[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENDING THE CRISIS: AMERICA'S BORDERS AND THE PATH TO SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 7, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-2
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-396 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
____________________________________________________________________
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 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Mike Rogers, Alabama James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Filemon Vela, Texas
John Katko, New York Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Will Hurd, Texas Kathleen M. Rice, New York
Martha McSally, Arizona J. Luis Correa, California
John Ratcliffe, Texas Val Butler Demings, Florida
Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., New York Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
Mike Gallagher, Wisconsin
Clay Higgins, Louisiana
John H. Rutherford, Florida
Thomas A. Garrett, Jr., Virginia
Brian K. Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania
Brendan P. Shields, Staff Director
Joan V. O'Hara, General Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Hope Goins, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas:
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
WITNESSES
Panel I
Hon. John F. Kelly, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
Panel II
Mr. Steven C. McCraw, Director, Texas Department of Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 88
Prepared Statement............................................. 90
Mr. Joe Frank Martinez, Sheriff, Val Verde County, Texas:
Oral Statement................................................. 99
Prepared Statement............................................. 101
Mr. Leon N. Wilmot, Sheriff, Yuma County, Arizona:
Oral Statement................................................. 103
Prepared Statement............................................. 105
Hon. Eddie Trevino, Jr., County Judge, Cameron County, Texas:
Oral Statement................................................. 113
Prepared Statement............................................. 116
FOR THE RECORD
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Letter to Chairman Michael T. McCaul........................... 4
The Honorable James R. Langevin, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Rhode Island:
Brief, Response to Emergency Motion, Exhibit P................. 25
Article, New York Times........................................ 34
The Honorable Will Hurd, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Texas:
Slides......................................................... 51
The Honorable Bonnie Watson Coleman, a Representative in Congress
From the State of New Jersey:
Article, New York Times........................................ 54
The Honorable Martha McSally, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Arizona:
Statement of Anthony M. Reardon, President, National Treasury
Employees Union.............................................. 57
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas:
Article, Houston Chronicle..................................... 67
The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland
Security:
Letter......................................................... 86
The Honorable Nanette Diaz Barragan, a Representative in Congress
From the State of California:
Statement of the American Immigration Council.................. 136
APPENDIX
Questions From Honorable Will Hurd for John Kelly................ 149
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for John Kelly.. 149
ENDING THE CRISIS: AMERICA'S BORDERS AND THE PATH TO SECURITY
----------
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Michael T. McCaul
(Chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives McCaul, King, Rogers, Duncan,
Barletta, Perry, Katko, Hurd, McSally, Ratcliffe, Donovan,
Gallagher, Higgins, Rutherford, Garrett, Fitzpatrick, Thompson,
Jackson Lee, Langevin, Richmond, Keating, Payne, Vela, Watson
Coleman, Rice, Correa, Demings, and Barragan.
Chairman McCaul. Committee on Homeland Security will come
to order. The committee is meeting today to examine America's
borders and the path to security.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
First, I want to welcome General Kelly to his first hearing
before Congress since his confirmation as Secretary of Homeland
Security.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us here today. This
committee is eager to work with you and we stand ready to help
you and the Department succeed. Your job will not be easy, as
you know. But as we talked about last week, your leadership is
vital.
The Trump administration has inherited porous borders,
failed immigration policies, and a grave and growing terror
threat; 2 weeks ago the Trump administration took action to
address these dangers. First the President signed an Executive
Order for a border security surge. Today we will get an update
on that effort and how you plan to create multi-layered
defenses to keep criminals, drug cartels, and potential
terrorists out of the country.
After the Secretary's testimony we will welcome a panel of
front-line defenders from Texas and Arizona for a frank
discussion about the challenges at the local level.
Second, the President signed an Executive Order to put a
pause on immigration and refugee admissions from high-threat
parts of the world. The pause will give us time to enhance
security checks to stop terrorists from using our immigration
system as a Trojan horse, as they have already done in Europe.
Last year I helped to draft a memo to then-candidate Trump
explaining how we could intensify the vetting process while
ensuring our doors remain open to peaceful, free, and loving
people regardless of race or religion.
I also authored the American SAFE Act, which called for
temporary pausing of the Syrian refugee program so we could
improve security screening, and it passed the House with a
bipartisan veto-proof majority.
I am encouraged the President has paid attention to those
recommendations, but the roll-out of his Executive Order has
been problematic. It caused confusion here in Congress, across
the country, and around the world, and it caused real problems
for people with lawful green cards and visas, who in some cases
were already in the air when the order was signed.
Secretary Kelly, you and I have spoken about my concerns,
and I am reassured that you have taken positive steps to help
correct the order's deficiencies.
Now we will wait to see how the matter is handled in the
courts. In the mean time, let me stress that the words we use
about this Executive matter. This is not a Muslim ban and even
the suggestion that it could will alienate our allies and
embolden our adversaries. This is a temporary suspension on
visas from high-risk terror threat countries and a pause on the
refugee program. This will allow the administration to put in
place enhanced vetting to keep terrorists out and keep
Americans safe.
These countries were selected because of a law drafted by
this committee which designated four nations as terror
hotspots, including all State sponsors of terror. The Obama
administration later added these additional countries to the
list, bringing the total number of countries to seven.
This is what the Trump administration relied on, a law
based on risk not on religion. I urge my colleagues and the
media to avoid reckless statements to the contrary.
Now is the time for DHS to move forward with common-sense,
21st-Century vetting changes. I hope the Department will follow
this committee's guidance. We have been focused--more focused
than any other panel in Congress on shutting down terror
pathways into this country.
In 2015 we created a bipartisan task force that conducted
one of the widest reviews of security gaps since the 9/11
Commission. That review produced more than 50 recommendations
to stop jihadists from entering the United States undetected.
Some of these were enacted into law while others were not. We
need to address them as soon as possible, especially visa and
refugee security improvements.
Finally, because of the law drafted by this committee the
President will be required to submit a National strategy to
combat terrorist travel to this Congress this summer. We look
forward, sir, to receiving it and reviewing the Trump
administration's long-term plan for denying jihadists entry
into the United States, including at the border.
Americans are eager to see results. Washington's open-
border policies and weak immigration screening have failed our
people and our committee--communities time and time again. That
is why I am pleased today, sir, we have a no-nonsense Secretary
of Homeland Security, a former Marine, who is ready to do what
others could not by finally securing our territory.
Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you again for joining us
today. You are charged with confronting adaptive threats and
insidious enemies. I want you to know that this committee and
this Congress stand ready to work with you to secure America.
[The statement of Chairman McCaul follows:]
Statement of Chairman Michael T. McCaul
February 7, 2017
The Trump administration has inherited porous borders, failed
immigration policies, and a grave and growing terror threat. Two weeks
ago, the Trump administration took action to address these dangers.
First, the President signed an Executive Order for a border
security ``surge.'' Today, we will get an update on that effort and how
you plan to create multi-layered defenses to keep criminals, drug
cartels, and potential terrorists out of our country. After the
Secretary's testimony, we will welcome a panel of front-line defenders
from Texas and Arizona for a frank discussion about the challenges at
the local level.
Second, the President signed an Executive Order to put a ``pause''
on immigration and refugee admissions from high-threat parts of the
world. The pause will give us time to enhance security checks to stop
terrorists from using our immigration system as a Trojan Horse--as they
have already done in Europe.
Last year, I helped to draft a memo to then-candidate Trump
explaining how we could intensify the vetting process while ensuring
our doors remain open to peaceful, freedom-loving people, regardless of
race or religion. I also authored the American SAFE Act, which called
for temporarily pausing the Syrian refugee program so we could improve
security screening. It passed the House with a bi-partisan veto-proof
majority.
I am encouraged the President has paid attention to those
recommendations.
But the roll-out of his Executive Order has been problematic. It
caused confusion here in Congress, across the country, and around the
world. And it caused real problems for people with lawful green cards
and visas, who in some cases were already in the air when the order was
signed.
Secretary Kelly, you and I have spoken about my concerns, and I am
reassured that you have taken positive steps to help correct for the
order's deficiencies. Now we will wait to see how the matter is handled
in the courts.
In the mean time, let me stress that the words we use about this
Executive Order matter. This is not a Muslim ban. And even the
suggestion that it is could alienate our allies and embolden our
adversaries.
Again, this is a temporary suspension on visas from high-risk
terror threat countries and a pause on the refugee program. This will
allow the administration to put in place enhanced vetting to keep
terrorists out and keep Americans safe.
These countries were selected because of a law drafted by this
committee, which designated four nations as terror hotspots, including
all ``state sponsors of terror.''
The Obama administration later added three additional countries to
this list, bringing the total to seven.
That is what the Trump administration relied on--a law based on
risk, not on religion.
I urge my colleagues and the media to avoid reckless statements to
the contrary.
Now is the time for DHS to move forward with common-sense, 21st-
Century vetting changes. I hope the Department will follow this
committee's guidance. We have been more focused than any other panel in
Congress on shutting down terrorist pathways into this country.
In 2015, we created a bipartisan task force that conducted one of
the widest reviews of security gaps since the 9/11 Commission. That
review produced more than 50 recommendations to stop jihadists from
entering the United States undetected. Some of these were enacted into
law, while others were not. So we need to address them as soon as
possible, especially visa and refugee security improvements.
Finally, because of a law drafted by this committee, the President
will be required to submit a ``National strategy to combat terrorist
travel'' to Congress this summer. We look forward to receiving it and
reviewing the Trump administration's long-term plan for denying
jihadists entry into the United States, including at the border.
Americans are eager to see results. Washington's open-border
policies and weak immigration screening have failed our people and our
communities time and again. That is why I am pleased we have a ``no-
nonsense'' Secretary of Homeland Security, who is ready to do what
others could not by finally securing our territory.
Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you again for joining us today. You
are charged with confronting adaptive threats and insidious enemies.
And I want you to know that this committee and this Congress stand
ready to work with you to secure America.
Americans are eager to see results. Washington's open-border
policies and weak immigration screening have failed our people and our
communities time and again.
That is why I am pleased we have a ``no-excuses'' President and
Secretary of Homeland Security, who are ready to do what others could
not by finally securing our territory.
Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you again for joining us today. You
are charged with confronting adaptive threats and insidious enemies.
And I want you to know that this committee and this Congress stand
ready to work with you to secure America.
Chairman McCaul. With that, the Chair now recognizes the
Ranking Member, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for holding today's hearing entitled, ``Ending the Crisis:
America's Borders and the Path to Security.''
Let me welcome our new Secretary.
We are glad to have you. Your record speaks for itself.
Some of us served on the Hill when you were on the Hill.
You had a few less stars and other things associated with that
service, but thank you very much for your service.
However, I would note, Mr. Chairman, that the urgent border
crisis facing our Nation is not occurring at our Southern
Border, but rather is a one of President Trump's own making.
His Executive Order banning all travel from seven majority-
Muslim countries and suspending our refugee program under the
guise of security does nothing to make us safer.
Blocking the admission of green card holders who are
doctors, scientists, business owners, and other valued members
of our society does nothing to make us safer. Suspending the
admission of refugees, like this teddy bear-holding, 4-year-old
Somali girl who had to be vetted for years, does nothing to
make us safer.
To the contrary, the Executive Order makes America less
safe by serving as a recruitment and propaganda tool for
terrorist groups, complicating coordination with allies and
partners in the fight against terrorism, and distracting border
security personnel from the job of thoroughly screening all
travelers to this country on an individualized basis.
No amount of fear-mongering via Twitter or alternative
facts will change the fact that on January 27, with a stroke of
a pen, President Trump changed this Nation's standing both at
home and abroad. Democratic Members have many questions about
President Trump's unconstitutional Muslim ban and have signed a
letter to Chairman McCaul asking for a hearing to allow for a
thorough examination of the issues.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include
the letter in the record.
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
Letter to Chairman Michael T. McCaul
February 6, 2017.
The Honorable Michael T. McCaul,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McCaul: We are writing to request that you hold a
Full Committee hearing to examine President Trump's ``Muslim Ban''
Executive Order, entitled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist
Entry Into the United States.
This Executive Order, signed on January 27th, imposed, with limited
exceptions, an immediate prohibition on citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya,
Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the United States for 90
days.\1\ The Executive Order also suspends the entry of Syrian refugees
indefinitely, requires the State Department to suspend the U.S. Refugee
Admissions Program for 120 days, and lowers the total number of
refugees allowed to be admitted to the U.S. for fiscal year 2017 to
50,000.\2\ Upon issuance of the Executive Order, the State Department
revoked approximately 60,000 visas \3\ belonging to those covered by
the order and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) instructed air
carriers to deny boarding to covered individuals at overseas
airports.\4\ The rollout of the ``Muslim Ban'' created havoc not only
for the air carriers and their passengers, but also CBP Officers who
were put in the untenable position of having to enforce the order
without guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Exec. Order No. 13769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977.
\2\ Id.
\3\ Mica Rosenberg & Lesley Wroughton, ``Trump Travel Ban Has
Revoked 60,000 Visas for Now,'' Reuters (Feb. 3, 2017), http://
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-visas-idUSKBN1512EW (last
visited Feb. 5, 2017).
\4\ https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/protecting-nation-foreign-
terrorist-entry-united-states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we recognize that the future of the ``Muslim Ban'' is
presently a question for the Federal Judiciary, we have an obligation,
as co-equal constitutional partners to the Executive and Judicial
branch, to do robust oversight of the ``Muslim Ban's'' immediate and
long-term homeland security and national security implications. To that
end, we look forward to working with you to ensure that that a hearing
is scheduled soon to receive testimony from Departmental officials,
national and homeland security experts and the private sector
(including air carriers) to address the far-reaching impacts of the
``Muslim Ban''.
Should you have questions about this request, please contact Hope
Goins on the Democratic staff.
Respectfully,
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Ranking Member.
SHEILA JACKSON LEE.
JAMES R. LANGEVIN.
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND.
WILLIAM R. KEATING.
DONALD M. PAYNE, JR.
FILEMON VELA.
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN.
KATHLEEN M. RICE.
J. LUIS CORREA.
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS.
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
We look forward to beginning to get some answers at today's
hearing. I want to thank our witnesses, Secretary of Homeland
Security, again, John F. Kelly, for testifying before this
committee today.
Frankly, it is somewhat unfair that Secretary Kelly is
being called on to defend an Executive Order that, by most
accounts, he was required to implement with almost no notice.
The White House officials who directed the roll-out of the
Executive Order should be here to answer this debacle.
But we appreciate your willingness, sir, to come before us
as Secretary.
I also appreciate the witnesses on our second panel being
here today to share their perspectives on the security of our
Southern Border. President Trump's words and actions related to
the Southern Border and the government and people of Mexico
have been counterproductive, to put it mildly. Like the Muslim
ban, President Trump's proposed border wall will do little to
better secure America's borders, but will cost Americans
billions.
The Department of Homeland Security has no matrix to show
that border walls enhance security in a way that justifies
their exorbitant cost. Putting the wall on the American
taxpayers' credit card, knowing that Mexico has absolutely no
intentions of paying for it, will surely leave American
taxpayers stuck with the bill.
Instead, we need border security policy that keeps
terrorists, their instruments, criminals, and contraband out of
this country while upholding American values and ensuring the
flow of legitimate travelers and commerce that is vital to our
Nation's economy and our way of life.
I look forward to engaging the witnesses and Members today
in a discussion about how we can do just that.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding today's hearing and
yield back the balance of my time.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
February 7, 2017
I would note that the urgent border security crisis facing our
Nation is not occurring at our Southern Border, but rather is one of
President Trump's own making.
His Executive Order banning all travel from seven majority-Muslim
countries and suspending our refugee program under the guise of
security does nothing to make us safer.
Blocking the admission of green card holders, who are doctors,
scientists, business owners, and other valued members of our society,
does nothing to make us safer.
Suspending the admission of refugees like this teddy-bear holding
4-year-old Somali girl who had been vetted for years, does nothing to
make us safer.
To the contrary, the Executive Order makes America less safe by
serving as a recruitment and propaganda tool for terrorist groups,
complicating coordination with allies and partners in the fight against
terrorism, and distracting border security personnel from the job of
thoroughly screening all travelers to this country on an individualized
basis.
No amount of fear-mongering via Twitter or ``alternative facts''
will change the fact that on January 27, with the stroke of a pen,
President Trump changed this Nation's standing both at home and abroad.
Democratic Members have many questions about President Trump's
unconstitutional Muslim ban, and have signed a letter to Chairman
McCaul asking for a hearing to allow for a thorough examination of the
issues.
I want to thank our witness, Secretary of Homeland Security,
General John F. Kelly, for testifying before the Committee today and
for his long and distinguished record of service to our Nation.
Frankly, it is somewhat unfair that Secretary Kelly is being called
on to defend an Executive Order that, by most accounts, he was required
to implement with almost no notice. The White House officials who
directed the roll-out of the Executive Order should be here to answer
for this debacle.
President Trump's words and actions related to the Southern Border
and the government and people of Mexico have been counterproductive, to
put it mildly.
Like the Muslim Ban, Trump's proposed ``border wall'' will do
little to better secure America's borders but will cost the Americans
billions.
The Department of Homeland Security has no metrics to show that
border walls enhance security in a way that justifies their exorbitant
cost.
Putting the wall on the American taxpayers' credit card, knowing
that Mexico has absolutely no intention of paying for it, will surely
leave the American taxpayers stuck with the bill.
Instead, we need border security policy that keeps terrorists,
their instruments, criminals, and contraband out of this country, while
upholding American values and ensuring the flow of legitimate travelers
and commerce that is vital to our Nation's economy and our way of life.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. Thank the Ranking Member. Members are
reminded they may submit statements for the record.
[The statement of Hon. Jackson Lee follows:]
Statement of Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee
February 7, 2017
Thank you Chairman McCaul, and Ranking Member Thompson, for
convening this opportunity for the Homeland Security Committee to hear
from Secretary Kelly and from experts who can speak on the topic of
``Ending the Crisis: America's Borders and the Path to Security.''
I join my colleagues on the committee in welcoming the Secretary of
Homeland Security John F. Kelly to receive his testimony, which will
give Members an opportunity to learn more about the President's
Executive Orders and the enforcement role of DHS.
On Friday, January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive
Order suspending all resettlement of Syrian refugees indefinitely, and
resettlement of all other refugees for 120 days.
The order also imposed a 90-day ban on entry of nationals from
seven predominately Muslim countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya,
Somalia, and Yemen.
There is little reason to doubt that the motivation behind the
Trump Executive Order was to target and exdude persons whose religious
faith is Mllslim.
Simply put, the Executive Order on its face is a ban on Muslims
masquerading as a measure to protect the homeland.
It has been widely reported that former New York City Mayor Rudy W.
Giuliani is quoted as daiming that the President wanted a ``Muslim
ban'' and requested that the former mayor assemble a commission to show
him ``the right way to do it legally.''
I was at my local airport the following night (as were many of my
colleagues) seeking answers for frantic parents, children, relatives,
and friends of those traveling who reached out to my office for help
when their loved ones failed to appear outside of the international
debarkation areas at Bush Intercontinental Airport.
Custom and Border Protection officers were ill-equipped with
information or guidance on what they were supposed to do with arriving
passengers.
What ensued was chaos.
Federally-issued travel documents were routinely ignored, along
with the laborious work that went into vetting people who were legal
permanent residents such as green card holders and thoroughly-vetted
refugees who had undergone an 18-24 month process to gain admittance
into the United States.
The President has tried to equate his Muslim ban with the enhanced
screening of Iraqi visa applicants started by President Obama in 2011
in response to a specific security threat.
This is a false equivalence, and one which earned the President two
Pinocchio's from the Washington Post's Fact Checker.
The facts are these: President Obama did not impose a ban on visa
applications, and his policy did not seek to prevent all citizens of
Iraq, including green-card holders, from traveling to the United
States.
