 

hit very hard, devastatingly hard, with methamphetamine. If you 

go to New England, it is not that much of an issue. 

But when you approach this issue from this whole of government 

approach, which I think everybody here is talking about, I think 

cocaine would be a place where optimism, we could look toward 

heroin, working and doing the same kind of thing, reducing the demand, doing better interdiction, having better technology, but educating people about, as Colonel Milstead said, the dangers of drug 

use. 

Senator MCCAIN. Could I just—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator MCCAIN. I know we have another panel, so I will be 

brief. 

Governor Ducey, as a major part of your Arizona Border Strike 

Force Plan is the acquisition of systems, aircraft, hardware that 

you need very badly. It is called a 1033 program, as you know, 

where the Defense Department will transfer equipment that we 

can determine is, quote, ‘‘excess.’’ 

I just want to tell you we will begin work in January on the 2017 

defense authorization bill. We will work closely with you and your 

people to make sure that we make use of this 1033 program to 

transfer some of the much needed equipment that you need in 

order to make this Strike Force Plan effective. So we will go to 

work on that. 
1938 

Governor DUCEY. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Governor Ducey, I want to say congratulations on, again, the 

Strike Force. That is a great idea to leverage the State’s resources 

and to work more cooperatively at all levels. 

Can you give us any idea of where we still need help at the Federal level to make that work more efficiently? Do you work well 

with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, for example? And are there other 

areas that we can work on and help you out with? 

Governor DUCEY. Well, I want to say thank you, Senator Flake. 

And I want to say the beginning of this partnership with Commissioner Kerlikowske here has been the best first step. 

Step two is going to be around proper prosecution. But what we 

have found, I would say that the difference here is we are reaching 

out to these agencies, and we are talking about the needs of Arizona and the shared goals, not only about our State, but of the Nation. 

And I want to say how grateful I am to Commissioner 

Kerlikowske for his urgency on this matter. And I think we also 

have some excitement around the success we have in just 8 weeks, 

and what is possible afterwards. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I just have two basic lines of questioning 

here. 

First of all, you go down to Central America. You see this drug 

problem having destroyed the public institutions in Central America. In testimony in the second panel, we are talking about the concern with all this money about potential corruption within our own 

institution. 

So I just want to ask your evaluation, how much corruption? 

How concerned are you? And just take it from there. 

We will start with you, Governor Ducey. 

Governor DUCEY. Well, the last thing I want to do is paint our 

State as perfect, because no place is perfect. But this culture of corruption does not exist in the State of Arizona. In terms of what we 

are seeing across the border, again, I will defer to folks that have 

been around longer than I have been. 

But regardless of that situation, this idea that there is a fight 

that needs to be fought and that we need to bring resources to it 

and the best possible people at the highest level of ability and intelligence and sense of mission is going to be in the face of what 

is happening with these drug cartels and the amount of money that 

is sloshing through this system and destroying lives on this side of 

the border. 

Chairman JOHNSON. First of all, that is good news. 

Colonel, do you want to offer any insights? 

Colonel MILSTEAD. With corruption I think I would leave that to 

Commissioner Kerlikowske having so much experience with the 

border itself, Mr. Chairman. 

But I will tell you, if you speak to the county sheriffs along the 

border, to Senator Flake’s point earlier, there is a huge problem in 

getting the U.S. Attorney’s Office to prosecute these drug offenses 

on the border by a pound of load, by age of the criminal alien. 
1939 

But there is a huge concern about the ability to prosecute these 

cases through the U.S. Attorney’s Office. And it puts that burden 

back on these counties, and I think really the expert on that would 

be Sheriff Dannels to speak to that specifically and really more 

Commissioner Kerlikowske on the corruption. 

But thank you, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Commissioner. 

Commissioner KERLIKOWSKE. Mr. Chairman, 60,000 employees, I 

think, the corruption issue is a significant concern to me. And until 

August of last year, we did not have Internal Affairs, and what we 

had was anemic. 

Secretary Johnson gave me authority to build an Internal Affairs 

Unit with aggressive criminal investigators, and we are in the process of doing that. Given the amount of money and the drug issues, 

corruption is always a concern. It has me concerned every night. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So let me close out again. Just trying to talk 

to you about, why do we have to secure our border? I mean, obviously we are talking about one of the problems. The root cause is 

the insatiable demand for drugs. We have to secure our borders for 

public health and safety. We also have to secure our border from 

a standpoint of an immigration system that works. 

We also have to secure our border—it is imperative to national 

security. When I was down in Honduras and touring with General 

Kelly, apparently this term has been around—I had never heard of 

it—I have always heard of Other Than Mexico (OTM). In hearings, 

we would say, well, those are the folks coming in from Central 

America. 

But when we were in Central America, they talked about special 

interest aliens (SIAs). Right now a lot of the special interest aliens 

are Cubans because of our, dry foot policies, driving people here 

that can get here. Cubans, they can stay. There is an incentive. 

But also included in that SIA category were Somalis, Pakistanis, 

and Syrians, and others. 

Can you speak to that? Again, to me that is a very large concern 

based on what we are seeing over in Syria and Iraq right now. 

Commissioner KERLIKOWSKE. So the term is for special interest 

aliens, those that have come from a country that could have problems with the United States. We apprehend every year people from 

well over 100 countries, whether it is on the Northern Border or 

whether it is on the southwest border. We turn those people in a 

very short period of time over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for further work. But it is always a concern, and 

I work hard with ICE to make sure that they are fully vetted, and 

ICE works hard to make sure that they are detained. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Anybody else providing insights, some data? 

Senator McCain, do you want to make comment on that? 

OK. Sure. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Chairman Johnson, I know that within just 

a couple of years ago, I think 2012, Department of Homeland Security’s own Statistics Bureau identified that along the southwest 

border, Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol has detained 

people from every single country of interest and every single Statesponsored terror country that is listed by the U.S. State Depart-
1940 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Dannels appears in the Appendix on page 1987. 

ment. And this is ongoing. And that national security threat is critical. 

There has been testimony before Congress by the Acting Inspector General (IG) at DHS noting corruption issues with DHS border 

personnel and the link between drug trafficking organizations and 

terrorist organizations. It is in the public record. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Montgomery. 

Ready for the second panel. Again, I just want to thank all three 

of you gentlemen. First of all, your service to the community, your 

State, to our Nation. I really do appreciate you, Governor, in terms 

of making this a very high priority. It is a priority we share. We 

want to work very cooperatively with you. We have to solve this 

problem as a national issue. So, again, thank you for your thoughtful testimony and for your time. 

We will seat the next panel. 

Governor DUCEY. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Senators. 

(Applause.) 

Chairman JOHNSON. Will the next panel please be seated. 

Well, some of the witnesses are participating in a press conference, so let us get going so we can move things along. 

Stay standing. 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? 

Sheriff DANNELS. I do. 