Members of Congress take a solemn oath to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States and keep the American people safe.
Democrats intend to honor that oath by opposing the President's
dangerous and unconstitutional Muslim ban.
As Americans, we are at our best when we are true to the values we
hold dear, beginning with fidelity to the Constitution and the laws of
the United States.
The Executive Order issued nearly 2 weeks ago by the President is a
radical departure from these principles and I call upon him to rescind
this order immediately.
My staff is in touch with communities that I serve in the Houston
area to ensure they know that the rule of law will triumph in the end.
I applaud the first temporary restraining order issued by U.S.
District Judge Ann Donnelly of the Eastern District of New York that
enjoined the Trump administration from, in any manner or by any means,
removing individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee
Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas,
and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia,
and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States.
It is my understanding that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit will hear argument this evening in San Francisco, California
regarding the administration's attempt to vacate the stay and permit
the Executive Order to be implemented.
As a Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I find it outrageous
that the President has launched yet another vicious personal attack
against a sitting Federal judge simply because the judge issued a
ruling that displeased the President.
We saw him do so for the first time last June when candidate Trump
impugned the integrity of U.S. District Judge Gonzalvo Curiel, claiming
he was not fit to preside over the Trump University fraud case
``because he's a Mexican.''
The independence of the Federal judiciary, and its role in
providing a check on Legislative and Executive branches, is one of the
crown jewels of American democracy and is indispensable to our system
of government.
I thank the ACLU and other non-governmental organizations that went
to work immediately to challenge the Constitutionality of the Executive
Order and for their success in winning temporary stays of the order
enjoining the Trump administration from taking action to deport
refugees and immigrants currently being detained.
I look forward to Secretary Kelly's testimony and the testimony of
the second panel of witnesses, which include:
Mr. Steve C. McCraw, Director, Texas Department of Homeland
Security;
Mr. Joe Frank Martinez, Sheriff, Val Verde County, Texas
Mr. Leon N. Wilmot, Sheriff, Yuma County, Arizona; and
The Honorable Eddie Trevino, Jr. County Judge, Cameron
County, Texas.
Thank you. I yield back the remainder of my time.
Chairman McCaul. We have two distinguished panels here
today.
We will hear first from the Honorable John F. Kelly. He was
recently sworn in as the fifth Secretary of Homeland Security.
Secretary Kelly was born and raised in Boston, Massachusetts.
He enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1970, was discharged as a
sergeant in 1972. Following graduation from the University of
Massachusetts in 1976, he received his commission as a Marine
Corps officer.
In 2002 he was elected to the rank of brigadier general and
did multiple tours during combat in Iraq. By 2012, was
nominated his fourth star and command of the United States
Southern Command. After last--less than a year in retirement
Secretary Kelly was offered the opportunity to serve the Nation
again as Secretary of Homeland Security. I am personally
pleased at the President's choice.
I recently read a moving excerpt from a speech you gave,
sir, while serving in the Marine Corps, and I would like to
read it aloud today. You said, ``We Marines believe that God
gave America the greatest gift he could bestow to man while he
lived on this Earth, and that is freedom. We also believe He
gave us another gift nearly as precious: Our soldiers, sailors,
airmen, Coast Guardsmen and Marines, to safeguard that gift and
guarantee that no force on this Earth can ever steal it away.''
Those are great words. I want to thank you for being here
today.
Chair now recognizes Secretary Kelly for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KELLY, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Kelly. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Thompson, and all the Members of the committee. It is my
honor to appear here today to discuss the Department's crucial
mission of securing the border and many other issues.
For 45 years I was privileged to serve both as an enlisted
Marine and as an officer. I am humbled again to answer the call
to duty and take over at the Department of Homeland Security.
Our Nation faces diverse challenges and dangerous
adversaries who do not respect the rule of law or of borders.
While long aware of its great work, I have recently had the
opportunity to witness first-hand the pride, experience, and
professionalism of the DHS work force. I am proud of our men
and women, as the Nation should be as well.
As Secretary, you have my commitment to vigorously protect
our country, secure our borders, and enforce our laws, all
while facilitating lawful trade and travel. In doing so, know
that I take seriously our responsibility to balance security
with the protections afforded by law, privacy rights, and our
civil rights and liberties.
Securing a Nation's borders is one of the primary
responsibilities of any sovereign nation, including ours. Under
my leadership and the direction of President Trump, we will
finally do so.
We will build appropriate physical barriers, which will be
monitored and supported by trained professionals within the
Department of Homeland Security. We will work to prevent
illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and
terrorists--and I include here narcoterrorists--from entering
our Nation.
We will enforce our immigration laws in an efficient and
effective manner. We will work closely with our State and local
law enforcement partners, some of whom are here today. All of
this consistent with, of course, Federal law.
It is our duty to protect our citizens from terrorism and
to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to
exploit our generous immigration laws. The President's
Executive Orders on border security immigration enforcement
will enhance public safety for all of our citizens.
The President's recent Executive Order to temporarily
suspend entry for foreign nationals from seven countries we
believe is lawful and Constitutional, and the review ordered by
the President is necessary and appropriate. It will enable us
to assess the adequacy and availability of information we need
from all countries to adjudicate all visa applications, or
other benefits under our existing immigration laws, and to
determine if the person seeking the benefit is, in fact, who
they say they are and would not present us a threat.
While some of the core tenets of this order are the subject
of on-going litigation, it is my belief that we will prevail
and be able to take the steps necessary to protect our Nation.
Americans must feel safe to walk down the street, go to the
mall, or to a night club anywhere and anytime. Fear must not
become the status quo as it has in so many parts of the world.
My responsibility and that of the tremendous men and women
of the Department is to carry out those lawful measures in a
manner that best protects the safety of all Americans. The
safety of American lives is and will always be my foremost
concern.
Before I conclude, I would like to thank the committee for
its continued leadership, notably in seeking to reauthorize the
Department. I appreciate your efforts, especially in securing
the memorandum of understanding, which will help facilitate the
reauthorization we currently need.
The threats and challenges have changed since Congress
created DHS some 15 years ago. We need to update the
authorities to successfully complete our mission today. I look
forward, sir, to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Kelly follows:]
Prepared Statement of John F. Kelly
February 7, 2017
introduction
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thompson, and distinguished Members of
the committee: It is a great honor and privilege to appear before you
today to discuss the crucial mission of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to protect the homeland and secure our Nation's borders.
Over the past 45 years, it has been my privilege to serve my Nation
as both an enlisted Marine and an officer. I have worked with our
allies across agencies, the private sector, and with independent
experts to identify innovative, comprehensive solutions to current and
emerging threats. These assignments--while varied--share the common
characteristics of working within and leading large, complex, and
diverse mission-focused organizations while under great pressure to
produce results.
I am humbled to once again to be called to serve, this time with
the men and women of DHS. As a Department, we face diverse challenges
and adversaries that do not respect our rule of law or our borders. As
Secretary, you have my commitment to tirelessly protect our country
from threats, secure the border, and enforce the law while expediting
lawful trade and travel. In pursuit of those missions, please know that
I take seriously our legal responsibilities to balance the security of
our homeland with the protection of privacy, civil rights, and civil
liberties.
the president's executive orders
During his first 2 weeks in office, President Trump issued
Executive Orders to secure our borders, enforce our immigration laws,
and protect the Nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United
States. The President has gotten right to work, fighting on behalf of
American families and workers--and these moves will strengthen our
National security.
The purpose of the order on border security is to direct Executive
departments and agencies to deploy all lawful means to secure the
Nation's Southern Border, prevent further illegal immigration into the
United States, and to repatriate illegal aliens swiftly, consistently,
and humanely.
This Executive Order establishes the foundation for securing our
Southern Border by providing the tools, resources, and policy direction
for DHS's dedicated men and women who are responsible for securing the
border--to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and
acts of terrorism. In accordance with existing law, DHS is immediately
taking all appropriate steps to plan, design, and construct a physical
wall along the Southern Border, using the materials and technology that
will most effectively achieve operational control of the Southern
Border. In addition, DHS is immediately taking all appropriate action
to ensure that the parole and asylum provisions of Federal immigration
law consistently applied with the requirements of the law, and not
exploited to prevent the removal of otherwise removable aliens.
The Executive Order on interior immigration enforcement provides
DHS with the tools it needs to enforce Federal immigration laws within
the United States. It will remove many of the obstacles that have been
making it more difficult for the dedicated men and women of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to carry out their mission,
which includes arresting, detaining, and removing illegal aliens from
the United States. Essentially, it will restore the highly successful
Secure Communities Program, which allows ICE to target more easily
criminal aliens for removal.
A third Executive Order, signed by the President on January 27,
will protect all Americans from certain foreign nationals who intend to
commit terrorist attacks in the United States by preventing such
individuals from exploiting our immigration laws. The order suspends
entry into the United States from Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Syria,
Libya, and Yemen until we complete comprehensive review. It directs
Federal agencies to implement uniform screening standards across all
immigration programs. It suspends the Refugee Admissions Program for
120 days, giving us time to assess the vulnerabilities in the program
and establish additional procedures to ensure refugees admitted do not
pose a threat to National security or public safety. It orders
completion of the biometric entry-exit system. It also ensures that
applicants for visas are personally interviewed before their visas are
approved in compliance with Section 222 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act.
As the President has stated, ``Homeland Security is in the business
of saving lives, and that mandate will guide our actions.'' These
Executive Orders further that goal by enhancing border security,
promoting public safety, and minimizing the threat of terrorist attacks
by foreign nationals in the homeland. More important, however, these
Executive Orders emphasize the rule of law as a bedrock principle of
our immigration system and provide clearly-defined consequences for
those who would violate our laws.
border security and immigration enforcement
As a Nation, control of our borders is paramount. Without that
control, every other form of threat--illicit drugs, unauthorized
immigrants, transnational organized crime, certain dangerous
communicable diseases, terrorists--could enter at will. DHS was created
to prevent terrorist attacks against the United States. The principal
means of prevention within the United States is effective border
control, denying admission to aliens who seek to harm Americans or
violate our laws, and countering efforts to recruit individuals to
undertake terrorist acts.
Achieving this priority begins with physical obstacles like a
border barrier and supporting infrastructure and surveillance
capabilities. In this effort, I am committed to executing President
Trump's plan to secure our Southern Border with effective physical
barriers, advanced technology, and strategic deployment of law
enforcement personnel. While the presence of physical barriers and
additional technology is essential, it must be bolstered by persistent
patrol and the vigilance of the dedicated men and women of DHS.
We must augment our expanded border security initiatives with
vigorous interior enforcement and administration of our immigration
laws in a manner that serves the National interest. This effort will
include greater cooperation and coordination between DHS's operational
components, which are responsible for administering immigration
benefits and enforcing our Nation's existing immigration laws.
Within DHS and our Federal, State, local, and international
partners, we must expand our vetting of those seeking to enter our
country--particularly of those individuals from high-risk countries--
including refugees. We currently lack a comprehensive strategy with
uniform screening standards to prevent terrorists from entering the
country. Unfortunately, our country has recently admitted some foreign
nationals without an adequate understanding of their allegiances and
intentions. Additionally, because they are apprehended by DHS law
enforcement agents, we know there continue to be any number of so-
called ``special interest aliens'' that make their way into our country
illegally each year.
Last year, more than 415,816 migrants, mostly from Central America
and Mexico--including over 137,614 unaccompanied children and
individuals travelling in family units--were apprehended on our
Southern Border. Many of those arriving at our Southern Border have
fled violence, poverty, criminal networks, and gangs in their native
countries. While the vast majority are fleeing violence or seeking
economic opportunity, a small number of individuals could potentially
be seeking to do us harm or commit crimes. Regardless of purpose or
circumstance, the ease with which human smugglers have moved tens of
thousands of people to our Nation's doorstep also serves as another
warning sign: These smuggling routes are a potential vulnerability of
our homeland.
Our vigorous response to these threats must include increased
border security infrastructure, personnel, and technology. However, we
cannot just play defense in securing our borders. Border security
requires a layered approach that extends far beyond our shores,
throughout the hemisphere, in partnership with our neighbors to the
south and north.
Along nearly 7,000 miles of land border, approximately 95,000 miles
of shoreline, and at 328 ports of entry and numerous locations abroad,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has a critical role in
preventing the illegal entry of people and goods into the United
States.
Across the wide expanses of our Nation's land, air, and maritime
environments, CBP has worked to address the changing demographics of
attempted border crossers and to maintain border security through
significant investments in enforcement resources, technology,
infrastructure, and enhanced operational tactics and strategy. Through
advances in detection capabilities, such as fixed, mobile, and agent-
portable surveillance systems, tethered and tactical aerostats,
unmanned aircraft systems, and ground sensors, which work in
conjunction with tactical border infrastructure and agent deployment,
CBP is enhancing its ability to quickly detect, identify, and respond
to illegal border crossings.
At our Nation's air, land, and sea ports of entry, more travelers
and cargo are arriving than ever before. To maintain the security of
growing volumes of international travelers, CBP performs a full range
of inspection activities and continues to enhance its pre-departure
traveler vetting systems and integrate biometric technologies. CBP has
also made significant developments in its intelligence and targeting
capabilities to segment and target shipments and individuals by
potential level of risk to identify and stop potentially dangerous
travelers or cargo before boarding an aircraft or conveyance bound for
the United States.
Beyond managing the influx of people and cargo arriving in the
United States, CBP is working with other DHS agencies to strengthen its
capabilities to identify foreign nationals who have violated our
immigration laws, as well as to track suspect persons and cargo exiting
the country. CBP is also leveraging its newly-established Counter
Network Program, which focuses on detecting, disrupting, and
dismantling transnational criminal organizations, by expanding
information sharing, increasing partnerships and collaboration that
enhance border security, conducting joint exploitation of intelligence,
and co-managing of operations with interagency and international
partners. These efforts are building toward a safer and more secure
border environment, one that supports the safety and success of each
agent and officer in the field.
In the maritime environment, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) utilizes a
multi-faceted layered approach to interdict threats far from the
borders of our Nation to combat the efforts of transnational criminal
organizations. Targeting the primary flow of illicit drug traffic has a
direct and damaging impact on these networks.
Successful Coast Guard interdictions in the maritime transit zones
feed a cycle of success--subsequent prosecutions lead to actionable
intelligence on future events, which produces follow-on seizures and
additional intelligence. Suspects from these cases divulge information
during prosecution and sentencing that is critical to indicting,
extraditing, and convicting drug kingpins and dismantling these
sophisticated networks.
USCG secures the maritime domain by conducting patrols and
coordinating with other Federal agencies and foreign countries to
interdict aliens at sea, denying them illegal entry via maritime routes
to the United States, its territories and possessions. Thousands of
aliens attempt to enter this country illegally every year using
maritime routes, many via smuggling operations. Interdicting these
aliens at sea reduces the safety risks involved in such transits. We
can quickly return these interdicted aliens to their countries of
origin, avoiding the costlier processes required if they successfully
enter the United States.
interagency and international cooperation
As Secretary, I will advocate for expanding cooperation inside the
interagency and with partner nations, particularly Canada and Mexico.
Interagency relationships and bilateral cooperation are critical to
identifying, monitoring, and countering threats to U.S. National
security and regional stability. While DHS possesses unique authorities
and capabilities, we must enhance and leverage our coordination with
Federal, State, local, and Tribal partners. The magnitude, scope, and
complexity of the challenges we face--illegal immigration,
transnational crime, human smuggling and trafficking, and terrorism--
demand an integrated counter-network approach.
Regionally, we must continue to build partner capacity. Illegal
immigration and transnational organized crime threaten not only our own
security, but also the stability and prosperity of our Latin American
neighbors. In Colombia, for example, we learned that key principles to
defeating large cartels and insurgents are the same as defeating
criminal networks: A strong, accountable government that protects its
citizens, upholds the rule of law, and expands economic opportunity for
all. It taught us that countering illicit trafficking and preventing
terrorism often go hand-in-hand, and that U.S. interagency cooperation,
coupled with a committed international partner, can help bring a
country back from the brink. I believe we can apply these lessons
across our many international partnerships and in furtherance of our
Government's many missions beyond our borders.
Presently, we have a great opportunity in Central America to
capitalize on the region's growing political will to combat criminal
networks and control hemispheric migration. Leaders in many of our
partner nations recognize the magnitude of the tasks ahead and are
prepared to address them, but they need our support. As we learned in
Colombia, sustained engagement by the United States can make a real and
lasting difference.
conclusion
The security challenges facing DHS and our Nation are considerable,
particularly along the Southern Border. We have the laws in place to
secure our borders. We also have outstanding men and women working at
DHS, and in other Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement
agencies, who are committed to the border security mission. Finally, we
now have a clear mission objective and the will to complete that
mission successfully. We must accelerate our collective efforts to
enforce the laws on the books and support those sworn to uphold the
law. You have my commitment to work tirelessly to ensure that the men
and women of DHS are empowered do their jobs.
I believe in America and the principles upon which our country and
way of life are guaranteed, and I believe in respect, tolerance, and
diversity of opinions. I have a profound respect for the rule of law
and will always strive to preserve it. As I mentioned in my
confirmation hearing, I have never had a problem speaking truth to
power, and I firmly believe that those in power deserve full candor and
my honest assessment and recommendations. As Secretary, I recognize the
many challenges facing DHS and I will do everything within my ability
to meet and overcome those challenges, while preserving our liberty,
upholding our laws, and protecting our citizens.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today and
for your continued support of DHS. I am confident that we will continue
to build upon the momentum by our previous operational achievements
around the world. I remain committed to working with this committee to
forge a strong and productive relationship going forward to secure our
borders and help prevent and combat threats to our Nation.
I would be pleased to answer any questions.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I now recognize myself for questioning.
We look forward to working with you on that authorization,
which is long overdue.
Let me say first I agree with the policy of the Executive
Order. It is consistent with a memo I drafted with--to then-
candidate Trump, with Mayor Giuliani, Attorney General Mukasey,
advocating a shift from a Muslim ban, which he was campaigning
on, which we thought was unconstitutional, to, rather, an
enhanced vetting process of immigrants and refugees based on
risk, not religion, from high-threat areas.
It is consistent with the visa waiver security bill that
was signed into law by President Obama. It is consistent with
the SAFE Act that passed the House with a bipartisan veto-proof
majority.
My concern, as you and I have talked, is how it was
implemented and the execution of this order.
First, lawful permanent residents with green cards were
denied; military advisers who risked their lives to help U.S.
forces overseas, as you know, were denied; and students were
trapped overseas with visas. Let me say, I applaud you for
quickly correcting what I consider to be errors by quickly
granting the exception and waiver to green card holders, which
went a long way to remedy, I think, this Executive Order.
My other concern was the lack of coordination both within
the Executive branch and also with Congressional leaders like
myself. I applaud the President for trying to get things done
quickly, and that is what leadership is all about. He is
fulfilling campaign promises.
But as we move forward, what do you consider to be the
lessons learned here from this Executive Order?
Secretary Kelly. Mr. Chairman, I think as we have talked--I
have talked to many Members of--some Members of this committee
and certainly Senators, as well, the Executive Order was
developed certainly before I ever--began to be developed before
I ever became the Secretary of Homeland Security, before my
confirmation.
Just after the inauguration my staff, a very small number,
and myself had some initial cuts on that. Some changes were
made.
It was released, I think, as you recall, the third one I am
talking about now, was released on--late on a Friday. We knew
it was going to be released that day.
The desire was to get it out. The thinking was to get it
out quick so that potentially people that might be coming here
to harm us would not take advantage of some period of time that
they could jump on an airplane and get here, or get here in
other ways.
So that was the thinking. In retrospect, I should have--
this is all on me, by the way--I should have delayed it just a
bit so that I could talk to Members of Congress, particularly
to the leadership of committees like this, to prepare them for
what was coming. Although, I think most people would agree that
this has been a topic of President Trump certainly during his
campaign and during the transition process.