Ms. MERTZ. I do. 

Agent JUDD. I do. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Our next witness is Sheriff Mark Dannels. 

Sheriff Dannels is the Sheriff of Cochise County, Arizona. Mr. 

Dannels began his law enforcement career in 1984 after serving a 

successful tour in the Army. With 30 years of law enforcement experience, Mr. Dannels has been recognized, among other things, to 

receive the Medal of Valor, Sheriff’s Medal, and Deputy of the 

Year. Sheriff Dannels. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARK J. DANNELS,1

SHERIFF, COCHISE COUNTY 

Sheriff DANNELS. Chairman Johnson, Senator McCain—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. I think we all have to get our microphones 

pretty close. 

Senator FLAKE. You might want to just grab that mic there if 

you can reach it. Seems to be a little bit better. 

Sheriff DANNELS. That’s better? 

Chairman Johnson, Senator McCain, Senator Flake, thanks for 

being here and listening to us today. 

With 83 miles of international border within its jurisdiction, 

Cochise County plays a significant role in combating drug and 

human trafficking organizations and the associated violent crimes 

which adversely affects Arizona residents and other areas throughout the United States. 
1941 

One of Mexico’s largest and most notorious drug cartels, Sinaloa 

Cartel, long employed the use of local Mexican drug trafficking organizations, to carry out cartels’ drug distribution and transportation into and throughout the United States. 

Violence against innocent citizens, public officials, law enforcement, and rival drug/human trafficking groups in Mexico continues 

to escalate. 

The adverse effects of the drug and human trafficking organizations operating in Cochise County not only have significantly diminished the quality of life of county residents, but also placed unbearable strains on the budgets and resources of private and governmental agencies in our county. 

Having the true-life experience to live and work as a officer and 

deputy and now Sheriff of Cochise County since 1984, it has been 

an educational lesson for me reference border security. I have witnessed the escalation of violence by these careless assailants on our 

citizens raising the question: Who actually controls our borders? 

Cochise County has become known as the gateway to illegal activity for those that unlawfully enter into the United States. 

I want to talk just a minute on the history of our border and why 

we are in the current situation that we are in. In the 1990s, the 

Federal Government prepared a plan to address the unsecure, unsafe border. At a press conference, Former Sheriff Larry Dever, in 

Tucson, Arizona, a Border Patrol spokesman announced their intent to secure the populated areas of the border, specifically San 

Diego, Yuma, and El Paso, and the international port of entries. 

These target areas, which I call the Ps, ports and populations, will 

be a Federal Government focus point. 

The second half of their plan was to reroute the illegal activity 

disturbances into the rural parts of the southwest border with the 

thought that the cartel organizations and smuggling groups would 

be deterred by the rugged and mountainous terrain along the border. 

Since the release of the plan 20-some years ago, many changes 

have taken place in Cochise County: Increased illegal activity outside the protected areas, ports; fear and frustration increased in 

rural Cochise County and along the southwest border, my fellow 

sheriffs; ranch and farmlands damaged due to an increase in illegal 

activity; transnational cartels and smuggling organizations controlling and set up smuggling routes in rural Cochise County and the 

southwest border; no lack of redefinition of the plan since the 

1990s; economic down-cline to include a population decrease in 

Cochise County; lack of federally elected leaders to address unsecured border and fears creating a lack of trust and anger by citizens of my county; undue pressure on local law enforcement and 

sheriffs to address issues, fear, and consequences for those committing those crimes; lack of funding for local law enforcement and 

criminal justice system and corrections in order to address border 

crimes at the local level due to lack of Federal Government intervention. 

Local law enforcement is best suited to best understand the community needs and solutions based on the expectations of their citizens. Community policing begins and succeeds at the local level 

first. 
1942 

As the Sheriff of Cochise County, I felt it was my elected and 

statutory duty, my oath of office to support the United States Constitution and the Arizona Constitution, to protect and secure the 

freedoms and liberties of my citizens. No longer a debate by those 

who live in the rural parts of the southwest border, the rural parts 

of the southwest border are not secure and are vulnerable to any 

type of transnational criminal activity. 

Working with a limited budget and staffing, sheriffs along the 

southwest border struggle each and every day to find ways to enhance the quality of life and safety for those they serve. Sheriffs 

along the southwest border work diligently to do it by educational, 

prevention, and enforcement programs by building true, trusted 

partnerships with our local law enforcement partners. 

Local law enforcement, typically sheriffs throughout the southwest border and within the State of Arizona, have taken a lead on 

arresting and prosecuting those involved in local smuggling which 

create an enormous challenge to our local budgets. One of the most 

controversial is the juveniles that are smuggling. 

And right now we have taken the role of doing that at the State 

level with our county attorney. And our juvenile rate has gone 

down from three or four. We are managing juveniles up to 19, 18 

or 19 in our jail. So it is a big burden on us. 

Additionally, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program 

(SCAAP), have steadily decreased over the years. The financial decrease has, once again, placed a huge financial burden on our local 

sheriffs. Between 2009 and 2014, Arizona sheriffs have a SCAAP 

deficit of over $226 million. We have been rewarded 19 million 

throughout the State of Arizona. We get about 4.8 cents on the dollar for detaining illegal aliens at the local level. 

The smuggling of Mexican heroin and methamphetamine crossing our national border has become very popular based on the effectiveness and efficiency of transferring certain drugs by the drug 

cartels. Detection is more difficult by law enforcement creating a 

financial opportunity for those organizations on both sides of the 

border. 

Sadly, those that become victims of these drugs often become a 

deadly statistic. In Arizona, heroin deaths in 2004 was 50 and 2014 

was 200. Education and prevention programs are necessary for 

those tempted and are in need of these programs. 

Many law enforcement agencies are equipping their law enforcement deputies with Narcan to assist with these overdoses. This is 

becoming a common epidemic in our communities. This epidemic is 

relentless. It holds no age, race or gender harmless. 

Governor Doug Ducey has been instrumental in supporting our 

efforts here in Cochise County, constructing a regional public safety 

communication, intelligence center, providing additional complimentary, I would say, resources to our efforts to combat drug 

smuggling, that adds nexus to secure the border. 

This true partnership unifies local and State efforts in hopes of 

enhancing our quality of life for our citizens and beyond. As we all 

know, this problem not only challenges our quality of life here, but 

negatively exploits communities throughout this Nation. 

I want to get to a few recommendations that are a common 

theme in our county when it comes to talking to our citizens and 
1943 

based on my experience working with law enforcement. We really 

need to look at redefining that plan of the 1990s. It has been over 

20 years, and take the successes and buildupon what is not working and identifying them. 

We need to have a political will by our Federal leaders to make 

border security a mandated program. Border security should be 

first and not mixed or blended with immigration reform. 

In the Tucson Sector, only 43 percent of the Border Patrol agents 

are actually on the border in the Tucson Sector. Support immigration first-line Border Patrol agents that work the border regions. 

They have a dangerous job, and it is no secret that their frustration 

is high based on the abnormal complexities in reference their assignments. 

Secondary checkpoints are good as long as the primary is working first. Quality in life, citizens living on our borders by sheriffs 

and the State Governors regarding approved security and safety. 

Funding supplement for local law enforcement prosecutions, detention, and criminal justice in support of border crimes. 

Continued funding and support for the Stonegarden program 

which is discretioned by the local sheriffs, to tell what is best needed for their respective counties. Empowerment with action to the 

Border Patrol leaderships. We have three great leaders in our 

county, and they have great ideas. Enhanced funding for the regional communication and accountability for the local law enforcement needs to continue. 

In summary, our local efforts have proven to be beneficial in 

bringing overdue solutions to an insecure border that becomes a 

discretionary program by those federally elected leaders and policymakers that have been entrusted to protect our freedom and liberties. 

As a sheriff elected by the good people of my county, my biggest 

fear is losing another life, another citizen in my county and/or law 

enforcement officer, deputy, or agent. 

One would hope the priority of security on our border does not 

become just another price tag and/or political posturing, but, rather, legal and moral requirement to safeguard all of America, which 

so many heroic Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice. 

Today’s opportunity instills fresh hope that our voice and Senator 

Johnson comes back, but before DC, comes back for the invite, I 

truly appreciate that. On behalf of my citizens in my county and 

law enforcement in my county and the folks in this great State and 

all the sheriffs here in Arizona, thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Sheriff. 

Our next witness is Dawn Mertz. She is the Executive Director 

of Arizona High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). Prior to 

her appointment, Ms. Mertz served 27 years as a criminal investigator for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Criminal Investigations Unit. Ms. Mertz. 
1944 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Mertz appears in the Appendix on page 2017. 

TESTIMONY OF DAWN MERTZ,1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARIZONA HIDTA, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY 

Ms. MERTZ. Good morning. And thank you for this opportunity 

to appear before you, Chairman Johnson, Senator McCain, and 

Senator Flake. 

It is my privilege to address you today on behalf of the Arizona 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Executive Board concerning 

law enforcement efforts to combat illicit narcotic drug trafficking. 

The Arizona HIDTA region is just over 64,000 square miles. It 

includes 372 miles of contiguous international border with Sonora, 

Mexico. The international border area consists of inhospitable 

desert valleys and rugged mountainous terrain, which are ideal for 

drug smuggling. 

Due to Arizona’s geographical location and shared border with 

Mexico, all of its highways and roadways are exploited by Mexican 

drug trafficking organizations to transport large quantities of illicit 

drugs. 

Each year the Arizona HIDTA conducts a comprehensive intelligence study to identify new and continuing trends in the Arizona 

region. 

The most recent threat assessment found that the Sinaloa Cartel 

continues to present the primary operational threat to Arizona, 

with vast resources to source, distribute, transport, and smuggle 

large amounts of cocaine, marijuana, heroin, and methamphetamine, in and through Arizona, to drug networks throughout the 

United States. 

A significant number of drugs seized in other States have been 

linked to Arizona, which demonstrates how vital Arizona is to 

Mexican drug organizations. After methamphetamine, heroin is the 

greatest threat in the Arizona HIDTA region. The abundance of 

heroin in Arizona is directly correlated to the high levels of opium 

poppy cultivation and heroin production in Mexico. 

The number of Arizona HIDTA investigations with heroin seizures increased 161 percent from 2011 to 2015. Many of the investigations are international, multi-state, and multi-jurisdictional in 

scope. 

Law enforcement operations that successfully disrupt and/or dismantle Arizona-based organizations directly impact the availability, price, and purity of heroin and other U.S. drug markets. 

Seizing the opportunity to profit from the growing appetite for heroin, stemming from the prescription drug epidemic, the Sinaloa 

Cartel and other Mexican drug organizations have adapted to meet 

the growing demand by producing, smuggling, transporting, and 

distributing wholesale quantities of Mexican white, brown powder, 

and black tar heroin to expanding northeast, midwest, southeast, 

and northwest markets through Arizona-based trafficking networks 

at unprecedented levels. 

The Sinaloa Cartel and other Mexican drug organizations have 

diversified heroin production to produce white heroin to increase 

their market share in emerging and existing heroin markets. Historically, heroin users in the East Coast cities have preferred white 

heroin over Mexican tar heroin. 
1945 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Judd appears in the Appendix on page 2026. 

Chronic abuse of prescription opioid drugs, such as OxyContin, 

Percocet, and Vicodin, creates a gateway for heroin addiction. Research indicates prescription opioid abusers between the ages of 12 

and 49 are 19 times more likely to engage in heroin use than their 

counterparts with no history of prescription opioid abuse. 

The transition from prescription opioid abuse to heroin occurs 

most often among youths age 12 to 17, with a transition to heroin 

occurring within an average of 17 months. 

Preventing prescription drug misuse and abuse is essential to reduce the number of lives lost and those addicted to prescription 

drugs and heroin. 

The Arizona HIDTA, in collaboration with State and local agencies, is expanding its prescription misuse and abuse initiative to all 

counties in the Arizona HIDTA region. In the pilot counties, the 

number of deaths from opiate drug overdoses decreased 28 percent 

while the non-pilot counties’ deaths increased. 

The Arizona HIDTA has also launched a Stronger Together prevention initiative bringing together law enforcement and community substance abuse prevention coalitions with a central goal of reducing substance abuse and is in the process of developing a Native 

American and Spanish language prevention tool to fill those gaps. 

Coordination through shared intelligence is critical to combating 

the tremendous threat posed by the Sinaloa Cartel and Mexican 

drug organizations. Under the coordination umbrella of the Arizona 

HIDTA, participating law enforcement agencies eliminate duplicative operational and investigative programs and facilitate tactical, 

operational, and strategic intelligence sharing. 

The Arizona HIDTA approach to intelligence training, information sharing, and demand reduction demonstrates that as traditional organizational barriers are overcome, law enforcement entities can better focus investigative and intelligence resources on dismantling and disrupting the most dangerous and prolific drug trafficking organizations. 

The Arizona HIDTA remains committed to facilitating cooperation among law enforcement entities and to supporting coordinated 

law enforcement efforts to combat Arizona-based drug organizations. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and for 

the Subcommittee’s continued support of the HIDTA program. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Mertz. 

Our next witness is Brandon Judd. Brandon Judd is a Border 

Patrol agent and serves as the President of the National Border 

Patrol Council, representing more than 17,000 Border Patrol 

agents and staff. Mr. Judd started his career as a field agent in 

1997 and brings with him more than 17 years of experience as a 

Border Patrol agent. Agent Judd. 