As the great men and women particularly of the border
protection people, as they unfolded that or started to
implement it, I should say, they got back to us with some
suggestions about how we could alter it. We did that, as I
think the order was signed or released at 18 on Friday, 6 p.m.
Before midnight we had made an adjustment. The next day, made a
couple of other adjustments to kind-of fine-tune it.
We did have to step back and kind of re-cock that--in that
first 24-hour period because of action by one of the Federal
courts. That changed things a bit, so we had to kind-of step
back.
But for the most part, you know, again, I know it can be an
inconvenience, but what was done at the counter, so to speak,
and at the very many airports where people are coming into the
United States, everyone was treated humanely.
I have read the reports about people standing up for hours
on end. Didn't happen. That people were insulted--I guess
insults are in the eyes of the beholder, but I would tell you
the kind of men and women that I serve with do not insult
people. They are very, very matter-of-fact. They are very
business-like.
But going forward, I would have certainly taken some time
to inform the Congress and certainly that is something I will
certainly do in the future.
Chairman McCaul. We look forward to moving forward in the
future with you. I applaud your quick correction of it, and I
hope the courts act quickly. Because, as you stated, every day
we are putting American lives at danger.
Let me shift to the border. When you were commander of
SOUTHCOM you and I met several times to talk about the threats
coming from south of the border, whether it be transnational
criminal organizations or their potential ties to terrorism.
Being from a border State, Texas, I understand this very well.
I appreciate you coming down to my State and visiting with
the Governor and DPS--Steve McCraw is going to testify--and the
good men and women of CBP down there.
Can you tell us what--the Executive Order came out for the
border surge. I want to work closely with you on this. Can you
tell us what this wall is going to look like? You may not be
able to answer this one, but how much it is going to cost, and
how are we going to pay for it?
Secretary Kelly. As far as the wall goes, Mr. Chairman, I
specifically went down to the most affected part of the border,
South Texas, down around McAllen--specifically went down there
to talk to local law enforcement, which I did--the Governor was
there--and to talk to my people on the border, ICE as well as
CBP.
We are not going to be able to build a wall everywhere all
at once. So part of the reason I went down there, first and
foremost, was to ask the people that know more about this than
anyone else on the planet. We have walls. There are walls
there, parts of walls in strategic places in McAllen on the
border. But do we need more wall?
They said, well, you know, Secretary, we need to extend
some walls; we need to fill in some places with physical
barriers. Their preference would not be something they couldn't
see through. That was a finding for me.
But they very definitely said, ``Yes, sir, we need a
physical barrier backed up by people like us''--meaning CBP and
local law enforcement--``with technology where it is
appropriate.''
They had in their mind that many hundreds of miles of that
sector, they had places where they wanted a physical barrier
constructed, you know, tomorrow, or actually yesterday, and
then tomorrow--today, tomorrow, and you see the point. They did
point out there are parts of the border that are right now not
as much of an issue as they are, say, right here in McAllen.
I will go to Tucson sector later in the week, and then push
over to San Diego sector. I suspect I will hear the same thing,
because it is certainly what my leadership in the Department of
Homeland Security level are telling me.
So that is where we are on the wall. Not going to build it
all in an afternoon, so we will build it in the places that the
people that work that border say we need it right now. There
are places on that border, I am told, we need it right now.
Chairman McCaul. Well, I couldn't agree with you more. I am
glad you see that perspective.
Every sector is different, multi-layered defense, fencing,
but also technologies, aviation assets. I think 100 percent
visibility is what you want because if you can see the threats
you can stop them. So I look forward to working with you on
that very important task.
I have been trying to get this done, sir, for the last 6
terms in Congress and I think now we finally have the political
will to do it. So thank you.
With that, the Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You referenced former Mayor Giuliani in your comments about
helping draft this Executive Order, and I call your attention
to----
Chairman McCaul. If the gentleman would yield, that is an
incorrect statement. We drafted a memo back last May or June to
then-candidate Trump to advocate why a Muslim ban was
unconstitutional and to look at vetting and high-threat areas.
I had no participation in this Executive Order--nor did Mayor
Giuliani.
Mr. Thompson. No, he claims----
Chairman McCaul. I will yield back. I will yield back.
Mr. Thompson. I am just saying that he has indicated that
it is a Muslim ban. So I can only take for what he is saying,
he takes credit for drafting it.
Mr. Secretary, President Trump tweeted because the ban was
lifted by a judge ``many very bad and dangerous people may be
pouring into the country.'' As you know, your Department is
responsible for visa security, screening travelers to this
country, and determining admissibility at ports of entry. Now,
do you believe that because of this court order we have let
some dangerous people into the country?
Secretary Kelly. It is certainly entirely possible. Again,
the whole reason for this pause is to get our arms around the
term ``vetting.'' My people that I trust, as well as State
Department people--I had a meeting yesterday with Rex
Tillerson--Secretary Tillerson and Mike Pompeo, formerly of
this party and now the director of the CIA, about the issue of
vetting. So it is entirely possible, yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Well, I understand. But in other words,
before this order, we were letting bad people into the country.
Your people were not doing their job.
Secretary Kelly. That is not true at all. My people have
always done their job.
Mr. Thompson. That is what I am trying to get at is, is
there any difference between the issuance of this Executive
Order and the job your people were doing so that whatever
decision the courts make, is it putting us at risk?
Secretary Kelly. The reason for the pause was for us to
take some time, take a look at the vetting from the seven
countries in question and how refugees are vetted.
I can tell you, because my people tell me, that for the
last number of years, the vetting is at best loose and the
amount of information--you take some of these countries we are
talking about that are in really state of failed states--in the
state of a failed state, there is very little, my people will
tell me and I believe, very little confidence that the
information that we receive from those countries relative to an
individual who wants to come to the United States is the kind
of information that we would bet the security of our citizens
on.
Mr. Thompson. Again, I am convinced your men and women are
doing a good job. I am just concerned about this notion that
because the court has ruled--and they have the right to rule--
that if in effect they have somehow put this country at risk by
this ruling, so say the President.
Now if, in fact, there have been some people let in since
the court ruled, can you provide this committee with those
apprehensions of people who otherwise would not have been let
in?
Secretary Kelly. I am not so sure I understand the
question.
Let's just say, for instance, a person who is trying to get
to the United States to do some harm, some terrorist attack, is
coming in during this period that the courts have put a stay on
our enforcement. We won't know that until that--an individual
is a bad person until they do something bad.
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Secretary Kelly. But it is entirely possible that someone
that is coming in, whether it is during this stay, during the
court action, or previous to this period, came here to do us
harm.
Mr. Thompson. But you don't have any proof at this point.
Secretary Kelly. Not until the boom.
Mr. Thompson. Not until what?
Secretary Kelly. Not until they act and blow something up
or go into a mall and kill people. So we won't know until then.
Mr. Thompson. Yes. I understand the danger. I just want to
make sure the system that we are presently using, Mr.
Secretary, is a good system and if, in fact, up until this
point, we have stopped the boom, as you referenced.
Now, because of a court order saying we still have to
follow the laws, and our President somehow says because this
Executive Order is being paused we are now going back to how we
used to do it. I am trying to figure out if how we used to do
it puts us at risk.
Secretary Kelly. Mr. Congressman, again, my feeling is the
vetting on the other end in those seven countries are suspect.
Mr. Trump, and certainly in my view, we have to do a pause,
which we have--which he ordered, now is, you know, under court
action, so that we can take a look at what we are doing on the
other end. I believe the vetting on the other end right now is
not adequate to protect the Nation.
Then, of course, we are considering other measures, adding
to the vetting on the other end so that we can ensure even more
so that the right people are coming to the United States, and
not bad people.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
The other issue is in reference to the guidance. Your men
and women who are tasked with carrying out this Executive
Order, when we met in the SCIF I asked for the guidance and the
time line associated with the guidance. We heard from people
from Atlanta, Los Angeles, New York, different stories as to
how things were being carried out. Can you provide this
committee with the guidance that went with the Executive Order
when it was signed and bring it forward?
Secretary Kelly. We can. I am going to have to take--I
would have to take that a little bit for the record, but I
would tell you that the CBP--the head of CBP and Homeland
Security, the guidance was: This is the E.O. Implement it.
They started implementing it almost right away.
Again, we had some issues related primarily to the first
court order that then caused some confusion at the desks at the
entry points. But as I said, we adjusted to that pretty
quickly. But we didn't--I can--I am assuming we have a system
by which we contact out of headquarters--CBP has a system by
which they contact the substations around the country to pass
information to them.
Mr. Thompson. Well, we just would like to----
Secretary Kelly. Sure.
Mr. Thompson [continuing]. See the guidance. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
New York, Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Kelly. let me thank you for your years of
service. Thank you for taking on this responsibility.
I must say that at a time when there was so much confusion,
when there was so much media talk and there was so much frenzy
coming from all sides, it was really, I think, vital to have
such a stable voice at the center of this, at the center of the
storm.
So thank you for restoring the order that you did. Thank
you for giving the country a sense of consistency and constancy
that it needed, so thank you for that, among all your other
many achievements in public service.
As a follow-up to the Ranking Member's question, it seemed
to me that when we face an enemy which is constantly adapting,
constantly changing, constantly revising its tactics, that it
only makes common sense for us to be constantly reexamining our
defensive measures, our counterterrorism measures, especially
when we know that ISIS has said it attempts--it is going to
attempt to infiltrate terrorists with refugees, trying to sneak
people into the country. We have seen what has happened in
Europe.
So I commend you for what you are trying to do. I think it
is essential and I think, again, a 90-day pause is--if that
saves American lives, then it is certainly a pause worth
taking.
But if you could perhaps clarify exactly where the seven
countries came from, whether you think any should be added to
that or should anybody be subtracted from that--from that list
of seven?
Secretary Kelly. The countries, of course, the seven
countries identified came as a result of not only the previous
administration's actions, but, as I understand it,
Congressional action. So I think that was a good start point.
They are countries, you know, two of the seven, of course,
are still listed as State sponsors of terrorism. So we don't
trust them at all because they are State sponsors of terrorism,
and they don't cooperate with us to the degree that certainly
President Trump and now certainly I am confident that what we
get from those countries, which is very little cooperation to
really determine who are the people that want to come here,
first issue.
Second issue, the other--among the other five are nearly
failed states in many respects, I would argue with the
exception of Iraq, where we have a very solid presence there
and I have served there quite some time. We will take a look-
see--we will take a look at all of these countries going
forward as to whether they remain on the pause list.
But you know, the other four countries, we don't even have
embassies there. I am at a total loss to understand how we can
vet, you know, people from various countries when in four of--
at least four of those countries we don't even have an embassy.
So I think the pause made, you know, an awful lot of sense.
Going forward, we would like to--we would hope that there are
countries that will come off the list. But the countries are a
list that came from the last administration, certainly from the
last Congress.
There are, by the way, and I have--I don't--I simply don't
know where this rumor came from, but I had--I read something
where there were an additional 12 countries being considered to
be put on the list. That is not true. Good friends of mine from
various countries that were on the list asked, called and said
is it--I said, no it is not true.
We are right now contemplating no other countries because
it is--even though some of these other countries are at, you
know, are questionable in terms of their internal, you know,
organization, police, that kind of thing, we are satisfied that
most other countries have enough that they could provide the
information that we are looking for to start to make the
determination to send people here.
But I would offer to you, Congressman, that we are looking
at some additions. We may just focus on certain countries--not
additional countries, but additional vetting schemes, vetting
processes that will go further to satisfy me, and presumably
the President, that we are--we know who we are dealing with, we
know what their backgrounds are.
If they don't want to cooperate with the additional
vetting, just like if they don't want to cooperate now, then
they don't come to the United States. There is no right to come
here, and if they don't want to cooperate, so be it.
But there are no other countries right now being
contemplated being put on any type of a travel pause. But I
would offer to you that some of those countries--some other
countries out there can be improved, and we hope to work with
them to help them improve, just like we hope to work with one,
two, three, whatever of the countries, of the seven countries
to help them improve their vetting to satisfy us so that we
can, you know, open our doors to their citizens.
Mr. King. Thank you, Secretary.
Also, let me take this opportunity to welcome back Kevin
Carroll, who was my counsel for a number of years on this
committee, and I am confident that you will be very well served
by Kevin.
Secretary Kelly. Well, I kind-of trust him, Congressman.
So, we will see.
Mr. King. But he is not a Marine though, you know.
Secretary Kelly. I know.
[Laughter.]
Mr. King. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to join my colleagues, Secretary Kelly, and express
my appreciation for your service to this Nation and the love
and affection that you have for your country, by evidence of
the most dynamic service you gave in the United States
military. Particularly, I want to thank you for the dialog that
you have engaged with, I know, many of the Members since you
have come on.
Please accept my assessment as separate and apart from the
great efforts that you have taken to try and steer this ship in
the way it should be steered, which is really to stand guard
for the security of the American people. But I must begin my
remarks by recounting a number of issues that, when I conclude,
I will have to offer an assessment.
Although this is the Homeland Security Committee, the Yemen
military action evidenced a action that warrants review.
Tragically, we lost a Navy SEAL, the target was not captured,
now taunts and provokes the President of the United States.
The basis of it was Obama's administration was not bold
enough, so we did it. An Executive Order that threw into
hysteria the lives of the forlorn, the desperate and those who
sought to come to this country; and, of course, the selection
of Mr. Bannon to the National Security Council with evidence
that the President didn't know what that meant.
Fiery rhetoric of a campaign should not be the governing
standard for this Nation, and I believe this administration is
off its wheels and needs to get back on its wheels.
I raise this question about the countries. Syria, Iran,
Iraq, and Yemen, and Libya are countries that are on the list--
Somalia and Sudan. Mr. Secretary, do you have evidence of
anyone who has come to this country in the last 5 years or
before that committed a terrorist act from these particular
countries?
Secretary Kelly. We have evidence that citizens of those
countries have done terrorist acts in Europe.
Ms. Jackson Lee. That is correct. I apologize, Mr.
Secretary. I have a short period of time.
You are absolutely right. Even some of those individuals
who are here in the United States left to go to the fight. But
there is no evidence that any of these persons--and many of
those who are here were self-radicalized here in the United
States, that evidence I do have. So no one from these countries
have committed an act on the soil of the United States, is that
correct?
Secretary Kelly. I think that that is correct. But I would
offer the Congresswoman that I am not going to base my
protection--my view of protecting the American people on hoping
that they will never come here and commit an act.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I understand. But the basis of this
Executive Order was supposed to be on facts and evidence that
was before us at that time. Let me wonder why you think Saudi
Arabia was not included?
Secretary Kelly. Again, I would go back to the--kind-of
some of the original comments. This is all about--this travel
pause is all about countries that are not cooperative or can't
be cooperative because of the conditions within the country to
provide us, to provide the President, to provide me now a
confidence that the people that we are dealing with are the
people who--you know, who say they are.
Saudi Arabia, by contrast, we may not like some aspects of
how they live their lives within their culture, but they do
have very----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. My time is short, so, thank
you. Thank you very much.
Secretary Kelly. I know that, but let me finish, if I
could.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I will let you finish, I just want to get
to my next question.
Secretary Kelly. OK.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Go ahead, sir.
Secretary Kelly. But the issue is places like Saudi Arabia
do have very, very good police forces, intelligence forces, so
we know when someone comes here from Saudi Arabia who they are
and what they have been up to.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
You have a 120-day delay on the refugee resettlements, one
of the most desperate groups of people and populations.
Certainly America has been known for her refuge for refugees.
What excuse do you give for this little one not being able
to come into the United States, or this little one not being
able to come into the United States, or this family not being
able to be reunited? What do you say to those individuals whose
papers will be expired, who have been waiting on the list for
12 years, who have been vetted, who are standing at the
airport?
What is the purpose for refugees, who, again, you stated at
the beginning of this testimony that you have no evidence that
anyone from these countries perpetrated a terrorist act on this
soil? Would you answer that, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Kelly. Well, I can't see the pictures you are
holding up, but I am assuming they are--again, I can't see them
from this distance.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I am sorry.
Secretary Kelly. But I am assuming they are pictures of
families or little girls or something like that. The point is,
this is right now a pause as we re-cock and start to look and
evaluate how well these various countries can vet people.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I think we will be causing a great deal of
suffering and I would ask the administration to review its
posture. I thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Mike Rogers, from Alabama, is recognized.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Kelly. it is good to have you here. I have
enjoyed the many years of working with you through my role in
the Armed Services Committee. Never thought I would be working
with you on this committee, too, but I am glad that we have got
your leadership here.
President Trump and you have both indicated your commitment
to securing the Southwest Border, and as you stated in
answering Chairman McCaul's question, that requires a
combination of things. But over the last 10 years we have seen
a multibillion-dollar failure in SBInet, we have seen the
neutering of the Secure Fence Act, and a hodgepodge of
equipment investments, most of which really haven't worked well
together.
So I am really interested in specifically how you see that
securing of that border coming together, with what
technologies, what kind of wall. I am imagining that you are
talking about a virtual wall that would have fencing supported
by technology and personnel, but could you be more specific
about how you envision it?
Secretary Kelly. Yes, Congressman. As I mentioned earlier,
I mean, the men and women on the border right now--and this
includes very much the local law enforcement, not just DHS
personnel--they could tell you and have told me down in that
South Texas session--sector, they can tell you where they want,
you know, exactly where they want a barrier, a wall built right
now.
In a world of finite time, resources, that kind of thing,
we would like, you know, 20 miles of wall built here. If you
have more time, more money, there is another place over here.
So they know and we are going to rely on them for their
recommendations.
As we build the wall out to whatever length it ultimately
becomes, as we build the wall out we will certainly back that
up with personnel, you know, patrolling, that kind of thing,
and technology. Aerostats work very well, sensors on the
ground.
One of the things I was informed when I went down to the
sector was that, I mean, some of the sensors are really kind of
1980's technology. They have their own complications with them.
There is better equipment out on the market today, so we are
going to take a long, hard look at that kind of thing.
But I think as--in those places, ultimately, we don't--
where you can't get to the--to build a wall quickly, we can
certainly look to controlling that part of the border,
initially at least, with aerostats and responsive patrolling
and that kind of thing.
What they tell me out there is that, you know, the--it is
very predictable how the drug traffickers--that is one group,
and how the people traffickers--that is another group--how they
do their business. Most of the time it is as close as they can
be to the--to either a quick get-away from the border, if you
will, or to get into a urban area pretty quickly and they just
meld in.
So that is where the CBP professionals--men and women have
told me, it is really in those places and they are very, very
up-front: Sir, this is--I can tell you where to put the wall
right now.
Mr. Rogers. What is your time line, do you think, that you
will have it secured?
Secretary Kelly. Well, I mean, it is hard to say. It
depends, actually, you know, on funding and all the rest of it.
But I would like to see that we would be well under way within
2 years.
You know, one of the things, just as a comment, we are--we
have 650 miles of barrier now on the border that we maintain. I
was just told this morning that there is some wall being built
in the San Diego sector that was financed and under
construction before this administration took over. So it would
appear to me that the former administration had a sense that
physical barriers made sense, as well.
But this is going to take some time. But there are places I
think we can right away get at this problem, Congressman.
Mr. Rogers. Great.
Well, another thing that the President has suggested is
that we want South Americans. in particular Mexico, to help
pay--or to pay for this securing of the Southwest Border. It is
my understanding we have over $30 billion a year that are sent
in remittances out of this country to South American countries,
mostly to Mexico.
I intend to introduce legislation entitled the Border
Funding Act of 2017 that would put a 2 percent tax on those
remittances, such as Western Union and MoneyGram remittances.
That would generate close to $1 billion a year. That is one
method.
Have you heard other suggestions as to how we are going to
pay for this securing of the border? Because keep in mind, this
additional layers of security you are talking about are on top
of the costs that we are already spending.
Secretary Kelly. I have not. Clearly, the White House is
working this and the State Department would--it would fall to
them, at least initially, to start to work with countries,
Mexico, to come to some accommodation. But have not heard any
specifics, Congressman.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode
Island, Mr. Langevin.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Kelly, I want to welcome you before the committee
and thank you for your testimony. I certainly want to thank you
for your decades of service to our Nation, and I certainly have
enjoyed working with you in my role in the Armed Services
Committee, whether it is meetings that you and I have had in my
office or the testimony provided before the committee.
I appreciate your work and I certainly look forward to
working with you on this committee as well, particularly on
issues relating to cybersecurity, which you and I share an
interest and which I consider to be the top National security
challenge of our age.
But, like many of my fellow colleagues, I am going to begin
my questions with the President's Executive Orders. So you may
be aware that a number of top National security officials from
the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations filed a brief with
the 9th Circuit Court yesterday.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that that report--that brief be entered
into the record.
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So the brief pretty clearly outlines my chief concerns with
the E.O., namely that it was not based on specific credible
evidence of a threat and that it puts our troops in harm's way.
So to begin with, was the refugee ban based on specific new
evidence of a threat to the homeland?
Secretary Kelly. The ban, once again, Congressman, was
based on countries that we don't have any real confidence in
right now that they can help us vet people to come to the
United States, countries that are in, you know, clearly
disarray. We know, as an example, in the Syrian case there are
thousands of--and I can't get too into it in this open
session--there are thousands of fighters who are available and
have--we have pretty good confidence have the kind of papers
that could get them passed into Western Europe and certainly,
by extension, into the United States.
So the threat is real. This pause--and that is what it is,
is a pause--will give me, working with CIA, DOD, and Justice,
not to mention State Department, give us an opportunity to step
back and decide what additional vetting we might add to what we
already have, which is minimal in my view, and then come out of
that and say, ``OK, these are the new rules.'' It may be that
some of these countries remain on the list for some time
because they are in such chaos.
But again, I go back to sworn to protect the Nation, and
hope is not an option when it comes--from my perspective at
least--when it comes down to that.
Mr. Langevin. I understand that. The point is, though, the
ban was put in place not based on any new credible threat
intelligence to a direct threat to the United States. Just to
quote----
Secretary Kelly. Well, Congressman, I would say----
Mr. Langevin. Let me just finish, if I could----
Secretary Kelly. If I could give you the full answer, it is
based on the fact that we know----
Mr. Langevin. Right.
Secretary Kelly [continuing]. That there are thousands of
fighters coming out of the caliphate fight that have papers
that could easily--not easily--could bring them to certainly
Western Europe and the United States.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you.
To quote from the brief, ``We all agree that the United
States faces real threats from terrorist networks and must take
all prudent and effective steps to combat them, including the
appropriate vetting of travelers to the United States. We are
all, nevertheless, unaware of any specific threat that would
justify the travel ban established by the Executive Order
issued on January 27, 2017. We view the order as one that will
ultimately undermine the National security of the United States
rather than making us safer.
In our professional opinion, this order cannot be justified
on national security or foreign policy grounds. It does not
perform its declared task of protecting the Nation from foreign
terrorist entry into the United States.''
So they would disagree. There is already strong vetting in
place right now and that vetting has kept us safe.
But let me move on to another question. Last Friday the New
York Times reported--the headline was, ``Travel Ban Drives
Wedge Between Iraqi Soldiers and Americans.''
Mr. Chairman, I ask that this story be inserted into the
record.
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
Travel Ban Drives Wedge Between Iraqi Soldiers and Americans
New York Times, Feb. 3, 2017
By David Zucchino
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/world/asia/travel-ban-drives-wedge-
between-iraqi-soldiers-and-americans.html
BAGHDAD.--Capt. Ahmed Adnan al-Musawe had survived another day
battling Islamic State fighters in Mosul last weekend when he heard
startling news: The new American president had temporarily barred
Iraqis from entering the United States and wanted tougher vetting.
Captain Musawe, who commands an infantry unit of the Iraqi Army's
elite counterterrorism force, considers himself already fully vetted:
He has been trained by American officers in Iraq and in Jordan. And
backed by American advisers, he has fought the Islamic State in three
Iraqi cities, including three months of brutal street combat in Mosul.
``If America doesn't want Iraqis because we are all terrorists,
then America should send its sons back to Iraq to fight the terrorists
themselves,'' Captain Musawe told a New York Times reporter who was
with him this week at his barricaded position inside Mosul.
President Trump's Jan. 27 executive order has driven a wedge
between many Iraqi soldiers and their American allies. Officers and
enlisted men interviewed on the front lines in Mosul said they
interpreted the order as an affront--not only to them but also to
fellow soldiers who have died in the battle for Mosul.
``An insult to their dignity,'' said Capt. Abdul Saami al-Azzi,
another officer with the counterterrorism force in Mosul. He said he
was hurt and disappointed by a nation he had considered a respectful
partner. ``It is really embarrassing.''
The American and Iraqi militaries have negotiated an often tenuous
and strained relationship over the years. But few episodes have so
blindsided the current generation of Iraqi soldiers, who are accustomed
to viewing the United States as their partner in a shared struggle to
defeat insurgents and build a viable nation.
The timing of the order hit the Iraqi military in Mosul like an
incoming rocket. Iraqi forces have reached a pivotal moment, seizing
half of Mosul and preparing to assault the remaining half--supported by
American advisers, Special Operations forces and airstrikes by the
United States-led coalition.
Why, some soldiers asked, had Mr. Trump chosen this moment to lump
together all Iraqis as mortal threats to America--soldiers, civilians
and terrorists alike?
``This decision by Trump blows up our liberation efforts of
cooperation and coordination with American forces,'' said Brig. Gen.
Mizhir Khalid al-Mashhadani, a counterterrorism force commander in
Mosul.
Astounded by the announcement, General Mashhadani, who speaks
English, said he asked his American counterparts about the president's
order. He said several told him they considered the decision hasty and
its consequences poorly considered.
The travel ban was all the more perplexing to those Iraqi troops
who had heard Mr. Trump vow as a candidate to wipe out the Islamic
State, also known as ISIS, ISIL or Daesh. Some also heard the president
promise, when issuing the order, to keep ``radical Islamic terrorists''
out of the United States.
For some soldiers, those comments seemed to equate Iraqi soldiers--
by virtue of their nationality and religion--with the very terrorists
they were fighting.
President Trump was ``unjust and not right,'' said Maj. Sabah al-
Aloosi, 37, another counterterrorism force officer in Mosul. It is
Iraqi soldiers, he said, ``who are fighting terrorism on behalf of the
world and sacrificing themselves.''
Col. John L. Dorrian, the spokesman in Baghdad for the American-led
operation against the Islamic State, emphasized that the president's
order was temporary, calling it ``a pause.''
Told of critical comments by Iraqi soldiers and officers, Colonel
Dorrian said: ``For our part, we continue to do every single day what
we've been doing all along in the campaign to defeat Daesh.''
Colonel Dorrian said those efforts included continuing to train and
advise Iraqi security forces, and providing intelligence, artillery and
airstrikes in support of Iraqi troops. ``None of these things are
affected,'' he added.
One counterterrorism soldier, Ismail Khalid, said the president's
ban on Iraqis did not affect his will to fight the Islamic State--or
his survival instincts. ``I've been fighting terrorism for months and
what matters to me is to return home,'' he said.
The counterterrorism force soldiers spoke before the American
Embassy in Baghdad on Thursday cleared the way to enter the United
States for former interpreters and other Iraqis who had assisted the
American government or military.
The interpreters and their families had been issued special
immigrant visas because of their service to the United States. The ban
on so-called S.I.V. holders was lifted after the Pentagon recommended
that the White House exempt Iraqis who have tangibly demonstrated their
commitment to supporting United States forces, a Pentagon spokesman
said.
But Iraqis who hold valid refugee visas, some because their
association with Americans exposes them to danger in Iraq, remained
barred from entry to the United States.
Before the Jan. 27 ban was announced, two counterterrorism force
officers in Mosul said they had begun making plans to visit the United
States after the battle for Iraq's second-largest city.
Captain Musawe, who had hoped to vacation in the United States,
said he was not making any travel plans at the moment. ``The decision
by Trump has wasted my dreams,'' he said.
Major Aloosi said he even asked his American counterparts for
advice about the visa process for Iraqi soldiers seeking to visit the
``wonderful sights and tourism'' he had seen on American TV programs.
``But all that has vaporized because of the decision by Trump,'' he
said.
General Mashhadani said that despite bitter feelings among many of
the soldiers he commands, he continues to work closely, if under trying
circumstances, with his American counterparts.
``My American friends who are officers promised to let me in their
country in case I decide to go there--even if they have to use illegal
ways,'' he said.
An employee of The New York Times contributed reporting from Mosul,
Iraq, and Falih Hassan contributed from Baghdad.
A version of this article appears in print on February 4, 2017, on Page
A12 of the New York edition with the headline: Travel Ban Strains Ties
to Troops Across Iraq.
Mr. Langevin. So based on your experience in Iraq, do you
believe that the ban will improve the safety and security of
U.S. forces there?
Secretary Kelly. I believe the travel pause from all of
those countries will give us time to evaluate those countries
and the information they can provide us, which will ultimately
lead to safety for the American people.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I would just say that we have strong measures in place to
keep the country safe, and putting the ban in place, in my
opinion, ultimately will do more harm than good. We could have
done this in a more effective way by--if we need to enhance
vetting, fine. If there is credible intelligence that we need
to act upon, fine. But I think in the long run this ban will do
more harm than good, both to our security but also to our
troops in the field.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman McCaul. Chair recognizes the gentleman from South
Carolina, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Kelly. General, thanks for being here. Thanks for
your service to the United States Marine Corps. As chairman of
the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, you and I had a chance to
work together when you were at Southern Command, and I
appreciate your work.
Ask you a series of yes or no questions. Is President
Trump's Executive Order a Muslim ban?
Secretary Kelly. No.
Mr. Duncan. Would you agree with this statement: Because we
cannot properly vet those from Syria because of the lack of
information coming out of the country, because they are in the
midst of a civil war, do you believe that this in necessary in
order to ensure America's safety?
Secretary Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Duncan. We have had a series of hearings in this
committee and on Capitol Hill with regard to Syrian refugees.
Your predecessors and those appointed by President Trump's
predecessors came to the Hill and made some very interesting
statements. I would like to read some of those in my time.
John Brennan, director of the Central Intelligence Agency,
said this, 11/18/2015: ``I think it makes it even more
incumbent on the security and intelligence professionals to
make sure that we are able to look at individuals who are
coming into this country with an eye toward what it is that we
might know about individuals or ways that terrorist
organizations might try to secret people into these networks,
into these refugee flows.''
Would you agree with that statement?
Secretary Kelly. That the terrorists are attempting to gain
access to the United States, passing themselves off potentially
as refugees? I do believe that they have got that in mind.
Mr. Duncan. Yes, sir.
Your predecessor, Secretary Johnson, said this, 10/21/2015:
``It is true that we are not going to know a whole lot about
the Syrians that come forth in this process; that is definitely
a challenge. We know that organizations like ISIL might try to
exploit this, the Syrian refugee resettlement program. The good
news is that we are better at vetting than we were 8 years ago.
The bad news is that there is no risk-free process.''
He went on to say, 10/8/2015, I guess that was a little
earlier: ``The Syrian refugees are a population of people that
we are not going to know a whole lot about.''
They testified over and over that Syria is in a civil war
and that the records, (A), were never very good to begin with;
(B), have been destroyed, have been stolen, have been
commingled. In fact, you can go to Turkey and change your
identity with a new passport based on what we know.
Director of National Counterterrorism Center in this
committee on 10/8/2015 said this, Nicholas Rasmussen: ``The
intelligent picture we have had of this, the Syrian conflict
zone, isn't what we would like it to be. You can only review
refugees' submitted background data against what you have.''
How this is different than Iraq is we had people in Iraq;
we were working with the Iraqi government. We don't know a
whole lot about the Syrians.
General Clapper, retired general and director of National
Intelligence, said this: ``As Syrian refugees descend on
Europe, one of the obvious issues that we worry about, and in
turn as we bring refugees into this country, is exactly what is
their background. We don't obviously put it past the likes of
ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees. That is a
huge concern of ours.''
Director of FBI, James Comey, said this: ``We can only
query against that which we have collected, and so if someone
has not made a ripple in the pond in Syria on a way that would
get their identity or interest reflected in our databases, we
can only query our databases until the cows come home, but
nothing will show up because we have no record of that
person.''
Ladies and gentlemen, the issue at hand that President
Trump has recognized is that we don't have a whole lot of
information on people from the war-torn areas. ISIL has said
they are willing to infiltrate the refugee resettlement program
and the immigration migration into Europe.
This is a pause for 90 days so that our intelligence folks
can try to get this right. It turns off the Syrian refugee
program until the President says we can properly vet those whom
we are going to allow to live amongst us. This is good policy
to keep America safe.
It is not a Muslim travel ban. It targets an area of the
world that is torn with civil war and has elements--ISIS, al-
Qaeda, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf--that are intent on doing
Americans harm. I support this.
General Kelly, thank you. I look forward to your continued
leadership at the Department. I look forward to working with
you here.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Richmond.
Mr. Richmond. General, let me just ask you a couple yes or
no questions.
Is Steve Bannon, adviser to the President, a Department of
Homeland Security employee?
Secretary Kelly. No.
Mr. Richmond. Are you a standing member of the National
Security Council?
Secretary Kelly. I am.
Mr. Richmond. Has an adviser to the President ever been a
standing member of the National Security Council?
Secretary Kelly. I don't know specifically, but I would
imagine that there have been advisers to the President. In
reality, we are all advisers to the President. It would be hard
for me to believe that there hasn't been some that have been
advisers.
Mr. Richmond. Well, let me just state for the record that
while I understand the Secretary of Homeland Security has not
traditionally been a standing member of the National Security
Council, I do want to go on record saying that I find it
appalling, disgraceful, and dangerous that Steve Bannon, a
white supremacist and the architect of the ban, is on the
National Security Council.
I feel this inclusion weakens our Nation's security and
makes your job even more complicated.
Now, let me just spend 1 second again on the order, because
some of my colleagues asked about Saudi Arabia. You indicated
that we, as a country, was comfortable with the vetting that is
done from--on the Saudi Arabia side.
In the ban it mentions 9/11; 15 of the 19 terrorists
involved in 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. That doesn't give us
any concern?
Secretary Kelly. Of course it does, but again, that is some
years ago. That is exactly why President Trump has decided to
take a pause in countries we know are very, very high-risk in
terms of not only terrorists or potential terrorists, but very
high-risk in terms that they don't have really any databases we
can work with, police, FBI, that kind of thing, where Saudi
Arabia does have, you know, functioning police and intelligence
services that we can work with.
So at least we know that people that are coming out of that
country are, (A), who they say they are; (B), why they are
coming to the United States--whatever reason, tourists or
otherwise. But it is pretty hard--it is impossible to get into
someone's head.
I believe if we put someone like Saudi Arabia on the list,
given their very good intelligence, very good police work and
all that kind of thing, then you could make the argument this
is about religion. It is not.
Mr. Richmond. Well, you say it is not about religion, but
the President in a TV interview said that he would prioritize
and even exempt persecuted Christians. How does that work? If
we have a pause, how do we un-pause it for persecuted
Christians?
Secretary Kelly. Again, you know, we have--both myself and
Secretary Tillerson have authority within the Executive Orders
to make case-by-case--and I certainly did in the early hours--
to make case-by-case exemptions, a couple of Iraqis, as an
example. I mean, the first lawsuit that was brought against the
pause, one of the E.O.s, the two people that were wronged,
allegedly, had long been admitted into the United States.
So we have a case-by-case on this, and have let in some
Iraqi generals, some other people, dual citizens, of course. So
there is a way to, on a case-by-case--the little girls that the
Congresswoman referenced. I mean, these are people that we
said, OK, let's let them in. So there is a way to do that.
Mr. Richmond. Well, and I am glad that there is a way to do
that, but I guess what I am specifically asking is whether you
or the Secretary of State are going to take the directive that
the President stated, which is he favored preference for
persecuted Christians. So are we going to put persecuted
Christians over everyone else, as he suggested, is my question.
Do you intend on implementing it like that or executing it
like that?
Secretary Kelly. We will look at every individual case that
we are presented for exemption and make a decision not based on
only religion, but on persecution and those kind of things.
Mr. Richmond. So we won't put religion as a priority over
other religions? We won't pick a religion and put them as a
priority over another religion.
Secretary Kelly. The way we are implementing this we will
not use religion, but persecution for sure--why someone is
being persecuted. But there is no, you know, no Muslims, but
all Christians; nothing like that, Congressman.
Mr. Richmond. OK.
The former director of homeland security placed our voting
apparatus as critical infrastructure. So my last question is,
No. 1, do you plan on taking that designation away? Then the
second part of that question would be, because it is designated
critical infrastructure, the fact that the President believes 3
million to 5 million people voted illegally, and I guess he
assumes they didn't vote for him, how do we proceed?
If the number is 3 to 5 million, it really could change
some States like Michigan and Pennsylvania. He may well not be
a President. He may be a so-called President, or in his terms,
a fake President.
So, are we going to institute that investigation and follow
it to its logical conclusion? Or why should we have the
confidence that these 3 to 5 million people didn't steal an
election if, in fact, they did vote illegally?
Secretary Kelly. Mr. Chairman, we are a minute past the 5
minutes. OK to answer that question?
Chairman McCaul. Yes, sir.
Secretary Kelly. I think the, Jeh Johnson, good friend of
mine, in his final days determined that, you know, the voting
system was critical infrastructure. I believe we should help
all of the States--provide them as much help as we can to make
sure that their systems are protected in future elections. So I
would argue that, yes, we should keep that in place.
Everything after that, I can't find the question, just a
statement. So----
Mr. Richmond. I am past my time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. I think the Secretary reminds us that we
have a 5-minute rule. I think in the interests of all the
Members here to get a question in let's try to adhere to that
as much as possible.
Mr. Barletta is recognized.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Kelly, the Federal judge who paused the Executive
Order on January 27 stated from the bench that no one from the
seven countries named in the order has been arrested for
terrorist activities in the United States since 9/11, reading
from an Associated Press article in the Seattle Times.
He asked the Justice Department lawyer, ``How many arrests
of foreign nationals from the countries have occurred since 9/
11?''
When the lawyer said she didn't know, the judge answered
his own question. He said, ``Let me tell you. The answer to
that is none, the best I can tell. You are here arguing on
behalf of someone that says we have to protect the United
States from these individuals coming from these countries, and
there is no support for that.''
I can't help but note that at least in one instance he is
right. The young man who stabbed a number of people at Ohio
State this past November was in the United States through the
refugee program. He came here from Somalia, one of the seven
countries we are talking about. But in this one case, the judge
was right. He was not arrested because he was killed at the
scene by police.
I have here a study by a professor from the University of
North Carolina which finds that in all the arrests made for
terror-related activities in the United States since 9/11
almost a quarter of them have direct family ties to those seven
countries.
In your opinion, Mr. Secretary, are these critics correct?
Have there been no problems at all with people from these seven
countries?
Secretary Kelly. I think, Congressman, the first thing I
would say is people like me are paid to do--in my case, protect
the Nation in the home game, protect the homeland. Hope is not
a course of action for people like me, and police officers and
sheriffs and members of the CBP, people like that. Hope we can
never rely on, ``Gee, I hope nothing bad happens.''
In the case, and I have nothing but respect for judges, but
in their world it is a very academic, very almost in-a-vacuum
discussion. Of course, in their court rooms they are protected
by people like me.