TESTIMONY OF BRANDON JUDD,1 PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

BORDER CONTROL COUNCIL 

Agent JUDD. Senator Johnson, thank you very much, Senator 

McCain, Senator Flake, I appreciate the opportunity. 
1946 

On August 26, 2015, the DHS Deputy Secretary Alejandro 

Mayorkas was in the State of Montana to take a hard look at the 

organized illegal smuggling problems with narcotics in the Havre 

Border Patrol Area of Responsibility to the back-end oil fields located in Montana and North Dakota. Mr. Mayorkas was made 

aware of the smuggling due to the diligence of various local law enforcement entities. 

During his visit, Mr. Mayorkas met with several law enforcement 

agencies as well as with me and a few other officers of both the 

National Border Patrol Council and the National Treasurer Employees Union (NTEU). Although I represent the men and women 

of the Border Patrol in the capacity of a labor leader, I am also a 

Border Patrol agent extremely concerned about the security of our 

nation’s border. My members, who are your agents, are also genuinely concerned about the security of our borders. Therefore, at the 

meeting and on their behalf, I raised three issues: 

First, the lack of actionable intelligence provided to agents to 

allow them to be successful. 

Second, the releasing of criminal aliens from Mexico who are in 

our custody. 

And third, the practice of providing overtime to managers to sit 

behind a desk as opposed to field agents performing enforcement 

duties. 

For the purpose of this hearing, I will confine my comments to 

the lack of intelligence and its impacts on Border Patrol and Border Patrol’s operations. Simply put, Border Patrol agents are not 

being given the intelligence necessary to be successful. 

How can a Border Patrol agent know smuggling is taking place, 

let alone do their job, if they are not given the necessary intelligence? To date and even though this issue was brought directly 

to Deputy Secretary Mayorkas’s attention 2 months ago, Border 

Patrol agents in Montana still have not been given the intelligence 

necessary for them to interdict the narcotics being smuggled 

through their Area of Responsibility. 

Please allow me to give the committee two examples of how this 

is impacting our operations. When Customs and Border Protection 

Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske became aware of this hearing, he 

hastily put together an operation aimed at interdicting heroin coming from Mexico into the United States. 

This operation is now in the fourth week of four, and it has been 

a complete failure. I personally spoke to the agents participating in 

this operation and asked the following questions: 

Were you given any idea of how this operation could be a success? 

Were you given any intelligence that would help you be successful? 

Were you given any training on how to conduct the operation? 

Were you given any intelligence specific to heroin smuggling? 

As a Border Patrol agent, are you familiar with or have ever 

worked at a port of entry? 

Were you trained on how to work at a port of entry? 

Are you aware that this operation is not only to seize heroin, but 

also to gather intelligence? 
1947 

Do you know of any heroin that was seized during this operation? 

Do you feel this operation was properly planned and communicated to the agents assigned? 

And last, and most important, as per the stated purpose, do you 

feel this operation was a success? 

To every single one of those questions, those agents answered no. 

Not one of those did they answer in the affirmative except for one 

K–9 handler who was formerly an Office of Field Operations (OFO) 

officer that worked for the port of entry that knew what the port 

of entry’s responsibilities were. 

I would also like to give you another example. On February 23, 

2015, a Bisbee, Arizona, police officer made a routine traffic stop 

on a U–Haul moving truck. During the stop and while speaking 

with the driver, the officer developed enough suspicion to call for 

a Border Patrol K–9 Handler nine to conduct a free-air sniff around 

the truck. While walking around the truck the canine alerted to the 

presence of a controlled substance or persons inside the locked storage unit of the truck. 

Several thousands of pounds of marijuana were discovered inside 

the truck, and it was later determined that the truck came from 

a home in Naco, Arizona. A subsequent search warrant was obtained and in the early morning of February 24, 2015, a tunnel was 

found on the property of the home. It is estimated the tunnel was 

used for several years prior to discovery. 

I would like to point out, because Sheriff Dannels is here, the 

only reason we knew that that truck came from a home in Naco, 

Arizona, was because one of his deputy sheriffs reported to the 

scene and said, ‘‘Hey, I saw that truck at this home,’’ which allowed 

us to get the warrant to search that home. 

This was great police work, and all officers and agents involved 

should be commended. It is, however, a complete breakdown of the 

intelligence cycle. Prior to writing this testimony, I spoke with 

three of my former colleagues at the Brian Terry Memorial Station. 

This station is assigned to the area where the tunnel was found, 

and all three were absolutely amazed that a cartel was able to run 

contraband directly under the nose of several agents for so long. 

How serious is the lack of intelligence? It is very serious. But 

candidly, heroin is the least of our worries. Last week five Pakistani nationals and two Afghan nationals were arrested by Border 

Patrol agents in Sonoita, Arizona, in the Sonoita, Arizona, Area of 

Responsibility. 

What can we do better? We are dealing with highly sophisticated, 

well-organized criminal cartels. As the HIDTA report notes, these 

cartels employ encrypted communications and hire transportation 

networks and hundreds of cartel members on this side of the border. 

Do we need to support local law enforcement agencies like the 

Cochise County Sheriff’s Department? The answer is absolutely. 

When Federal agencies work and support local law enforcement, 

our effectiveness increases exponentially. 

Will Joint Agency Task Forces make a difference? Without a 

doubt. They will have a positive impact. Joint Agency Task Forces 

not only increase our effectiveness in arresting criminals and seiz-
1948 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor appears in the Appendix on page 2029. 

ing contraband, they increase the probability of gathering the necessary intelligence to support the men and women in the field. 

Can the Border Patrol be successful without actionable intelligence that is disseminated to the field agents? The answer is an 

emphatic no. We must take a proactive instead of a reactive approach to combating crime. Intelligence is the only way we will be 

able to predict when, where, and how persons or contraband will 

illegally enter our country. 

I appreciate this time to testify before you and look forward to 

answering any questions you have. 

Chairman KJOHNSON. Thank you, Agent Judd. 

Our final witness is Mr. Jeff Taylor. Mr. Taylor represents The 

Salvation Army public policy as an advisory board member. Mr. 

Taylor also serves as national speaker for The Salvation Army, 

most recently sharing the stage with President George W. Bush regarding child safety drug treatment. Mr. Taylor has struggled with 

drug addiction and will share his story with us today. Mr. Taylor. 

TESTIMONY OF JEFF TAYLOR,1 MEMBER, PUBLIC ADVISORY 

BOARD/PUBLIC POLICY, THE SALVATION ARMY 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the 

Committee. 

As you just heard, my name is Jeff Taylor, and I will be presenting the many effects drug addiction has on our State. My personal experiences on what works and where to go from here. 

Briefly, I grew up in Phoenix and attended Central High School 

with Senator McCain’s wife and also with Colonel Milstead who 

was on the panel earlier. 

My junior and senior year, I achieved a 4.0 grade point average 

(GPA) in advance placement (AP) classes. My senior year, I was selected as a first team all-State football player and all-city baseball 

player, and then attended the University of Arizona to play football 

and study finance. 