So they can have those discussions and if something happens
bad from, you know, from letting people in they don't come to
the judge to ask him about his ruling, they come to people like
me. There are bad people in the world. They come from all over
the world. Some of them are home-grown, and people like me are
doing the best we can to get after the problem.
So again, I have nothing but respect for our judges, but
they live in a different world than I do. I am paid to worst-
case it; he is paid to, in a very academic environment, make a
call.
I don't criticize him for that. That is his job. But I am
the one that is charged with protecting the Nation, the
homeland, and I intend to do that and never hope that some
people coming from some part of the world are coming here for
the right reasons.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
Secretary Kelly, one of the principal reasons I ran for
Congress was my frustration with the Federal Government for
refusing to enforce our existing immigration laws. My city of
Hazelton, which I was mayor of, was overrun by illegal aliens
who brought with them gangs, drugs, identity theft, fraud,
other crimes that I had to deal with.
No one was speaking for the victims of these crimes. I
always heard that, you know, we have to have compassion for the
person that comes here illegally, but I had to sit with people
who were--who lost loved ones who were victims. I have
compassion for them, so I commend the Trump administration for
recognizing these crime victims, the victims.
As you know, the Executive Order of January 25, enhancing
public safety in the interior of the United States, establishes
an office of victims of crimes committed by removable aliens.
Can you please speak to when this office will be set up and
what services it would provide?
Secretary Kelly. The office is being set up kind-of as we
speak. Even though it is actually down inside the ICE
organization, I have told my people that I want that particular
office to work for me. So we are raising it up to the Secretary
level.
Generally speaking, these criminals who are here illegally
are generally going through a criminal justice system in the
States, for the most part. First of all, our view would be that
those people can expect from us, if they call and say, ``How is
that case going, you know, the person that murdered my daughter
with a gun or ran over my son with an automobile or killed a
police officer on the side of a road, how is that going?''
So we hope to be--we will be able to say, ``It is in
court,'' and you know, give them a description of what it is.
But further down the line that office will be able to tell
those people, ``OK, the convicted person that killed your
daughter, murdered your son, killed a cop, he has got, you
know, 10 years, 9 years, 8 years, 7 years. OK, he is going to
be paroled, and you can bet that my people will be standing
there when he is paroled to take him into custody and send him
back to wherever he came from.''
That is what I see that office doing, sir.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. Thank you for your service to our
country.
Chairman McCaul. Gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Keating,
is recognized.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your extraordinary service to
our country, and particularly assuming this role as a native of
Massachusetts.
Mr. Secretary, I have heard the administration reference
the Boston Marathon bombings as an example of a domestic attack
that would have been prevented by the President's Executive
Order. The Boston Marathon bombing, as we all know, is a
heinous and personal attack on all of us as Americans.
But the year following the attack this committee led an
extensive bipartisan investigation into the Tsarnaev brothers,
their families, their motivations, and I can tell you with
confidence that the Tsarnaev brothers would not have been
denied entry into this country under that Executive Order.
Now, in your opening statement you said fear should not be
the status quo. If you could, words matter. If you could
comment on the importance of every official clearly defining
and being accurate when they discuss issues such as that that
provoke such public concern and fear, as this Executive Order
did.
Secretary Kelly. I agree. Public officials at every level
should, you know, to the greatest degree that they can,
understand the specifics of given cases and----
Mr. Keating. That includes the President.
Secretary Kelly. I think all public officials--but I will
also say this: Since the regional--the third E.O. was put in
order, the number of Members of Congress as well as
international--my counterparts on the international scene that
called me with really anecdotal, ``This is what is happening,
it is horrible, these people are all being rounded up and all
of this.''
I said, ``OK, give me specifics.'' Not a single member but
one was able was able to give me a specific, and that led to us
getting a young girl out of a camp in Uganda and reunited with
her family in Minneapolis, I think.
So, all members of--that serve the Nation should be
exacting. I will tell you, the biggest problem I had from that
Friday until about Tuesday was the misrepresentation of what
was taking place in the various airports, in particular. As I
say, I was just inundated with----
Mr. Keating. Thank you for making that a priority of yours.
I hope every official at all levels----
Secretary Kelly. We all have to be exact.
Mr. Keating [continuing]. Take that responsibility
seriously.
Secretary Kelly. None of us should be talking about
anecdotes. Specifics are--matter.
Mr. Keating. Yes. Quick question I had. All your
predecessors since I have been on this committee, and I think
before I was on this committee, have stated that the No. 1
security concern domestically has been home-grown violent
extremists. Would you agree with all your predecessors that
that is the most immediate and pressing danger that we have?
Secretary Kelly. I don't think I would say ``the most''
because there are others that are equally as dangerous and just
about as likely as home-grown terrorism.
Mr. Keating. Fair enough.
As a general you are familiar with the chain of command
more than, I think, anyone in this room, given your years of
experience. Looking at what happened, the chaos surrounding the
Executive Order, what would you do going forward differently
yourself to impact that process so there was a very clear chain
of command with communications not just within government but
also in the private side, with the airlines, and everyone else
that is a traveler?
Secretary Kelly. For the record, again, if you talk to the
men and women of CBP, there was no chaos as they received
people from various countries. You know, in the first 24 hours
of the Executive Order from aviation, coming in by air, about
325,000 or 330,000 people, over half of whom were foreigners,
most of whom get in without any problem, and then a small
number, relatively small number, were held up for additional
vetting. The vast--I think all of them, but a very small number
get in, in pretty short order.
So if you ask the CBP people that were working the
counters, they don't know what you are talking about when you
are talking about chaos. Now, if you then look out to where the
demonstrators were--and, with all due respect, some public
officials--there was chaos, but that were--that was due to
other factors.
Mr. Keating. We had some airlines allowing people entry and
some airlines didn't----
Secretary Kelly. That came actually in the last few days.
It was very quick. The airlines were very cooperative, as they
always are. They are great partners, and when they were told,
``Don't board these people,'' they didn't. Now, we have got a
little bit of a difference----
Mr. Keating. Are you satisfied with that chain of command,
then, that took place during that period?
Secretary Kelly. The chain of command is from the President
to me to CBP in this case. I am satisfied with that chain of
command.
Mr. Keating. Just quickly, is that what happened in this
case? Is that the chain of command?
Secretary Kelly. It is.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman McCaul. Mr. Perry, from Pennsylvania, you are
recognized.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and let me offer my
gratitude for your service to our Nation.
As the Chairman of the Oversight and Management Efficiency
Subcommittee on this committee, I have been concerned about an
employee survey that DHS once again ranked dead last by its
employees as the worst place to work in the Federal Government.
Now, as you know, the--there are five core missions at DHS, two
of which are to secure and manage our borders. Through the
previous administrations, countless internal directors, in my
opinion, the border became less secure and immigration agents
literally could be fired for attempting to enforce Federal
immigration laws.
I am just wondering, the question is at this point, do you
think the previous administration's actions, coupled with the
mainstream media's demonization of securing our border and what
it means, sometimes turning people away that want to come
across the border, has had an adverse impact on the attitude of
your now employees?
Secretary Kelly. I believe that. If I could just make a
comment, Congressman, the frustration--and I am very new at
this job, but I am really good at interacting with people and
really good at leading them. When I talk to the members,
particularly where the rubber meets the road, or, as I have
learned down on the Rio Grande the other day, where the hull
meets the water, and you talk to them about why they have been
frustrated--great Americans, magnificent men and public
servants in uniform, sometimes out of uniform, they would tell
you that, ``You know, sir, hard to do a job and not allowed to
do it until a couple of the E.O.s came on.''
Their particular frustration is when they see people who
are, in fact, here illegally who are--have committed some
crimes and then are let go. So I think their morale has
suffered because of the job they were hired to do, and then in
their sense they are kind of hobbled or, you know, hands tied
behind their back, that kind of thing. Now they feel more
positive about things. I bet if you watch the morale issue you
will be surprised going forward.
Mr. Perry. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I guarantee
you we are going to be watching.
I do want to make a statement in regard to the gentlelady
from Texas regarding the attacks of refugees. I just want to
just quickly point out a Somali who planned to blow up a
Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon, an Iraq refugee who
set off a bomb in a Social Security office in Arizona, Somali
refugee who went on a stabbing spree in St. Cloud. Of course,
the one that Mr. Barletta referenced, a Somali refugee with the
successful attack in Ohio.
As a person who has worn the uniform, sir, I want to remind
us both of the two Iraqis convicted on charges that they
assisted al-Qaeda in Iraq and may have killed American service
members who lied on their immigration paperwork. While it might
be inconvenient for some people to be stopped at the airport, I
don't have the photographs of the families who--mothers and
fathers, brothers and sisters and children--who never saw their
parents come home from the war zone or from some place out in
their community where they were attacked by some of these
people.
So if we are going to bring up anecdotes, I imagine we can
bring up some of the blown-up--pictures of blown-up parts of
individuals and innocent civilians who were victimized by these
people. I hope we don't have to be reduced to that level.
Mr. Secretary----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Perry. No. I have another question for the Secretary. I
appreciate it.
Mr. Secretary, just looking at some of the comments from--
and I am looking at a report from November 17 on NPR from the
Border Patrol Union head, who said law enforcement has been
handcuffed and the criminals are being let go. And another CNS
news report from June 27, 2014, where agents were forced
without documentations to accept the claims of immigrants and
treat them as minors and turn them over to HHS within 72 hours
pretty much feeling full well that they have been involved in
gang activities, were above the age of minority, were above the
age of 18, but without documentation were forced to do it.
These folks then enter up--enter into the interior, and
then the other concerns of dangerous drugs like heroin, health
circumstances like polio, leprosy, small pox, the infiltration
of al-Qaeda, et cetera. I am wondering if you can tell us
tangibly today--today, starting right now or before--what has
changed in those policies that led the head of the union to say
that they were being handcuffed while criminals were being let
go?
What has changed already for Border Patrol under your
leadership and under a new administration?
Secretary Kelly. The 10-second answer, because that is all
I have, is they are now--the various policies and whatnot that
did restrict them--and I hear this all the time--that did
restrict them have now been lifted and they are out there doing
the job.
But one of the things, in 6 seconds or less, we really need
to do is really re-enforce--surge, if you will--the number of
immigration courts and judges and that kind of thing to really
get after the numbers of illegal aliens. Because, you know, we
can pick them up all day long but if the process takes a year
or 2 or 5 or 10, it is pretty hard to deter people coming up
from South America, good people overwhelmingly, if they know
once they get here they are in.
But they feel better about things now that they--the E.O.
has lifted the restrictions and the--the policy restrictions.
The laws are there. They are good laws. Now they are being
executed.
Mr. Perry. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Chairman McCaul. Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
Jersey, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking
Member.
Mr. Secretary, we thank you for being here today and thank
you for your service to this Nation. It goes without saying
that you have been a great American with respect to your
service in the Marines and all the way up. So I want to
congratulate you on this opportunity to serve, as well.
You know, there has been a lot of discussion today in
reference to the Muslim ban on these seven countries that, you
know, the--my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
citing incidents now of refugees from those countries. But the
data we have says that there hasn't been anyone from those
seven countries that has--have made terrorist attacks.
Countries that are not on that list, sir, are Lebanon,
where we have had 159 Americans killed by their citizens;
Egypt, 162; United Arab Emirates, 314; and Saudi Arabia, 2,369.
So I would think that there might be reason to add other
countries to that list.
In terms of staffing for Customs and Border Protection, you
know, the President's Executive Order on border security
directs hiring of an additional 5,000 Border Patrol Agents but
gives no specifics. What is the time frame for hiring these
additional agents?
Secretary Kelly. OK, Congressman, a lot there.
Under the general heading, if I could start by saying, you
know, honest men and women can disagree on things and hold
their own opinions. This is not a Muslim ban.
The countries that you mentioned--Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
Lebanon and UAE--have systems within their countries that are,
in our view, fairly reliable, although we are looking, in terms
of their internal vetting, police records, things like that.
The countries that are on the list that--put on the list,
really, by the last administration, don't have those. They are
countries in chaos, really countries in collapse.
If we had put countries on--predominantly Muslim countries
on this pause list, my view that would be putting them on there
because they are Muslims. But because they are not--the reason
they are not there is we have reasonable trust in their systems
that we can rely on to begin the vetting first----
Mr. Payne. These seven countries are not Muslim?
Secretary Kelly. They are overwhelming Muslim.
Mr. Payne. OK.
Secretary Kelly. There are 51 countries on the planet that
are Muslim, 26 of whom are over 80 percent. So of the 51----
Mr. Payne. We keep count of those? We keep----
Secretary Kelly. Of the 51 countries----
Mr. Payne [continuing]. Count of Muslim countries?
Secretary Kelly. Of the 51 Muslim countries on Earth--
predominantly Muslim countries--seven from that list are on the
pause list, but not because they are Muslims but because their
countries are in--they are failed states and we have no--they
don't have reliable systems by which we can right now depend on
their information to us. It is not a Muslim ban.
Mr. Payne. OK. Well, you know, it is--as you said, we can
disagree. It is even interesting that we are keeping count of
the number of Muslim countries that there are in the world.
To my Border Patrol--my time is running out.
Secretary Kelly. Yes, on the Border Patrol. What I have
told my people is that--and we have made this mistake in the
military more than once, going back to certainly the Vietnam
War. We will add to the ranks of the ICE and border protection
people as fast as we can, but we will not lower standards and
we will not lower training. So the people that--and I don't
believe we are going to get 10,000 and 5,000 on board within
the next couple of years.
I would rather have fewer and make sure that they are high-
quality people that are already serving in those organizations,
already well-trained. But I will not skimp on the training and
the standards.
Mr. Payne. OK. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Gentleman from New York, Mr. Katko, is
recognized.
Mr. Katko. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today, and thank
you for your long and dedicated service to our country.
You are embarking on a job now where your daily mission is
to find a proverbial needle in a haystack, and I admire you for
wanting to take it on and I appreciate you willing to do so.
I just want to share with you briefly a story. Last year we
were part of a Congressional delegation to the Middle East. We
went to Israel and then on to Iraq, Turkey, Berlin, Brussels,
and Paris. That was before all of them were attacked by ISIS-
related terror attacks.
When I went over there they were--all the security agencies
had the exact mindset as you, and that is they don't want it to
have to happen. It hasn't happened yet, but they didn't want it
to happen in their turf. I pray to God that it doesn't happen
here.
So I appreciate all the efforts you and this administration
are doing to try and keep our country safe. It is not enough to
hope that we keep it safe. We have got to do everything we
possibly can to keep it safe, so I appreciate you doing that.
Now I want so switch gears a bit and put on my old
prosecutor hat, because I was a 20-year organized crime
prosecutor, and I was on the Southwest Border, then in Puerto
Rico, and the Northern Border. My questions are emanating from
that experience.
When I was in El Paso I saw first-hand the border and how
much of a sieve it was, even around the El Paso sector. The
fact that they have 650 miles of border fence now and we are
simply contemplating adding to that does not make this a novel
idea that the border needs to be more secure.
In my district we are inundated with heroin, and the number
of heroin deaths in our area are overwhelming, to say the
least. I know much of it is coming across the Southwest Border.
So by tightening up the border can you tell me what impact
it will have on drug traffickers and their ability to ship this
poison into our country? I ask you to draw upon your experience
as part of the Southern Command, as well.
Secretary Kelly. A lot of experience with drugs--not taking
them of course, but interdicting them.
Interdiction of drugs. If the drugs are in the United
States we have lost.
I will use an example of cocaine in Colombia. You know,
last year our Colombian friends, the best, closest allies we
have in Latin American, bar none, they eradicated tens of
thousands of acres of coca; they seized 378 metric tons of
cocaine before it ever left and they destroyed hundreds and
hundreds and hundreds of drug labs. So that is all cocaine that
never even started the, you know, the trip up.
Southern Command last year got a couple of hundred tons,
with the Coast Guard getting a lot of that.
Once it gets into Central America cocaine is--it is in
Pennsylvania, it is in wherever.
Heroin: 100 percent of the heroin consumed, generally--99
percent is produced in Mexico. Poppy is grown in Mexico and
Guatemala and trafficked up into the United States. We get a
lot before it gets here but, as you point out, it comes here in
massive numbers.
Then the vast majority of methamphetamines, once again,
produced in Mexico in the hundreds of tons and trafficked into
the United States.
I think a huge partner here is Mexico. If we can help them
get after the poppy production, as an example; if we can help
them get after the production labs; if we can help them get
after the heroin, methamphetamine as it is moving in relatively
large amounts before it gets to the border.
We are never going to get to zero, but, you know, we don't
have--we do not have a drug demand reduction. This is
embarrassing. It is--well, we don't have a drug demand
production program in the United States to stop the use of
drugs. Most of this stuff starts recreationally and then turns
into addiction.
We are never going to get to zero, but we know how to do
this. We have done it before with other drugs and other things
that were bad for our society. We are not even trying.
The people in the south, if you are Guatemala looking north
or in the south looking north, they will tell you, ``How about
stop lecturing us about not doing enough to stop the drug flow?
How about you stop the demand and then the drug flow will go
away?''
I would like to think as we go forward that this Congress,
myself, the Homeland Security would maybe get into the business
of drug demand reduction, because that is what is killing our
folks.
I will just finish with this: There has been a drug
heroin--there has been a heroin problem in this country since I
was a kid, because the vast majority of my friends died of
heroin overdoses long ago, in the 1960's and 1970's. But the
heroin problem has been primarily, up until recently, in the
inner cities, black neighborhoods, working-class neighborhoods
like I grew up in, Hispanic neighborhoods. For decades I guess
as a society, we said, ``Well, so long as it is just there who
cares?''
All of a sudden kids are dying in New Hampshire in large
numbers, on the college campuses of places like Harvard,
Stanford, in Capitol Hill, and Nob Hill, and Beacon Hill in
Boston. Now it is a big issue.
I think we should capitalize on the fact that it has got
people's attention and somehow put together a drug demand
reduction strategy that works and can reduce the number of
people using drugs. That is what I think.
Mr. Katko. Right. I appreciate it. My time is up. But
briefly, by strengthening the Southern Border will that help
prevent some of the drugs from coming across?
Secretary Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Katko. Thank you. I have more questions, but my time is
up so I will have to submit it to you in writing.
Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Vela.
Mr. Vela. Thank you.
Secretary Kelly, is President Trump's promise to build a
2,000-mile, big, beautiful wall that will cost $14 billion and
paid for by Mexico a viable option?
Secretary Kelly. The President, Congressman, has tasked me
to take a look at what we need on the Southwest Border and come
up with recommendations to him. Yes, there are many, many
places that we need some type of physical barrier right now
backed up by men and women of Border Protection. There are
other places where we need physical barrier, if we can afford
it, in given time.
But yes, I--there is no doubt in my mind that a physical
barrier, backed up by men and women using technology, working
with local law enforcement at the State and local level will go
a long way to securing the Southwest Border.
Mr. Vela. But building the 2,000-mile wall that was
promised during the election is not the best way to achieve
border security. Wouldn't you agree?
Secretary Kelly. I wouldn't agree with that at all, no.
I mean, it is a layered defense that starts with drug
demand reduction. It continues with helping particularly the
Central American countries socially and economically. That for
sure will stop the movement--some of the movement of illegal
aliens.
For sure an immigration system that doesn't take 2, 3, 4
years to return people, this will deter people coming up from
the Central American countries, most of whom are good people. I
don't criticize them at all for wanting to come to the United
States.
So there is no one single solution, but for sure, in my
opinion, barriers and patrolling of the Southwest Border is a
big part of it.
Mr. Vela. Now, some of these things I think that we would
be able to agree on, but I forcefully reject the idea of
building a wall along the Southern Border. The fact is that
Mexico is an ally. It is our third-largest trading partner, our
second-largest export market. When you consider the
relationship that we have with the country of Mexico that is
right on our border and compare it to that of Russia, the idea
that we would build a wall along that border doesn't make any
sense to me.