After college I was employed as a stock options trader for a prestigious Wall Street firm. And at the age of 29, I left the business 

at the absolutely peak of my career as one of the firm’s top traders. 

I came from a good family, had a successful and meaningful work 

history, participated in varied philanthropic works, and had acquired much as symbols of financial and success. I mean, everything that we gauge in this country for success, I had. 

Four years after leaving the trading position, I was living on the 

streets of Phoenix. I had lost everything to addiction. It can happen 

to anyone. My story is not unusual. 

Early on in college I received a career-ending football injury and 

was prescribed a narcotic pain medication. My first experience with 

narcotics came from a doctor. Actually, I had one other really bad 

experience in high school with Boone’s Farm Strawberry Hill. That 

was enough for me. But I was not a drinker. I did not smoke weed 

in high school. I was a normal, good kid. 

As a result of my addiction, I have been incarcerated many times 

in numerous county jails and State prison. This does not make me 

a bad person. It makes me an addict in need of help. We have a 
1949 

sheriff here that runs one of the toughest county jails in the country, Sheriff Joe Arpaio. As I have told him many times, he tries to 

make our facilities very tough that you do not want to go back. And 

we agree. We do not want people going back. But I have told him, 

that his jail is so tough, I have only been back six times. That is 

the power of addiction. 

Facing a 4 to 6 year prison term, a very wise judge diverted me 

to The Salvation Army drug treatment facility. It is 20 years later, 

and I am still very grateful for that. My drug treatment cost 

$6,000. My prison term would have cost $100,000, and statistics 

show I would likely be back. 

You have asked me to share what I have learned from my unique 

perspective. First of all, I agree wholeheartedly with Senator 

McCain. We cannot incarcerate our way out of addiction alone. Our 

State population has doubled. During the same timeframe our prison population in the State of Arizona has gone up 1196 percent. 

People are released with the same drug problem they were arrested 

with. 

And we prove this by our high rate of re-arrest. And what is 

worse when addicts are all placed together in a prison environment, they network and pick up new skills. While incarcerated, I 

learned how to manufacture crystal methamphetamine, a lot about 

identity theft, how to import and transport drugs and avoid canine 

detection, and was introduced to several high-ranking drug cartel 

members, all while on a prison yard. 

Arizona Department of Corrections just reported of the nearly 

20,000 inmates we will release next year, 77 percent are in need 

of substance abuse treatment. I cannot emphasize the following 

statement enough: We do not have a prison expansion problem. We 

have a drug problem. 

You will never hear me complain about the time I served in jails 

and prisons. I was a danger to myself and others. Addicts understand consequences. But for me, there was a back door to that prison cell. I received what I needed, a transitional drug treatment program. 

That experience has led me to work with several legislators over 

the years to develop one of the most successful prison transition 

programs nationally. And if there is one sentence that I would like 

the panel to hear today, it is this: This program has reduced crime 

committed by those released from prison by 50 percent. This is not 

measuring in a month. This is measuring at 3 years and tracking 

over a thousand inmates. 

This program saves taxpayer money, a lot of money, and increases public safety. So let us work on the not-going-back part. 

As a result of the increased flow of drugs into Arizona and addiction rate soaring, our State Department of Child Safety (DCS) is 

under pressure from the wreckage caused by addictive parents. 

Our system is overburdened in the sheer numbers of child abuse 

and neglect cases, yet nearly 90 percent of DCS caseloads are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol, one or both parents. 

We do not have a child abuse and neglect problem. Again, we 

have a drug problem. 

I know this, because after graduating the drug treatment program, The Salvation Army sent me back to college to study early 
1950 

childhood development to design and administer the first nursery 

of its type: A State licensed childcare facility serving children of 

drug addicted parents. 

The program was very successful. Of the 27 women that were released pregnant, drug addicted from Sheriff Joe’s jail, 96 percent 

of these pregnant women delivered a drug-free baby. These mothers could receive residential drug treatment while their children 

were monitored and kept safe. Often child removal is absolutely 

necessary, but we must not throw away the parent who is addicted 

as they will have more kids that we can take away. We need to 

stop the cycle of addiction. 

As high schoolers we all remember going to parties, and there 

was always someone outside getting sick in the bushes after drinking too much. Teens overdo it. They always have. But if you overdo 

it with heroin, it kills. 

Currently opiate overdoses account for more teen deaths than 

auto accidents. The bigger question is: Why are our teens altering 

reality in such an extreme way? And then I was introduced to a 

very effective education and prevention program called ‘‘Not My 

Kid.’’ 

The title really says it all. Most parents today are caught off 

guard by their children’s drug use and are in desperate need to 

help navigate these difficult parenting challenges. Not My Kid understands that teens listen to teens, and that they have been extremely successful in areas of drug abuse, education, and prevention in our schools in a simple-to-understand, right-and-wrong 

model. This program needs to be expanded and replicated in other 

States. 

My son thanks The Salvation Army and the criminal justice system for saving his dad’s life. It took both working together. My son 

does not know his dad to be under the influence of drugs. He has 

never visited his father in prison. And he has never been in foster 

care. And now at 16, he is definitely not enjoying how involved his 

dad is in his life right now. 

I am very much enjoying my role as an involved parent just as 

God designed me to be. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Taylor, for sharing your 

story and for what you are doing. 

Can you just describe a little bit in greater detail the program 

that works so phenomenally well? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, we give 

a Band-Aid mainly to people that are suffering from addiction. In 

other words, if you are losing your children as a result of addiction, 

that means that you are far along in your addiction. Addiction progresses over time. 

So by the time that it is either go to prison or you have been to 

prison, is that we then send them to a 1-or 2-day class. What really 

works—and Salvation Army has been doing this for over 150 years. 

The Salvation Army started in the streets of London in 1865 to 

handle alcoholics on the streets of London. 

So we have learned a lot in those years. We feel that long-term 

residential drug treatment is the most effective. You add the faithbased component to that. And we do not require that anyone believe, the Christian model. If you are a Jewish client of ours, then 
1951 

we will take you to a Jewish temple. If you are—we even had a 

devil worshiper come through, and The Salvation Army officer 

stood up and said, ‘‘We love devil worshipers.’’ We can not dictate 

how people believe, but we can treat it as the health issue that it 

is. We get people healthy, their days into days, their nights into 

nights. We have good nutrition. They go to work every day. 

All of the trucks that you see driving around town that are Salvation Army trucks, they are in our drug treatment program. So 

they are earning that treatment bed. And incidentally, the model 

does not accept nor seek any government funding. It is self-supporting. It is a long-term residential treatment, 6 months with 

transition. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Now, Jeff—— 

Mr. TAYLOR. Only as good as your transition. Excuse me. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Jeff, is the program working in prisons? 