But what I would like to talk to you about is the----
Secretary Kelly. Could I just ask----
Mr. Vela. Of course.
Secretary Kelly [continuing]. If 100 percent of the heroin,
methamphetamines, and cocaine are coming in through the
Southwest Border, and hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens
are coming up through the Southwest Border, and billions of
dollars' worth of counterfeit goods are trafficked up through--
you know, watches and electronics and things like that--are
coming up through the Southwest Border, I mean, I think that
argues for--that we do something on the Southwest Border.
Again, the people that work the problem every day, CBP, are
telling me--us, as--you all, as elected officials--that we need
a combination of barriers, technology.
I don't see any other option. I mean, it is a gaping wound
in our defenses; drugs, people, the whole bit. So we have got
to do something down there and I don't get your point about----
Mr. Vela. No, I agree that we have to do something.
Secretary Kelly. OK.
Mr. Vela. What I am saying is--and let me ask you this: Has
somebody at CBP told you that we need a 2,000-mile wall built
along that border?
Secretary Kelly. The people at CBP that work the sectors
don't know about--like, if you go down to McAllen, Texas where
I was they don't know what they need in Arizona. They don't
even know what they need at the Big Bend of Texas. But they
say, ``Boss right here I need fence so I can control the flow
of people and drugs.''
But I would argue that we should look at the entire border
and where it makes sense--and it may make sense to do it for
2,000 miles--actually for 1,300 miles since there is already
600 miles of fence there--but to do it either--either to fill
it in or to--maybe there are some places that are too rugged to
put a wall and we cover that with patrolling and technology.
But the people that work the border will tell you that physical
barriers, and backed up by men and women on patrol, is what we
need to secure the Southwest Border.
Mr. Vela. I agree we have to do something, but what I am
saying is--what I am asking is has anybody at CBP suggested
that we should spend $14 billion to build a 2,000-mile wall
along the Southern Border?
Secretary Kelly. The people at CBP will tell you that we
need physical barriers backed up by people and technology.
Again, the people that look at it holistically at the
headquarters level will tell you, ``Yes, we need a physical
barrier.'' The people locally, though--and that is really more
importantly to me--they can tell you exactly where they want
10, 12, 15 miles tomorrow, and then 50 miles the next day, and
then 100 miles. That is more important input to me than
anything.
Mr. Vela. Well, we are going to run out of time, and I
appreciate some of your comments today and earlier in your
Senate testimony with respect to the socioeconomic conditions
in Central America and what we have to do to address that, and
am particularly appreciative of your comments with respect to
our country's tendency over the past few decades to ignore the
issue of demand, and I look forward to working with you on
those things.
But just real quickly, to talk about the terrorist threat,
wouldn't you agree that the threat of terrorists entering this
country is a threat that exists at our international airports
from Boston, New York, Washington, Miami, Chicago, San
Francisco, Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles; at our sea ports along
the Gulf Coast, Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, right; and at
our Southern and Northern Border, correct?
What I am wondering is if we obsess ourselves only with the
Southern Border, are we not missing the boat?
Secretary Kelly. Well, we are not obsessing ourselves. I
mean, the immediate and the gaping wound, or the largest
opening and the most uncontrolled part of our border is the
Southwest Border.
As far as our airports go, where people come here, as they
say, you know, almost a million people a day come into our
country; most of them are foreigners. But we do a real good job
at the airports. A real good job at the airports.
Our Northern Border, the good news with our Northern Border
is Canada is an unbelievable partner and we don't get much in
the--I mean, there is some, but there is not much that flows in
from Canada.
So I think you have to, you know, look at--never forgetting
Canada, never forgetting the seaports, never forgetting the
airports, but right now we have a completely exposed flank
called the Southwest Border. There is no doubt we have to do a
lot of different things there. It starts 1,500 miles south of
the Southwest Border. Certainly the Mexicans are important, but
we have to look at the immediate problem, and the immediate
problem is the Southwest Border.
Mr. Vela. I have got more questions but I am out of time.
Thank you, Secretary Kelly.
Chairman McCaul. Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hurd, is
recognized.
Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, it is great to have you here.
I think most of the people on this dais would probably
agree that we live in a world that is probably more dangerous
than our parents, and our children are probably going to
inherit a world that is more dangerous than ours. I am glad you
willing to continue your public service because I think you are
the right man for the job and you have the right perspective.
My concern is that I feel like we need to stop talking
about getting in the wall-making business and get in the border
security business. Your concept of defense-in-depth I think is
the right place to be.
Now, we talk about physical borders, and I have 820 miles
of the border with Mexico. I have more border than any Member
of Congress. We have talked a lot about physical barriers, and
we are going to see if this works.
Can you advance to the first slide?
Mr. Secretary, you have the pictures. The first picture is
Amistad Lake and Amistad National Recreation Area. Would this
be considered a physical barrier? Can we advance to the next
slide to show where the actual international border--the
international boundary is?
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Secretary Kelly. In my view, that is a physical barrier so
long--it is a physical barrier. But it is easily crossed unless
we patrol it.
Mr. Hurd. Absolutely. Patrolling it, technology, making
sure we know. But building a wall in the middle of Lake
Amistad--lake--I guess it wouldn't be a wall; it would be
another dam--is probably not the right--is a misuse of funds.
Because I would like for the money that would potentially
go to building a wall in the middle of a lake go to hiring more
people, to helping with National security collection in Mexico,
to give your folks additional intelligence to stop the problem
before it gets to our border.
Director McCraw--he is the director of the Texas Department
of Public Safety; he is going to be testifying in the next
panel--in his written statement said the border is best secured
at the border, and forfeiting territory to cartels is not
acceptable. I would say even working with our partners to stop
it from happening is important.
Can we advance to the next slide?
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hurd. This next one is the Pecos River, and it flows
into the Rio Grande. This is about 10 miles west of Comstock in
Val Verde County. The perspective is hard to see, but again,
there are cliffs on both sides. Would this be considered an
additional physical barrier?
Secretary Kelly. That is a physical barrier to movement,
yes, Congressman.
Mr. Hurd. Thank you.
I think we have one more picture.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hurd. One of my favorite places in the 23d District of
Texas, the Santa Elena Canyon in Big Bend National Park. It is
south of Terlingua, and I think you can tell--again, can we
show where the international boundary is? That looks like two
or three physical barriers along the international boundary.
Would you agree with that, Secretary?
Secretary Kelly. That is a physical barrier to movement.
Mr. Hurd. Would there be any value of building a wall
somewhere in that----
Secretary Kelly. Well, not to be cute, but I think I would
like to talk to the people that patrol that region. It clearly
won't be down the middle of a river, but they may tell me that
there is, you know, the flow of individuals that move through
all of those pictures, that there may be need for some physical
barrier, so----
Mr. Hurd. Sure.
Secretary Kelly. As we discussed yesterday on the phone, I
look forward to getting down there, taking a look, kicking the
tires, and talking to people.
Mr. Hurd. I would love to take you down there. One of the
things that they are going to tell you is they need horses in
this part in order to do pursuits. I don't think you may--I
don't think the folks in San Diego sector are going to be
asking for horses.
Secretary Kelly. You know, it was amazing to me. I actually
own now 4,200 horses.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Kelly. As a city guy I wouldn't know how to even
begin. But if they need horses there and that is what they
need, then we will look at that for sure.
Mr. Hurd. Good copy.
Well, Secretary, looking forward to working with you
because, again, this is an important issue for all of us. I
think you are the right person for the job.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. Mrs. Watson Coleman, from New Jersey.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations, again. I am delighted to have an
opportunity to talk to you.
I have got a gazillion questions. I am going to ask them as
quickly as I can, and I am going to ask if you will respond to
them as quickly.
I want to start with this. I think this is very telling:
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of
Muslims entering the United States ``until our country's
representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.''
That is a quote.
Now, Mr. Secretary, are we to take the President at his
word? This is the sentiment that apparently drove this. So how
can you say this is not a ban on Muslims when that is precisely
what he promised?
Secretary Kelly. Well, as the guy that is implementing the
travel pause on the seven countries, I can tell you it is not
being done for--because they are Muslim countries, but because
they are countries that we don't trust their vetting or their
information.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Well, thank you. I can understand your
needing to say that, as well.
Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent for the
current refugee screening process, which has been stated by
National security professionals as one of the most stringent in
the world, to be entered into the record.
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
Refugees Entering the U.S. Already Face a Rigorous Vetting Process
New York Times, January 29, 2017
By Haeyoun Park and Larry Buchanan
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-
process.html
President Trump has suspended entry of all refugees to the United
States for 120 days, and he has barred Syrian refugees indefinitely.
The current screening process for all refugees involves many layers of
security checks before entry into the country, and Syrians were subject
to an additional layer of checks. Sometimes, the process, shown below,
takes up to two years.
1. Registration with the United Nations.
2. Interview with the United Nations.
3. Refugee status granted by the United Nations.
4. Referral for resettlement in the United States.
The United Nations decides if the person fits the definition of a
refugee and whether to refer the person to the United States or to
another country for resettlement. Only the most vulnerable are
referred, accounting for less than than 1 percent of refugees
worldwide. Some people spend years waiting in refugee camps.
5. Interview with State Department contractors.
6. First background check.
7. Higher-level background check for some.
8. Another background check.
The refugee's name is run through law enforcement and intelligence
databases for terrorist or criminal history. Some go through a higher-
level clearance before they can continue. A third background check was
introduced in 2008 for Iraqis but has since been expanded to all
refugees ages 14 to 65.
9. First fingerprint screening; photo taken.
10. Second fingerprint screening.
11. Third fingerprint screening.
The refugee's fingerprints are screened against F.B.I. and Homeland
Security databases, which contain watch list information and past
immigration encounters, including if the refugee previously applied for
a visa at a United States embassy. Fingerprints are also checked
against those collected by the Defense Department during operations in
Iraq.
12. Case reviewed at United States immigration headquarters.
13. Some cases referred for additional review.
Syrian applicants must undergo these two additional steps. Each is
reviewed by a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
refugee specialist. Cases with ``national security indicators'' are
given to the Homeland Security Department's fraud detection unit.
14. Extensive, in-person interview with Homeland Security officer.
Most of the interviews with Syrians have been done in Jordan and
Turkey.
15. Homeland Security approval is required.
16. Screening for contagious diseases.
17. Cultural orientation class.
18. Matched with an American resettlement agency.
19. Multi-agency security check before leaving for the United
States.
Because of the long amount of time between the initial screening
and departure, officials conduct a final check before the refugee
leaves for the United States.
20. Final security check at an American airport.
Sources: State Department; Department of Homeland Security; Center for
American Progress; U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants; Refugee
Council USA
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you very much.
I am very concerned about the ban on the refugees. That is
very concerning to me.
Mr. Payne mentioned to you the fact that there were a
number of countries in which we were calculating the number of
people who have been killed in this country from those
countries: Iran, zero; Iraq, zero; Libya, zero; Somalia, zero;
Sudan, zero; Syria, zero; Yemen, zero. Are they included in
this Muslim ban? Yes.
Saudi Arabia, 2,369; United Arab Emirates, 314; Egypt, 162;
Lebanon, 159. Are any of these countries included in this ban?
No.
One of the questions that was asked of you earlier was why
wouldn't some place like Saudi Arabia be included in this ban,
and you answered somewhat to the effect, ``Well, that happened
such a long time ago.''
So I guess my question to you, if we aren't going to
include a country in which there was this heinous genesis of
activity even 10 years ago or so, why would we include
countries from which there is no evidence that there has ever
been any killing in this country under those circumstances?
That makes no--that doesn't sound logical.
Secretary Kelly. I don't think I said that doesn't count
because it was so many years ago, but if that is how you took
it let me clarify and say that pre-9/11 we did things
differently than we do post-9/11, so we have tightened up even
more.
Now, one of the things we have confidence in with, say that
using the Saudis as an example, as when there is a Saudi
citizen with a passport we can query or we can work with the
Saudis to say, you know, ``Is this your citizen?''
``Yes, he has got one of our passports.''
What is the degree of reliability that you can give us
through your police records, intel records, that this
individual is not----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Kelly. So you don't want the answer?
Mrs. Watson Coleman. That would suggest that we would trust
that country.
So I want to move on because I want to talk about the
refugee process a little bit.
The refugee process, or the whole vetting process, is
really quite extensive. But the vetting process that involves
refugees coming from Syria is even more layered. After they go
through the regular vetting process, they have got to go
through additional checks and balances.
The majority of the people that have been coming from Syria
who are seeking refuge in this country were old, ill, children,
and women. So why are we compelled to think that there was a
need to put a pause on letting those individuals, who were not
any threat to this country, none whatsoever?
What is the logic on putting a pause to their coming into
this United States after years of vetting and even going
through the United Nations? That just seems harmful, and
hurtful, and mean, and un-American. So I would like you to just
respond to that.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Kelly. Sure. The logic is, the pause is put in
place so we can evaluate the vetting process that these various
groups go through and determine whether that is sufficient for
me to recommend to the President that we change what the E.O.
requires.
I don't think a pause puts any, you know, real hardship on
people who are--have already, in many cases, been waiting a
year or 2 to come. But at the end of the day, we need to be
sure.
Frankly, I love the United Nations, but I trust my own
people to determine whether the vetting is sufficient. As
terrible as the conditions are in Syria, there is really almost
no way to truly vet them in terms of records keeping and things
like that. So, we will work through it.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. I appreciate that----
Secretary Kelly. But it is only--it is a pause, and we will
work with them.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I really
appreciate that.
You keep referring to ``your people,'' and you are brand
new so I am not sure if you are saying that your people are the
people that have been there, the careers that have been at DHS,
or if you are speaking about a whole bunch of new people that
you are bringing in that you are referring to your people.
But whatever people they are, I would like for them to
refer to the refugees entering the U.S. already facing a very,
very thorough vetting process. Nothing is perfect. We can
always make a mistake; we can always miss something. But let us
not ignore the good work that has been done previously.
I thank you.
With that, I yield back.
Secretary Kelly. When I refer to ``my people,'' the quarter
of a million people that are in DHS are my people. I brought no
people into the organization since being Secretary. Right now
we are relying overwhelmingly on the career people because, of
course, the political--with the exception of myself, really,
the political appointees will take months and months and months
to get through the confirmation process.
Chairman McCaul. Chair recognizes Ms. McSally, from
Arizona.
Ms. McSally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have received a statement from CBP officers
union on their concerns regarding staffing at our points of
entry and efforts to support this. I ask unanimous consent it
be included in the record?
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
Statement of Anthony M. Reardon, President, National Treasury Employees
Union
February 7, 2017
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, distinguished Members of
the committee; Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
As president of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), I have
the honor of leading a union that represents over 25,000 Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) officers and trade enforcement specialists
stationed at 328 land, sea, and air ports of entry across the United
States and 16 Preclearance stations currently at Ireland, the
Caribbean, Canada, and United Arab Emirates airports.
NTEU's CBP members are very concerned about lack of adequate
staffing at the ports of entry. The most recent results of CBP's
Workload Staffing Model--factoring in the additional 2,000 CBP officers
funded in fiscal year 2014 appropriations, but not yet fully-hired--
shows a need for an additional 2,107 CBP officers through fiscal year
2017. The Agriculture Resource Allocation Model (AgRAM) calculates a
need for an additional 631 CBP agriculture specialists for a total of
3,045. There is no greater roadblock to legitimate trade and travel
efficiency than the lack of sufficient staff at the ports. Understaffed
ports lead to long delays in commercial lanes as cargo waits to enter
U.S. commerce and also creates a significant hardship for CBP
employees.
It is not yet known which CBP positions will be exempt from the
freeze on the hiring of Federal civilian employees as directed by the
President on January 23, 2017. NTEU strongly supports exempting all CBP
operational positions from the President's hiring freeze under the
public safety exemption. CBP operational positions include not just CBP
officers, but also other uniformed and non-uniformed CBP employees that
perform public safety work, such as CBP Agriculture Specialists that
prevent plant and animal pests and diseases that could harm U.S.
agriculture and CBP trade operations specialists that prevent illegal
and dangerous counterfeit products from entering U.S. commerce.
Also, NTEU continues to have concerns about the slow pace of hiring
at CBP. Despite appropriated funding for the hiring of 2,000 additional
CBP officers, CBP has realized a net gain of less than 900 officers as
of January 2017, due to attrition and the amount of time it takes to
bring on new CBP officers.
cbp officer hiring challenges
As you know, CBP has struggled to fill the initial 2,000 positons
Congress authorized in 2014. One factor that may be hindering hiring is
that CBP is not utilizing available pay flexibilities, such as
recruitment awards and special salary rates, to incentivize new and
existing CBP officers to seek vacant positions at these hard to fill
ports, such as Nogales.
Another major impediment to fulfilling CBP's hiring goal is that
CBP is the only Federal agency with a Congressional mandate that all
front-line officers receive a polygraph test. Two out of three
applicants fail its polygraph--about 65 percent--more than double the
average rate of eight law enforcement agencies according to data
provided to the Associated Press. The eight law enforcement agencies
that supplied information showed an average failure rate of 28 percent.
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration failed 36 percent of
applicants in the past 2 years.
NTEU commends Subcommittee Chair McSally's work last year to enact
legislation and to include a provision in the Defense authorization
bill that authorizes the CBP Commissioner to waive polygraph
examination requirements for certain veterans applying for CBP job
openings.
NTEU does not seek to reduce the standards used by CBP in their
hiring process, but believe that there may be a problem with how the
polygraph is currently administered and asks for CBP to review its
current polygraph policy to understand why CBP is failing applicants at
a much higher rate than individuals applying to work at other Federal
law enforcement agencies.
Not only is CBP not meeting its current staffing targets for
Federally-funded CBP positions, CBP's Workload Staff Model calls for
Congress to fund the hiring of an additional 2,100 CBP officers. Both
CBP and Congress must act to address significant delays in the current
hiring process to meet both current and future hiring targets.
Lastly, the best recruiters are likely current CBP officers.
Unfortunately, morale continues to suffer because of staffing
shortages. In addition to being overworked due to excessive overtime
requirements, temporary duty assignments are a major drag on employees,
especially those with families. Based on their experiences, many
officers are reluctant to encourage their family members or friends to
seek employment with CBP. I have suggested to CBP leadership that they
look at why this is the case.
temporary duty assignments at southwest land ports of entry
Due to CBP's on-going hiring delays, CBP has been diverting CBP
officers from other air, sea, and land ports to the severely short-
staffed Southwest land ports. Since 2015, CBP has diverted officers
from their assigned ports to San Ysidro and more recently to Nogales
POEs for 90-day temporary duty assignments (TDYs.) In November 2016,
CBP issued an updated TDY solicitation that directs 14 CBP Field
Offices to provide 200 CBP officers for TDYs to the San Diego and
Tucson Field Office. For example, in this solicitation, CBP directed
the New York Field Office to send 12 CBP officers to the San Diego
Field and 13 CBP officers to the Tucson Field Office from January 9
through April 7, 2017.
NTEU suggests Congress should ask that CBP supplement the TDY
solicitation to include the following suggestions:
The size of the TDY pool should be immediately increased by
including non-bargaining unit personnel such as qualified
Headquarters staff, supervisors, and other employees on special
teams such as Tactical Terrorism Response Team and the
Strategic Response Team, and by including all officers who have
graduated from Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and who
have received a sufficient amount of post-academy training;
CBP should schedule TDYs in such a way that the supplemental
staffing through TDYs remains constant, so there is not a gap
between the departure of one round of TDYs and the arrival of
the next;
CBP should establish an advertised cash award for
individuals who volunteer for a TDY and should offer available
incentives such as student loan repayments, overtime cap
waivers, and home leave;
A surplus of volunteers for a TDY from one Field Office
should be allowed to make up for a shortage of volunteers in
another Field Office; and
Approved leave should continue to be allowed during a TDY.
diversion of customs user fees
Because of the on-going staffing shortage, CBP Officers' funding
streams cannot be compromised. In addition to appropriated funding, CBP
collects customs user fees which include fees authorized by the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) to
recover certain costs incurred for processing, among other things, air
and sea passengers, and various private and commercial land, sea, air,
and rail carriers and shipments. The source of these user fees are
commercial vessels, commercial vehicles, rail cars, private aircraft,
private vessels, air passengers, sea passengers, cruise vessel
passengers, dutiable mail, customs brokers, and barge/bulk carriers.
COBRA fees are deposited into the Customs User Fee Account and are
designated by statute to pay for services provided to the user, such as
100% of inspectional overtime for passenger and commercial vehicle
inspection during overtime shift hours. Of the 23,775 CBP officers
currently funded, customs user fees fund 2,859 full-time equivalent CBP
officers.
In addition to the on-going staffing shortage of over 1,100 CBP
officers funded positions, CBP estimates that it would need an
additional 2,107 CBP officers, over and above the 2,000 officers funded
in fiscal year 2014, through fiscal year 2017 to meet optimal staffing.
CBP proposes to pay for these additional officers with a $2 increase in
both the immigration and customs user fees. NTEU reiterates that any
increases to the Customs User Fee Account should be properly used for
much-needed CBP staffing and not diverted to unrelated projects and
should not result in any reduction in CBP-appropriated funding.
In 2015, the highway bill enacted into law, indexed customs user
fees to inflation, but diverted this increase in fees to pay for
infrastructure projects and not to CBP officer pay and staffing, as
intended. Indexing customs user fees to inflation raises $1.4 billion
over 10 years creating a $140 million per-year funding stream that
could have helped pay for the hiring of additional CBP officers to
perform CBP's National security, law enforcement, and trade and travel
facilitation missions.
By diverting this fee, $140 million a year in additional customs
user fees are being collected, but CBP is not receiving one additional
dime to fund much-needed new CBP officer personnel needed to provide
inspection and enforcement services to the users of these services.
On February 1, 2017, Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE) introduced a bill
that diverts the first $21.4 million of customs user fees collected to
the Highway Trust Fund beginning in 2020. NTEU strongly opposes any
attempts by Congress to raid customs user fees to pay for
infrastructure projects.
If Congress is serious about border security, wait times,
international trade and travel enforcement, and job creation, Congress
must reject any further attempts to divert custom user fees to fund
other programs and restore the use of the fees collected from indexing
to inflation to their original purpose.
agriculture specialist staffing
CBP employees also perform critically important agriculture
inspections to prevent the entry of animal and plant pests or diseases
at ports of entry. For years, NTEU has championed the CBP agriculture
specialists' Agriculture Quality Inspection (AQI) mission within the
agency and has fought for increased staffing to fulfill that mission.
The U.S. agriculture sector is a crucial component of the American
economy generating over $1 trillion in annual economic activity.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, foreign pests and
diseases cost the American economy tens of billions of dollars
annually. NTEU believes that staffing shortages and lack of mission
priority for the critical work performed by CBP agriculture specialists
and CBP technicians assigned to the ports is a continuing threat to the
U.S. economy.
NTEU worked with Congress to include in the recent CBP Trade
Facilitation and Enforcement Act (Pub. L. 114-125) a provision that
requires CBP to submit, by the end of February 2017, a plan to create
an agricultural specialist career track that includes a ``description
of education, training, experience, and assignments necessary for
career progression as an agricultural specialist; recruitment and
retention goals for agricultural specialists, including a timeline for
fulfilling staffing deficits identified in agricultural resource
allocation models; and, an assessment of equipment and other resources
needed to support agricultural specialists.''
CBP's fiscal year 2016 AgRAM, shows a need for an additional 631
front-line CBP agriculture specialists and supervisors to address
current workloads through fiscal year 2017, however, even with the 2016
increase in AQI user fees, CBP will fund a total of 2,414 CBP
agriculture specialist positions in fiscal year 2017, not the 3,045
called for by the AgRAM.
Because of CBP's key mission to protect the Nation's agriculture
from pests and disease, NTEU urges the committee to exempt CBP
agriculture specialist positions from the hiring freeze and authorize
the hiring of these 631 CBP agriculture specialists to address this
critical staffing shortage that threatens the U.S. agriculture sector.
recommendations
To address the dire staffing situation at the Southwest land ports,
as well as other staffing shortages around the country, it is clearly
in the Nation's interest for Congress to insist that all CBP
operational employees be exempt from the hiring freeze. Congress should
also authorize and fund an increase in the number of CBP officers and
other CBP employees as stipulated in CBP's Workload Staffing Model.
Over the years, NTEU has worked with Congress on a variety of
proposals that would increase CBP's funding to support additional
personnel, as well as to address other hiring challenges that create
barriers to adding staff in a timely and efficient manner. For
instance, we are hopeful that NTEU supported legislation that will
allow recent military personnel to be hired as CBP officers without
undergoing a polygraph will result in an increase in new hires.
However, in addition to our longer-term goals of securing the
proper staffing at CBP to address workloads, NTEU recommends that
Congress call for a series of immediate steps that CBP should take to
alleviate the immediate burdens being placed on CBP officers at the
Southwest land ports of entry:
CBP should consider re-hiring recently-retired CBP officers
(so-called reemployed annuitants) who could be brought on board
quickly without the need for extensive new training or
background checks.
An immediate review should be undertaken of CBP's current
polygraph policy to understand why CBP is failing applicants at
a much higher rate than individuals applying to work at other
Federal law enforcement agencies; and
Immediate polygraph re-testing opportunities should be
afforded to those with a No Opinion or Inconclusive result,
including those with a No Opinion Counter Measures finding.
Lastly, NTEU recommends that Congress pursue additional funding
when considering funding for the final months of fiscal year 2017 and
in the fiscal year 2018 CBP funding bill to address the staffing and
overtime funding shortages facing the ports of entry. The current
demand for staffing at the Southwest land ports is causing CBP to burn
through its overtime budget at a much higher than anticipated rate,
which could result in extensive staffing shortages at large volume
ports of entry Nation-wide during the peak travel season this summer.
Congress should also redirect the recently-enacted increase in
customs user fees from offsetting transportation spending to its
original purpose of providing funding for CBP officer staffing and
overtime and oppose any legislation to divert the fees collected to
other uses or projects.
The more than 25,000 CBP employees represented by NTEU are proud of
their part in keeping our country free from terrorism, our
neighborhoods safe from drugs, and our economy safe from illegal trade,
while ensuring that legal trade and travelers move expeditiously
through our air, sea, and land ports, but those working at the
Southwest Border ports of entry especially need relief. These men and
women are deserving of more staffing and resources to perform their
jobs better and more efficiently.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony to the
committee on their behalf.
Ms. McSally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Kelly.
I represent southern Arizona, about 80 miles of the border,
and we look forward to hosting you in our--the Tucson sector
later this week. I am also the Border Security Subcommittee
Chair on this committee.
I would talk about our frustrations of border residents,
ranchers, and Border Patrol agents, and myself in my role as
someone who represents this community and chairs the
subcommittee, in four areas.
The first is the measurement of border security. The way
that DHS has measured border security in the past has not been
useful. The denominator is not included in the numerator of
apprehensions or people that have turned themselves in.
Last year in a hearing I got Chief Vitiello to admit that--
when I asked him as fighter pilot, I think in simple terms,
``What percent of the 2,000-mile border do you have situational
awareness of? If something is breached, you see it.''
The answer was 56 percent.
So the first frustration is how we measure effectiveness,
and I would like to hear your thoughts on that and adjusting
that.
The second one is, in rural areas like ours defense-in-
depth, where we cede territory to the cartels. So we have
individuals that are--when we are saying we have hours to days,
we have families, ranchers, and others that are--this is a
public safety threat. Transnational criminal organizations
trafficking through our communities, creating a public safety
threat.
So this idea that we have, you know, days--or hours to days
to intercept them in this defense-in-depth, it doesn't work for
a community like ours. Also the fixed checkpoints, which we
have really not got good answers as to whether they are
effective or not, which are impacting people going about their
daily business and commerce.
But this is all part of the defense-in-depth, so that is
another significant frustration that you will see.
Then the last thing is the percentage of Border Patrol
agents that are actually patrolling at the border, versus doing
other queep and additional duties or other issues further away
from the border.
So these are really the four things. I would just like some
of your thoughts on measuring effectiveness, this whole ceding
territory issue, fixed checkpoints, and then percentage of the
agents that are actually on the line.
Secretary Kelly. I have got to tell you that is why I am
going down to Tucson, to find out about these very things. The
defense-in-depth, in my mind, at least the way I think of it,
is--it is more going south--Mexico, Central America, Colombia.
If----
Ms. McSally. Not what it is right now.
Secretary Kelly. Right. If they get in--if the border is
penetrated, we have lost. For the most part, we have lost.
Ms. McSally. Right.
Secretary Kelly. So I am thinking it the other way, in
terms of working with partners to the south and taking care of
the issues. I won't go into it again about the socioeconomic
conditions in the Central.
I don't know how we--to be honest with you--I have heard a
number of times from members and others. I don't know what the
metrics are.
So going forward, as we look at a physical barrier and some
of the other things we are looking at, I have asked the staff,
``Tell me how we measure success or failure.''
I mean, I suspect it has a lot to do with--not I suspect.
They can tell me--us--how many people they have stopped, but,
you know, how many people got through? Tell me what the metrics
are here. So I am with you on----
Ms. McSally. But you don't know who you didn't see----
Secretary Kelly. I know. Exactly. Exactly.
Ms. McSally [continuing]. Is the point, right? So our view
is--and again we have got legislation on this--the percent that
we have situational awareness of, and then percent we have
operational control of, where we can actually intercept it. I
mean we look forward to working with you later on this.
Secretary Kelly. We will work to that. Yes, we will work--
--
Ms. McSally. The current effective numbers don't work.
Secretary Kelly. Got it.
Ms. McSally. Then back to the defense-in-depth. Right now
the strategy is fixed checkpoints that make cartels go around
the checkpoints into our communities, while you catch Darwin-
award winning low-level criminals going through known fixed
checkpoints. It doesn't work. Do you have any comments on that?
Secretary Kelly. Again, going down there to talk to the
people on the line that--to include, you know, hopefully
ranchers and people like that. I mean, I have already been in
contact with a couple.
Ms. McSally. Great.
Secretary Kelly. Every bit, as you know--you know, McAllen
is different than Tucson, which is different----
Ms. McSally. Right.
Secretary Kelly. So I think the solution is different in
every place, but I do believe it starts trying to prevent the
border from being penetrated. As I say, after that we have
lost.
Ms. McSally. Do you have any comments on kind of the level
of effort Border Patrol agents actually reporting to patrol of
the border, versus doing other duties?
Secretary Kelly. It has been brought up to me, and folks
are looking into it to satisfy me that there are--this is a
common theme. They are involved in things that aren't really
Border Patrol. So I am going to get--I am going to find out
what those things are, and then if they can be done by someone
else so that we can maximize the number of people----
Ms. McSally. Look forward to working with you on all these
issues and visiting with you end of the week.
Secretary Kelly. Sure.
Ms. McSally. Thanks.
I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Miss Rice from New York is recognized.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your service to our country
and your willingness to take on this very profound and
important role.
It was reported over the weekend that President Trump's
chief political strategist, Steven Bannon, told you not to
issue a waiver exempting green card holders from the travel
ban. Some of the details of that report has since been called
into question; others have been denied by the White House.
But I figure since I have you in front of me I would just
ask you directly. Did that happen? Did that conversation take
place?
Secretary Kelly. You know, I read that article Saturday
morning and my--well, I would tell you that every paragraph,
every sentence, every word, every space, every comma, every
period was wrong. It was a fantasy story. And my concern to my
public affairs people was, ``Look, this reporter, whoever he
is, got this so wrong that, assuming he is not making it up,
you gotta get to him and tell him whoever his sources are, are
playing him for a fool.'' I don't know if they did that, but it
is untrue.
Miss Rice. So Steve Bannon did not ask you not to issue the
waivers.
Secretary Kelly. The entire story is untrue.
Miss Rice. So do you have concerns about--just objectively
in your new role, do you have concerns about political
operatives trying to influence the work of the Department of
Homeland Security?
Secretary Kelly. No. I work for one man. His name is, you
know, Donald Trump, obviously.
He has told me, ``Kelly, secure the border,'' and that is
what I will do. I am mildly interested in what political people
think about that mission.
Miss Rice. Well, actually, you were chosen by him. You work
for us. You work for the American people, first and foremost.
Secretary Kelly. We all work for the----
Miss Rice. I am sure that is what you meant.
Secretary Kelly. We all work for the American people.
Miss Rice. As Secretary what are you doing to ensure that
your leadership--because clearly had you been involved in
creating this Executive Order you would have a pointed out the
issue with the visa holders and all of that. What are you doing
to make sure that this kind of a, if you want to call it a
roll-out or preparation of an Executive Order, if they are
going to continue in the future, that you have some input in
the area that you clearly have expertise in?
Secretary Kelly. I was involved tangentially in the writing
of it, so the point--the reporting that I never saw it, didn't
have anything to do with it, is untrue. We had a very small
number of people in homeland security working with the White
House as they developed it.
I think in retrospect, as I think I have heard and pointed
out a little earlier, but for sure have had discussions with
Members of Congress, both sides of the Hill, both sides of the
aisle, that a better way to have rolled that out--and we will
do this in the future--will be to engage more fully at least
the leadership of the House and Senate initially, and roll it;
and then immediately after, as we start to execute, meet with
additional Members of the House and the Senate.
So, yes, I mean, lesson learned, on me. I should have
slowed it down by a day, maybe two. Probably would not have put
it out, you know, exactly on a Friday the way we did. But I was
knowledgeable of the writing of it. I saw it twice Tuesday and
I think Thursday, knew full well it was going to be released on
a Friday.
So again, there is an awful lot of misreporting, and I will
assume that the members of press that got it wrong got it wrong
because they are relying on people who were giving them
information who didn't know.
Miss Rice. There is a lot to go on in terms of trying to
interpret the meaning behind the Executive Order. We have about
18 months of comments by candidate Donald Trump about his
desire to institute a ban on Muslims entering the country. His
language was unequivocal and very clear.
I understand now you are using the frame--the term
``temporary pause.'' But I think one of the reasons why it is
interpreted to be an outright ban is because it came--the
Executive Order did not speak to or suggest ways that the
vetting process, which we already know is one of the most
rigorous there is, could be made better. The Executive Order
was void of any suggestion on how that could be.
So as you sit here now and you talk about the need to--now
the desire is to make the vetting process better, what ways
would you recommend, since you were really left with nothing
other than an order that rightfully--my opinion, that is not
because--I am not saying this because I am a Democrat, but we
have a lot to go on in terms of interpreting the meaning behind
this, especially since the order was void of any suggestions?
Secretary Kelly. Well, first, I don't have to tell you that
there are a lot of things that are spoken about in campaigns
that once you get in the seat you--just like in my case, I
mean, sitting here in a job that I have never had before, I am
looking at life fairly, you know, differently. I thought we
could accomplish things coming into this job that I realize now
will be slower, or whatever.
So, again, he said what he said in the campaign. He has
tasked me to protect the Southwest Border, get control of it,
which I will, of course, do.
Miss Rice. Can I just stop, because there is one other
question I want to ask you. So I trust that you will bring to
us suggestions on how you will make the vetting process better.
Secretary Kelly. Right.
Miss Rice. OK. One other thing.
Yesterday President Trump suggested that the, ``very, very
dishonest press doesn't adequately report terrorist attacks.''
Do you believe that statement?
Secretary Kelly. I think the press gets--does the best
job--responsible press do the best job they can to get the
facts straight. But, of course, they will go with a story. It
is what they do. It is their job. They will go with the story
and the best information they have.
Much of the world is aflame today, and we know tremendous
amounts of things about what is going on but it is in the
Classified realm. That is not shared with the press.
Consequently, they do, I think, generally the best job they
can.
But in my mind, having worked with the press a great deal,
the most responsible press won't go with a story or will write
it in such a way that they will acknowledge that they don't
have the definitive information.
There are a lot of other questions you have asked me, but,
you know, again, Mr. Chairman, we are way over, I think.
Miss Rice. Well, you can't blame the press for not knowing
about Classified information that they are not privy to.
Secretary Kelly. Of course not.
Chairman McCaul. Gentlelady's time----
Miss Rice. But do you know what terrorist attacks--just
last--Mr. Chairman, please--what terrorist attacks President
Trump was referring to when he said that? Yes or no?
Secretary Kelly. I don't know which ones----
Miss Rice. OK.
Secretary Kelly [continuing]. Which ones he was referring
to
Miss Rice. Thank you very much.
Chairman McCaul. Gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ratcliffe, is recognized.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Kelly, welcome. Let me join others in saying that
I am very excited that President Trump selected someone with
your experience and leadership to take the reins at the
Department of Homeland Security and to implement his agenda for
safety and security for all Americans.
We have heard a lot about border security today, but the
folks that I represent in Texas have heard a lot of tough talk
for a long period of time with, frankly, little to show for it.
They have seen a border security bill that was enacted in 2006
but never implemented. So many have rightfully, I think, lost
faith in the Federal Government on this issue.
I will tell you that for me it is personal. As U.S.
attorney for the Eastern District of Texas I led an effort to
arrest over 300 illegal aliens in a single day who were
committing Social Security fraud and identity theft to steal
jobs from hardworking Americans.
My fear then is the same as it is today, that after
criminal aliens are deported from the United States, let's say
on a Tuesday, there is very little right now that stops them
from coming back across that imaginary, unsecured line on a
Wednesday.
The fears with respect to that are not hypothetical. Last
year I had to console my constituent, Courtney Hacking, when
her husband Peter, a fire captain, and their 4-year-old
daughter Ellie and their 2-year-old son Grayson, was killed by
an illegal alien that had been previously deported. So
heartbreaking and so real.
Unlike the fake tears of one of our Democratic colleagues
last week in calling for compassion for folks trying to come to
this country from terror hotspots, I think we need to finally
start showing compassion for people who are already here with
real border security.
So I am grateful. From everything that you have said today
it is very clear to me that we finally have an eager and
willing partner at the Department of Homeland Security to
fulfill the fundamental role of the Federal Government to
provide for the common defense.
Now, let me shift gears, Secretary Kelly.
Besides the threats coming across our physical borders
Americans, as you know, face grave threats every day that are
coming across our digital borders. I think you might agree with
me that that is, frankly, more difficult to defend. We can't
simply build a wall or erect some barrier to fix that problem.
Cybersecurity is, in my opinion, the National security
issue of our time because weak cyber defenses affect our
economy, they impact our critical infrastructure, and they
impact the integrity of Americans' most sensitive personal
information. So I think we need a sustained, strategic
attention to this issue.
I will tell you, Mr. Secretary, that I frankly don't envy
you in the role that you are stepping into here. As you have
learned, the Department of Homeland Security cyber mission is
immense under current law. You have got responsibility for
coordinating the operational security of our Federal systems,
and you are tasked with overseeing Federal efforts to
coordinate the protection of our critical infrastructure. That
is only part of your mission.
You are taking over an agency that has--while made great
strides in some respects, still suffers from credibility issue
with many Members in Congress and many members of the public.
So that is to say nothing of the broader policy issues. I
know that what I am relating to you is not news to you.
I want to take the opportunity here, as the chairman of
the--in your first House appearance, as Chairman of the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Subcommittee here in the
House, to tell you that our subcommittee is willing to pedal as
fast as you would like and are willing to tackle this critical
National security issue.