Mr. TAYLOR. The program that we have in the prison is actually 

not in the prison. Drug treatment in a prison environment is not 

nearly as effective as drug treatment out of the prison environment. 

So briefly, this program releases inmates 90 days early. It is only 

a 90-day early release, so there’s no sentencing reform involved. 

And during those 90 days, that individual is in a highly monitored 

drug treatment program, but it is also case managed, meaning that 

that person is enrolled in parenting classes, safe housing, everything that you need when you get out. 

I have been released from our prison system with $42 in my 

pocket, homeless, and with a felony conviction. And now it is like: 

Now, do not go back. Of course, people are going to go back. 

So that program is called intensive outpatient and, quite frankly, 

it has been much more successful than I thought it would be. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I met with former prisoners in Wisconsin, 

too, and we make it almost impossible for them to succeed once 

they leave. 

While we are still talking about this subject, Senator McCain, 

Senator Flake, any questions for Mr. Taylor? 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you so much for your testimony. That was 

just riveting. Really was. You mentioned that you graduated college and then went off to work, but it was an old football injury 

that had you hooked. 

Were you prescribed oxycodone or something during that time, 

and it took years to develop an addiction, or you could not get that 

prescription anymore so you turned to illicit drugs? How did that 

transition? 

Mr. TAYLOR. I did not get addicted—Senator Flake, excuse me. 

I did not get addicted right away. At that time, I was a pre-med 

student. I was worried about getting behind in school, and then I 

took a narcotic pain medication that was prescribed, and all of a 

sudden, I did not worry. It is called having a false sense of wellbeing. 

And I did not get addicted in college. It is when I got out of college. But that part in my brain, that was the fix to high anxiety 

or things that I worry about. And then I became a stock options 

trader which, as we all know, is a highly stressful business. 
1952 

Most addicts are people that do not have an off switch. I just do 

not have an off switch. So what I had to learn in treatment is how 

to take that excessiveness and turn it in the right direction. For 

example, the other day I woke up, and I got on my bike and I rode 

to Prescott. That is a little healthier, though. It is downhill coming 

back, though. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Sure. Go ahead. 

Senator MCCAIN. I would like to thank all of the witnesses. 

And thank you, Mr. Taylor, for that very compelling testimony. 

It gives us all a great deal of food for thought. 

I would like to recognize Agent Judd who I have had the honor 

of working with as we attempted to become more successful in stabilizing the compensation and retirement and other aspects of personnel for our Border Patrol agents, which, I think, Brandon Judd 

would agree was a real problem with both retention and recruitment. 

And without your leadership, Mr. Judd, we would not have done 

it. Without the active involvement of the Border Patrol agents that 

you are the president of, we would not have been able to achieve 

it. 

I would like to go back for a second to this issue of corruption 

that you and I were just talking about, because it is very concerning. 

If we have corruption within those who we place our trust and 

confidence, then I think it is pretty obvious the results of that. And 

you pointed out there have been several occasions where this corruption has been discovered. In fact, I seem to remember one case 

on our border that was really very serious a couple years ago. 

What is the extent of this corruption problem, and what do we 

need to do to fix it? 

Agent JUDD. The corruption problem—— 

Senator MCCAIN. And, again, thank you for your leadership. 

Agent JUDD. Senator, if it was not for this committee taking up 

that issue, we would have been in trouble. Period. You allowed us 

to have the manpower on the border to help us secure the border, 

so that was huge, and I greatly appreciate that. 

But talking about the corruption issue, we just had an agent assigned in Laredo, Texas, a couple weeks ago that was just arrested 

and indicted for murder inside the United States. And it is my understanding that we just had an agent here in Tucson Sector that 

was arrested for having 80 pounds of—I am sorry—80 kilograms of 

cocaine on his home by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). 

Corruption is a huge problem. And when you allow corruption 

within an agency that is tasked with stopping drugs and narcotics 

and smuggling of illegal aliens and especially persons from countries that we know would like to do harm to our country, it is a 

huge problem. 

I really believe, Senator McCain, that what we have to do is we 

have to listen to those agents. It is the agents that are going to report this corruption. That is what is going to happen. We have case 

after case after case where our agents have gone to their managers 

and said, ‘‘Look, I know that this person is corrupt. I know it.’’ 

In fact, a couple years ago we had agents that went to managers 

and said, ‘‘I know that this agent is corrupt.’’ Management did 
1953 

nothing about it. Two years later that agent was arrested by the 

FBI for bringing in money for drug cartels. 

Who knows what that agent did in those 2 years and how much 

harm that agent caused the agency? We need to listen to our 

agents. We need to take what our agents—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Excuse me. 

As Commissioner Kerlikowske pointed out that they started finally an Internal Affairs branch. Is that something you think 

would be important? 

Agent JUDD. It is. But, again, we are a long way from where we 

need to be. What we see in the government is we see the government just acts way too slow. So we might have started an Internal 

Affairs branch to combat corruption, but we probably will not see 

the results of it for several years. 

I mean, Secretary Jeh Johnson said this is a new organization. 

We have been around for over 10 years, and he says that it is going 

to take awhile until we get the morale up. And I have to say, 

again, that is what we see and that is the reality of the Federal 

Government. It is just way too slow in its reaction. 

Senator MCCAIN. Why is there such a shortage on our border, 

Mariposa Port of Entry of 200 agents? What can we do about that? 

Agent JUDD. You are going to have a very hard time recruiting 

people to areas that are less desirable areas. And let us be frank. 

You know about Ajo, Arizona. 

You know where Ajo is. Who’s going to want to live in Ajo, Arizona? And so you have a hard time looking at retentions in Ajo, 

Arizona. 

Senator MCCAIN. Is there such a thing as extra incentive? 

Agent JUDD. There should be. And we have been pushing for 

that. We have been pushing for that to give that extra incentive 

to allow that. 

Senator MCCAIN. We have military when somebody goes to a 

hardship region. 

Agent JUDD. And we should have it in the Border Patrol. Why 

management is not taking it seriously, I do not know. 

Senator MCCAIN. How about sending to the committee a recommendation? 

Agent JUDD. I will be happy to do that again. 

Senator MCCAIN. So we can try to address it legislatively. 

Agent JUDD. I will be absolutely happy to do that. 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank you for your leadership. 

Agent JUDD. Thank you, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Sheriff Dannels, just briefly, how is your coordination with the Border Patrol? 

Sheriff DANNELS. We work very closely with them. 

Senator MCCAIN. But you have a good relationship? 

Sheriff DANNELS. Yes. We have a good relationship with the 

three PACs in our county to include one in Lordsburg and also the 

agents. We rely heavily on their support, especially in the rural 

parts to get to the situation where we can get there and neutralize 

it so we can investigate it from that point on. We do have a good 

relationship with the Border Patrol. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, again, I hate to 

keep harping. I sound like hometown. But I have forgotten how 
1954 

many tens of millions of dollars to improve our Mariposa Port of 

Entry and, yet, we are not using it because we do not have the people. So maybe, Mr. Chairman, we could take up this in January 

this issue. Maybe an incentive kind of a pay or benefits or something to try to attract men and women. And as Brandon Judd just 

said, it does get pretty hot. Hotter than Milwaukee. 

Chairman JOHNSON. It gets hot. But ours is a humid hot, too. 

No. Listen, when you hear about the high levels of unemployment once the finest among us that, veterans coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq, and then to hear jobs are not being filled, it 

seems like it is a pretty common sense solution. 

Agent Judd, it is disturbing that you have talked about these 

documented cases that are not acted upon. We have had a number 

of hearings on retribution. Not only just within Department of 

Homeland Security, but across the Federal Government. Coming 

from the private sector, I just find it shocking how much retribution there really is against whistleblowers. 

Is that part of the problem why the agents do not continue to followup on their accusations? Have they experienced retribution? Do 

they fear it? 

Agent JUDD. Yes. If you look at the most recent reports, especially about the Afghanistan and Pakistanis that were just arrested 

here in Arizona, and you talk about the Syrians that are giving up 

at the port of entry, all of these news outlets are saying from 

sources that do not want to be named. 

Well, there is a reason why they do not want to be named. 

If they are named, they know darn good and well that they are 

going to face repercussions from the agency. And it is known that 

this agency will take action against agents. We just had an agent, 

Chris Cabrera, who testified before your committee. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I was going to point out that agent. 

Agent JUDD. And right after his testimony, Internal Affairs 

wanted to investigate him because he is telling you what is happening on the border. And I am sorry, Senator. I just had one of 

my local presidents was just proposed termination for absolutely— 

it’s ridiculous what this proposed termination is for. So, yes, we 

have a lot of problems within our agency as far as them taking action when we come up and we give them commonsense approaches 

to effectuating law enforcement activities. 

Senator, you have heard me many times, although I am elected 

to be in the National Border Patrol Council, you know darn good 

and well that the National Border Patrol Council’s—our concern is 

border security. Always has been. Always will be. 

Chairman JOHNSON. It was interesting that that exact same instance of Chris Cabrera, we heard prior to our hearing that he was 

going to have an interview with Internal Affairs. And, of course, I 

will put the best structure on it. I was assuming that Internal Affairs was going to ask him about the disparity in his testimony 

that we were only apprehending 30 to 40 percent. He probably 

wanted to get to the bottom of that. I raised that issue in the hearing, and the interview was canceled. 

Agent JUDD. Yes, it was, and I appreciate that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Which kind of tells me they were not going 

to talk about their concern about a lower apprehension rate and 
1955 

cooking the books basically in terms of information they were provided. 

Agent JUDD. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. Sure. Sheriff Dannels, you talked about the plan 

developed in 1990s that just do not apply today. Can you give us 

some examples of what changes there have been to smuggling 

routes and methods and strategies employed by the cartels? 

Back in the 1990s, the cartels really did not control what they 

do today in terms of the traffic across the border. I am assuming 

so. Can you give us some examples of what needs to be updated? 

Sheriff DANNELS. Well, the plan in the 1990s, the latter part of 

that plan was to reroute that illegal activity, the disturbances into 

the rural parts of the southwest border with the thought that they 

would never do that because of the mountainous and the desert 

terrain, and they would not conquer that. 

Well, move forward, they did. They have conquered it. They like 

it. They like being in the mountainous area as the Border Patrol 

can tell you also. They like being out in the desert. So they have 

taken advantage of that, and the fact that now that the voice 

speaking on that are rural folks, ranchers, legacy ranchers, folks 

that have lived out there in these rural parts for a long time that 

have become numb to this byproduct of this plan. And their voice 

is so little, a minority voice out there, that it does not have a voice 

like El Paso or Yuma or, like, Maricopa where they can actually 

bring a noise to it, and solution is right away. 

So for 20 years they have been living this. And over these 20 

years the cartels have solidified their efforts, their smuggling efforts, and their criminal act in these rural parts of the southwest 

border, and this falls directly onto the sheriffs. 

We have ranchers that have had break-ins four and five times. 

We have a small community that’s got 75 homes in it. And they 

have an average of 20, 25 burglaries a year in that community. 

This is break-ins to their own homes, their neighbors’ homes. It’s 

the illegals. 

It is not a fair way or no quality of life for anybody to live like 

that. But over time, we have forgotten the history of this plan and 

taking it at face value, this is where our border is. And we really 

need to take a deep look at where we have gone with this plan. 

And as Brandon Judd’s talk, the agents on the ground know 

what is going on. You solve problems at the lowest level, working 

with your local sheriffs, working with your local police chiefs and 

agents that work in the rural parts. They can give you a lot of good 

answers, but you have got to get them to the table before you do 

that. 

Senator FLAKE. Ms. Mertz, what strategies do we have in terms 

of combating these cartels and the movement of drugs, human intelligence trying to infiltrate and getting intelligence there, signals 

of intelligence? Communications? Are we making full use of what 

we have, and as a privacy debate that is been going on in Washington, have an impact on our ability to infiltrate, know what is 

going on with cartels? 

Ms. MERTZ. In answer to that question, yes, it does. As technology increases, we encounter encrypted phone-to-phone trans-
1956 

missions. We are having difficulty un-encrypting them. We can not 

do it. And as technology increases, our ability to conduct these 

long-term investigations and figure out what they are doing becomes more and more difficult. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Flake. We are rapidly 

running out of time. I did want to follow up just quickly on the 

1990s plan. 

Senator MCCAIN. Can I just ask the sheriff one question? What 

kind of intel sharing do you get in your work with the Federal Government? 

Sheriff DANNELS. It is recently improved working with HIDTA, 

working with Dawn here, addressing our concerns. So we have 

more intel coming through. 

It all depends on the leadership. It truly does. Good leaders bring 

good intel. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thanks. 

Sheriff DANNELS. I truly see a big picture mission that partnerships are beyond paper. We all talk about, ‘‘Hey, we have a partnership. We have this written on paper.’’ A partnership come from 

people sitting down, having a face-to-face discussion. So it has improved. Can it get better? Of course, it can. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I started my questioning with the Governor 

and the Commissioner really talking about what are the top three 

things, actions. OK. Cooperation, funding, got that. But to cooperate and fund what? 

I want to go to the 1990s plan. We did succeed in dramatically 

reducing flow of drugs and illegal trafficking in different sectors; 

correct? 

Can you just tell me, what did we do that worked? And, obviously, we have redirected now. They have cracked the code and figured out how to smuggle elsewhere. But talk about what worked 

to guide our activity in terms of what we need to do now. 

Sheriff DANNELS. Chairman Johnson, I will start by saying it is 

got to have the will. Washington, D.C., has to have the will to 

change it. We can not settle on the fact that, hey, we have had successes in the three metro cities on the southwest border: El Paso, 

Yuma, and San Diego. 

And I use this analogy when I talk to groups and the fact that 

20 years ago when you turned on one of the three major networks, 

and you would see a pursuit heading north from the border, whether it be a Border Patrol chasing a motor vehicle, a sheriff’s office, 

and then you would see folks bailing out of the pickup. Ask yourself: When is the last time you saw that? Probably has not been 

much because the agency has been addressed with staffing, technology, attention all the way through intel sharing at a Federal 

level. 

You need to take successes and say, hey, this has worked in 

these metro areas, and we have done it. Take that because what 

you have done is taken that illegal, those violent cartels, and you 

have pretty much given up the rural parts of the southwest border 

to let them operate in that area to bring across special—like Brandon Judd was talking about this tunnel that I was involved with 
1957 

also with them. And that is a VIP tunnel. I testified before on that, 

where special products, special people came through that. That 

should scare the heck out of all of us in this room. 

And so we need to put a huge effort on redefining this plan of 

the 1990s and go back and see what history has taught us and take 

that forward. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, I want to talk about what we can do. 

So we need the will, commitment, no doubt about it. We need cooperation. We need funding to do what? 

What is it? Talk about technology. Now, is it fencing? 

Is it more manpower? I mean, what is it that we have to do? 

Sheriff DANNELS. If I can answer that, Chairman Johnson, is one 

thing we do in our county that I think, all sheriffs and all police 

chiefs on the local level do different things to max their community 

needs, is to actually speak to a variety of chiefs and sheriffs and 

say what is working in your county on the southwest border? 

There is 24 of us sheriffs, for example, and each one is doing 

their own thing to make things work. We need to unify on that, 

first of all, and make sure that that voice is heard from the sheriffs 

and to our State partners and our Federal partners. 

The other aspect of this is, I use a balanced approach of education, prevention and enforcement. And each one has a certain 

element to address a certain population of your citizenry. 

No. 1 is if you look at 66 percent of what we do is education prevention, and you have that 33 percent for those that just will not 

comply that we have to have that enforcement consequence rule 

built into our laws. 

So how can I say this? You really need to listen to your locals. 

Because as you solve problems as in anything you are doing in life, 

you always go to the lowest levels. And that needs to start in our 

communities with our agents. 

Chairman JOHNSON. There are always different solutions to different parts. Again, very quickly, Ms. Mertz, Mr. Judd, Mr. Taylor, 

I know you want one final comment. Ms. Mertz. 

Ms. MERTZ. I do think increasing our ability to use technology as 

far as the encrypted phone transmissions would assist us. 

I agree with what Sheriff Dannels said: Use the information from 

the sheriffs’ departments, the police departments, and roll that up 

into a bigger investigation, and use the intelligence to ensure that 

you are targeting the correct people. 

And then the task forces can go after those people, and we can 

enforce our laws, also reducing the demand in our country for the 

illicit drugs. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Has there ever been a meeting of all the 

county sheriffs, by DHS to really find out what action plan we have 

to do? And you have to do it quick. 

Sheriff DANNELS. Yes. And I can answer that question. I know 

the four border sheriffs in Arizona, we recently met and discussed 

issues. I know Southwest Border Sheriffs, the Western Sheriffs Association, National Sheriffs Association, we just had a conference in 

Sierra Vista, Arizona, where we brought us all together and talked 

about what we are talking about today. 

So we are trying to unify our thoughts and put that balance of 

what we are doing and how to make it best for the people we serve. 
1958 

Chairman JOHNSON. Maybe this committee can convene something like that. Keep that in mind. Mr. Judd. 

Agent JUDD. I will keep it very short. 

We need to develop, increase, and expand our intel. 

We need to be able to predict when, where, and how illegal narcotics, persons are going to cross our border. 

And we need to put our uniform law enforcement officers and 

agents in a position where they can be successful. That is what we 

need. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Is that Homeland Security Investigations 

(HSI) within DHS? Is that separate—— 

Agent JUDD. It is actually—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. FBI? 

Agent JUDD. Well, FBI, HSI, Internal Affairs included. 

But these task forces are huge. When we shut down a task force 

because a task force is too successful we have to stop politicizing 

the issue. When we shut down a task force because the task force 

was extremely effective, which then shows that our ports of entry 

were not effective, that is just wrong. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Taylor, why don’t you close it out. 

Mr. TAYLOR. And to Senator McCain’s point on corruption, what 

I did not say in my statement today is I lived in Nogales. I lived 

right above the Mariposa exit and entry into this country and have 

been all up and down the border there. 

The major cartel members do not try to corrupt. They are amateurs that are trying to corrupt our government officials. They always get caught. Maybe they get caught now; maybe they get 

caught a year from now. But when they get caught, then that is 

going to bring all sorts of heat that the cartel members do not want 

brought into their area there. So it is much easier to throw a lot 

of product at the border, because they are very sophisticated in 

that. They know how much they throw at the border and how 

much is getting caught. 

So widespread corruption is highly publicized when one of our 

people are corrupt. But the corruption that is widespread is not on 

our side of the border. 

And then what we need to do is that drug addicts do not make 

great criminals. They get caught. We have got 20,000 that are getting out this year. That means 10,000 are going to be back in within 5 years. So when they get treatment, they do not go back. 

I do not buy drugs. It is pretty hard to do a drug-motivated crime 

when you do not do drugs. It is pretty hard to get a driving while 

intoxicated (DWI) if I am not intoxicated. 

So we have put a lot of money in interdiction, and yet drugs have 

never been more available, more plentiful, more powerful, and 

cheaper than they are at this very moment. We have to work on 

the demand side, and it works. We are getting very good at it. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, Mr. Taylor, thank you. 

Thank all of our witnesses again for your service to your community, State, and nation, for your thoughtful testimony, your questions, and your answers to our questions. 

I want to thank Senator McCain, Senator Flake, and the State 

of Arizona, the Governor, for welcoming us here. 
1959 

This has really been a very good hearing. We have learned a lot, 

laid out more reality. 

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

December 8, 5 p.m., for the submissions of statements and questions for the record. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(1961) 

A P P E N D I X 
1962 
1963 
1964 
1965 
1966 
1967 
1968 
1969 
1970 
1971 
1972 
1973 
1974 
1975 
1976 
1977 
1978 
1979 
1980 
1981 
1982 
1983 
1984 
1985 
1986 
1987 
1988 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 
1996 
1997 
1998 
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
2004 
2005 
2006 
2007 
2008 
2009 
2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 
2025 
2026 
2027 
2028 
2029 
2030 
2031 
2032 
2033 
2034 
2035 
2036 
2037 
2038 
2039 
2040 
2041 
2042 
2043 
2044 
2045 
2046 
2047 
2048 
2049 
2050 
2051 
2052 
2053 

Æ