So I know you have only had a couple of weeks to settle in,
but I want to get a sense of how things look to you so far in
this respect. The biggest question, Secretary, that I am
getting from stakeholders--they keep asking me, and it is
something I am hoping you can shed some light on is, do you
anticipate the Department of Homeland Security maintaining the
role it is currently tasked with under the law, with respect to
maintaining the dot.gov domain?
Secretary Kelly. Yes, sir. On your last question I would
say yes.
That said, President Trump has ordered a kind-of--a
complete top-to-bottom relook on cyber. That will include, you
know, all stakeholders, and hopefully we are going to bring
in--and we have been successful, I think, already in bringing
in the private community.
Because, you know, the one thing--the thing about cyber
that a lot of people get--you certainly do, but others don't,
is that, you know, it knows no bounds, it knows no boundaries,
it knows no law, or it knows no, you know, regulations. We do.
Privacy issues, legal issues, all that kind of thing. So we
have to--the threat is changing faster than we are keeping up
with it.
The good news is, you know, in overseas we can do things to
protect ourselves as a Nation. I can't, but others do. I was a
beneficiary of a lot of that.
You know, I know what we can do to people overseas. We
obviously can't do that and should not do that internally to
the United States. But there is a way, I believe, to break down
a lot of the boundaries within the law, and particularly
working with our private partners because, you know, they have
got huge equities in it.
But again, I am very sensitive to this because I was one of
the 5 million or so Americans who had all of their information
stolen, and the best I got out of the Federal Government a
couple of years ago was, you know, ``General Kelly, all of your
data has been stolen with the OPM. Good luck.''
We have got to do better than that, and we will. So I look
forward to working with you, Congressman.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, again, I am so excited about your
appointment and grateful for the chance to work with you.
So with that, I will yield back.
Chairman McCaul. If I could just add----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul [continuing]. I think my clearances were
stolen, as well.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. If I could just say, as Chairman's
privilege, that I would hope this Executive Order coming down
on cyber is done in coordination with this committee. We have
passed a FISMA Reform and a Cyber Security Act, major landmark
cyber legislation.
I would hate to see any Executive Order come down that is
inconsistent with current law. I think it would cause a lot of
problems and a lot of consternation with the Members who have
worked so hard to get this done.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. I would like the witness to respond, if
that is OK.
Secretary Kelly. Absolutely, Chairman.
We are working with your staff, the White--your staff is
working with the White House--they have got it. There was a
kind of a draft E.O. that had been leaked some time ago--a week
or so ago.
I can tell you that the E.O. that is being contemplated is
vastly different than that. I don't know whose work that was,
but it did send shivers to a lot, my own organization included.
So we are working with the White House. We will work with
the Congress, of course, to make sure that going forward that
E.O. says the right things and gets at the right problems.
Chairman McCaul. We certainly--because we have through a
lot of--we don't want to relitigate old battles, and certainly
conforming with existing law I think is very important in this
task.
Chair recognizes----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, may I ask----
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady has no time. Would somebody
like to yield?
Ms. Jackson Lee. No, I am not asking a question. I am
asking unanimous consent to submit something into the record.
Chairman McCaul. Yes. What is it?
Ms. Jackson Lee. An article from the Houston Chronicle: In
the midst of the Muslim ban Feds detain Katie, a high school
student from Jordan, following President Trump's immigration
ban. The pictures that I held up. I ask unanimous consent, Mr.
Chair.
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
Feds Detain Katy High School Student From Jordan Following President
Trump's Immigration Ban
Houston Chronicle, Updated 10:38 am, Thursday, February 2, 2017
By Shelby Webb
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Feds-detain-
Katy-High-School-student-from-Jordan-10897205.php
A 16-year-old Jordanian visa holder, who attends Katy High School
west of Houston, has been detained by U.S. immigration officials for
more than three days following President Trump's controversial
immigration executive order, according to his brother and an attorney
representing the family.
Mohammad Abu Khadra, who lives in Katy with his brother Rami,
traveled to Jordan last week to renew his visa. When he flew into Bush
IAH airport Saturday, officials with U.S. Customs and Border Protection
detained him at the airport for about 48 hours. He was transferred to
an Office of Refugee Resettlement shelter in Chicago Monday, where he
remained as of Tuesday afternoon. The teen has no access to his cell
phone or to a computer, his brother said.
Mohammad is among dozens of visa holders and immigrants to be
detained at U.S. airports since Trump signed an executive order Friday
indefinitely barring all Syrian refugees from entering the United
States and suspending all refugee admissions for 120 days. It also
prohibits citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering
the United States for 90 days, whether they are refugees or not. Those
countries include Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Mohammad's native Jordan is not on the list, and Mohammad is not a
refugee.
The ACLU of Texas said it was the only case its knows of where a
minor has been detained for more than 24 hours since the executive
order was signed.
Mohammad and Rami's attorney, Ali Zakaria, said he is filing a
family reunification document with the shelter so the Office of Refugee
Resettlement can release him to his brother's custody in Texas. He said
he has not yet heard back from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
about why Mohammad was detained or how long his detention could last.
Zakaria estimated Mohammad could be in custody anywhere from two
weeks to two months. He did not know Mohammad's visa status or which
type of visa Mohammad tried to renew in Jordan.
``Obviously Mohammad's case is extraordinary,'' Zakaria said. ``For
a kid to be detained at an airport for 48 hours is unconscionable.''
Rami, a 37-year-old green card holder who has been in the United
States for five years, said he feels helpless.
``My country is not one of seven countries on the list,'' Rami
said. ``It's like because he's from the Middle East, he gets
detained.''
Rami said he hopes to hear from Mohammad Tuesday, but that his
little brother is only allowed to call once a week for 30 minutes.
Katy ISD would not comment on the situation, citing federal student
privacy laws that prevent them from sharing information about
individual students.
Mohammad is not the only minor to be detained by immigration
authorities at airports since the order was signed, but his detention
appears to be among the longest yet.
A 5-year-old was allegedly separated from his Iranian mother and
detained at Dulles International Airport outside of Washington, D.C.,
for more than four hours Saturday before the two were reunited. A
Somali woman and her two young children were detained at the same
airport for 18 hours due to the executive order.
Rami said he was able to visit Mohammad briefly at Bush IAH airport
Sunday after he was peppered with questions from immigration officials
curious about his relationships and his allegiances. He said his
brother was exhausted after a 16-hour flight from Jordan and spending
the night sleeping in an airport chair.
``He was very afraid,'' Rami said. ``Before I saw him, he was on a
flight for 15 or 16 hours, then was at the airport for 72 hours. He was
very tired and frustrated. When he took the flight to Chicago, he
called me, but he doesn't know anything. He doesn't know what's going
on.''
Zakaria said he spent the weekend volunteering with the ACLU and
working with other immigrants, visa holders, citizens and refugees at
IAH airport. He said after that work and speaking with colleagues
across the country, he's convinced immigration officials are not just
barring or delaying citizens from the seven countries listed on Trump's
executive order.
``It's a lot of Muslims from other countries, too,'' Zakaria said.
``I think Mohammad is a prime example. Jordan is not on the list, but
he's still enduring this treatment. People say it's not a Muslim ban,
but they need to look at the facts on the ground and not the spin
coming from the White House.''
Rami said his parents, who still live in Jordan, are inconsolable
over their son's detention. He wished the U.S. government would just
send Mohammad back to Jordan rather than have him languish in a
bureaucratic limbo.
``I'm trying to fly out to Chicago, trying to reach out people. I
just want to see him,'' Rami said. ``I'm trying very hard to just see
him or hear from him or anything. I need to see if he needs money or
anything.''
Zakaria said keeping Mohammad in detention does nothing to keep
Americans safe.
``It's OK to enforce the law, it's OK to be vigilant for terrorism,
but stopping a kid at an airport for days does not accomplish that
objective,'' Zakari said.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. Mr. Correa, from California, is
recognized.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Thompson, for holding this hearing today.
Secretary Kelly, I want to thank you for your service to
our great country. I know you and your family have made great
sacrifices for this country. For that I thank you, a debt we
can never repay to you and your family.
Just wanted to say all of us share the mutual goals of a
safe Nation, safe citizens, safe taxpayers. Before I discuss
border security I just want to tell you where I live.
I live in central Orange County: Anaheim, California,
Disneyland, happiest place on earth, which also, by the way, we
have a number of mosques in my community. I can tell you right
now that many of my neighbors, all those folks are good
American citizens, law-abiding citizens, and they are scared to
death. The way this immigration Executive Order was presented,
I believe, just backfired.
I have spent many hours, invested many time in going to
these communities and to tell them, ``Please work with the
authorities; make sure that we coordinate it. If you see
anything out there that is going wrong, let us know.''
Right now the Muslim community is very scared.
I also have four children in central Orange County. I am
very concerned about drugs. I am very concerned about their
well-being.
They go to school with a lot of kids whose parents are
undocumented, who the kids are also DACA kids. All good. They
have all been part of the California economic miracle.
California is now, I think, the sixth-largest economy in
the world, a couple of steps up. All those undocumented workers
have been part of that economic miracle in the State of
California.
You call it the gaping wound, sir. I respect that.
Want to address immigration? Let's do it with good public
policy.
Mexico, California's biggest trading partner. A lot of
business; a lot of work. These people take care of our
children, cook our food, provide a lot of services. Let's give
them green cards.
No. 2, in terms of the drugs, which is something that is
very concerning to me as a father. You know 20, 30 years ago
most of the drug trade, most of those heavy drugs came through
the Caribbean. We were so good as Americans in stopping that
drug trade through the Caribbean that we just redirected it
through an inland bridge called Mexico.
We destabilized Mexico. People in Mexico are scared to
death.
I went down there 2 months ago. They said, ``Don't go out
after 8 p.m. because your life will be in danger.''
The big gaping wound is our American drug demand for those
drugs; our American dollars being spent on those drugs. So soon
as we shut off the Mexican connection, will it be Canada next?
Given the numbers, probably.
Quick question to you, sir: Do you have a count of the
number of special interest people that have been apprehended
coming through Canada versus Mexico?
Secretary Kelly. I don't, Congressman. I can get that to
you.
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much.
A second question: As a State legislature in California I
dealt a lot with the Baja California folks. One of the biggest
concerns they had is when the Americans deported individuals,
opened the gate, let folks essentially physically walk across
the border, Mexican authorities had no idea if that was a
person that got caught for a traffic ticket or as a rapist or
murderer.
What is it going to take for us to coordinate with our
friends in the south to make sure we can keep track of these
bad hombres so they won't continue to do harm south of the
border or north of the border? I hope you come up with
something in that area, sir.
Secretary Kelly. Not familiar. But, I mean, if these are
Mexican citizens who are being deported----
Mr. Correa. Yes, sir.
Secretary Kelly [continuing]. For sure, unless it is not
legal--I am just trying to think of someone--for sure we should
alert the Mexican authorities as to what they have done beyond
being illegal aliens that we are deporting them.
Mr. Correa. General, and I look forward to working with you
on that issue. That is an issue I have been bringing up to ICE,
Homeland for a number of years.
My final question--I know I am running out of time--is, you
know, right now immigration from Mexico is going down. It is at
all-time lows.
Part of the reason is economic growth in Mexico. The middle
class is finally growing.
It is an old saying, when the United States sneezes Mexico
catches pneumonia, in terms of the economy. We are looking at
public policies today of taxing commerce with Mexico. You
finally have a growing economy south of the border. We are
creating jobs so folks can stay home, and we are messing with
tax policy. Any thoughts on, you know, advancing economic
growth in Mexico and tax policy?
Secretary Kelly. Same argument I would make when I talk
about Central America. If the countries to our south are better
off economically and socially then their people will rightly
stay home with their families and what-not. So I think it is
important to have, you know, a good economy in Mexico, Central
America, places like that.
If I could on a couple of your other points, on the
illegals and what-not, the DACA individuals, I would just ask
you. You know I have to--I have sworn to uphold the law, so I
have to uphold the law. I would just beg you, as a lawmaker, if
it is bad law, change the law so I can take that particular
issue off the plate.
I plead with you to change the law because I have to do
what you and people like you have told me to do within our
laws.
The demand reduction thing, you are spot-on, Congressman.
It is all about demand. If we stop the flow of drugs up through
Mexico and don't reduce demand for those drugs, they are going
to come up--they will come back up through the Caribbean into
Florida on the East Coast. If we stop that, they will come
another way.
They are mailing it now, particularly getting into Puerto
Rico and mailing it in. So we have got to reduce the demand and
we have to put together a comprehensive demand reduction policy
that goes everything from stopping the production of these
drugs in the south all the way up to rehabilitation of drug
addicts in the United States and everything in between.
But we know how to do this. We have done this before, to
affect people's behavior. It is not necessarily law
enforcement; it is just making sense to people to do the right
thing. We are never going to get to zero, but if we don't stop
the demand, shame on us.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Just one final
comment if I may, and that is that I will work my colleagues
here to change the laws as much as we can to reflect economic
reality, the way we did in California. Thank you very much.
Chairman McCaul. Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
York, Mr. Donovan.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I hope you don't get tired of hearing it
because myself and my colleagues have all thanked you for your
service to our country. We really do appreciate what you have
done and what you will do for us.
Secretary Kelly. I live for those comments.
Mr. Donovan. Well, glad we could accommodate.
I am the Chairman of a committee, of a subcommittee of this
committee, that deals with not only preparedness and response
to terrorist attacks, but also to natural disasters. Currently
we don't have a FEMA administrator. I was just wondering if we
can anticipate when you and the President will get to a point
where you will be nominating somebody as the FEMA
administrator. We have recently had disasters in Mississippi
and Georgia that we need some direction with.
Secretary Kelly. It is a great question. I mean, this
process of finding the right people, putting them in the job,
getting--if they have to go through confirmation, is--I now
know is a tedious one. But, you know, the really good news for
not only this group of men and women but for America is the
career public servants that are in the organization, the people
that have stepped up into those jobs--FEMA is an example--are
very, very capable people.
In case just in the 2 weeks I have been in the job we have
said yes to every single request that has come up through the
system in the right way. I don't mean to be bureaucratic. If
they are not coming up the right way we help them, you know, do
it, in terms of the requests for assistance.
I have signed off in record time for every one of them. I
have talked to the--like Mississippi, the Governor of
Mississippi, the Governor of Georgia, when they had such
terrible tornadoes. They were taken care of. We have said yes
to snowstorms up in the Dakotas, I think, certainly Oregon.
The fact that we don't have a political appointee has not
slowed down the business of homeland security, sir. But you are
right, we need to get going on that. But I don't know when. I
can't predict when we might have a political appointee in that
seat. But have no fear, because we have got a very, very, very
good career administrator.
Mr. Donovan. That is very assuring. Thank you, Secretary.
The other thing I would like to ask you, with another
Executive Order that the President administered. You know, I
live in New York City and we depend on Federal funding to
secure our city. Our State depends on State security grants.
The sanctuary city Executive Order may have some kind of
effect on our ability to access those grants. I was just
wondering if you are giving States and localities or at what
point you would give them some kind of guidance on how they
would be affected.
Secretary Kelly. Never say all. I would just offer that the
input I have received from chiefs of police around, you know--
this is more anecdotal, but the numbers are low, but sheriffs
and people like that are, ``Look, please don't penalize us for
the actions of our elected officials.'' They have to be loyal,
and I get that.
In my view, if we are giving grants to a police department
or a city specifically to help us in the execution of a, you
know, say, ISIS mission, and that is not being done, it would
seem to me it makes--there is no point in then giving grants to
the city to execute that.
We will do it--I will do it, in the grants that I control,
in a measured way so that the good work of police departments
all over the country, sheriff's departments all over the
country, are at least given a say in what we are about to do.
But again, if we are specifically giving grants for
cooperation for removal of illegal aliens and a given
department city is no longer doing that, it would--it seems
irresponsible for me to continue giving the money.
But it will be case-by-case and we will work very closely
with the homeland heroes of this country, and that is the
sheriff departments and the police departments all over the
country.
Mr. Donovan. I know you are well aware of how essential
localities are to protecting particularly a city like New York
City so----
Secretary Kelly. Absolutely.
Mr. Donovan [continuing]. I thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. Gentlelady from Florida, Mrs. Demings, is
recognized.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, as a former police chief I know how
important it is to hear every now and then ``thank you for your
service.''
As we all know, there can be an abundance of data available
to the public safety community. But we also know just how
important that data can be to helping public safety officials
make decisions that they really need to get right the first
time.
Data analytics continue to evolve, and new applications for
how to use data can often be a force multiplier for law
enforcement. I believe that ensuring the deployment of assets
and resources along the border is paramount to securing the
border. Data analytics, I believe, may be helpful in that
regard.
Secretary Kelly your predecessor, Secretary Johnson, made
joint operations and information sharing among DHS components
about Southwest Border threats a priority through the Southern
Border and Approaches Campaign.
Do you see an expanded role for data analytics to be used
to inform ICE, CBP, and the Coast Guard as they work together
on the Southern Border?
Secretary Kelly. You know, Congresswoman, I do. I think any
time we can expand cooperation with anyone that is kind of in
the same fight, has the same interest in terms of, in this
particular case, Southwest Border.
I had an interesting conversation the other day with the
President-CEO of IBM about data analytics. Within about 30
seconds of conversation, you know, kind-of my eyes rolled back
up into my head and--but she made some points about this topic
that my staff are now delving into.
But just some of her comments about useful and expansive
the reliance on--or useful the reliance on data analytics would
be. So to your point, yes.
My folks now, people that really understand the topic,
are--and I would really like to see certainly a partnership
with everybody, in this case it might be IBM, who can help us
do better in this realm.
Mrs. Demings. Have you had any opportunity to have any
initial meetings with the stakeholders, private and public, to
this point?
Secretary Kelly. I have not. Again, not as a defense or an
excuse, rather, but 2 weeks--a little more than 2 weeks in the
job, and I can tell you the E.O.s took up a little bit of my
time last week, so.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Demings. OK. Thank you.
Secretary Kelly. I will do better.
Mrs. Demings. Also, I believe that border security
Executive Orders and the vetting process is what really brought
us here today, so please bear with me.
I believe you testified earlier that our refugee vetting
checks are minimal, but yet we have also heard that we have one
of the most robust vetting processes when we compare it to
others throughout the world.
Mr. Secretary, and I know you also indicated that you are
going to share with us, when you get to that point, what some
of the recommendations are for improving the process.
Secretary Kelly. Right.
Mrs. Demings. But what is wrong with it? Is it minimal? Is
it just not working? What is wrong with it?
Secretary Kelly. The process now, whether it is Syria or
anywhere else, but the process now is as good as it can be
based on past philosophy--and that is not a criticism, but past
philosophy--and the realities of a country, using Syria as an
example, that is in collapse.
So the people who are interviewing refugees, whether they
are young men or old women and everything in between, about the
best they can rely on--and it starts with the United Nations,
and they are good people but they don't have a lot to work
with. So when someone says, ``I am from this town and this was
my occupation,'' and all of those kind of things, they
essentially have to take the word of the individual.
I, frankly, don't think that is enough. Certainly President
Trump doesn't think that is enough.
So we have got to, you know, maybe add some additional
layers. Some of the things we have talked about was finances.
One of the ways we can track--follow the money, so to speak.
So how have you been living? Who has been sending you
money? It applies, under certain circumstances, to individuals
who may be involved in being on the payroll of terrorist
organizations.
We could be looking at--we could be asking them about
websites that they frequently visit, if they visit, and
anything and everything of that nature so that we can get our
arms around about what kind of an individual we are dealing
with.
But this is a pause right now as we sort these issues out.
I would be less than honest with you if I told you that of the
seven countries all of them will come off that status in 80
days or so, or when we owe the President the report. But I
would like to think some of them will, but--and the ones that
won't get off--because again, once again they just are
countries that have basically failed.
You know, I was just reading this morning where hundreds,
perhaps even into the thousands, of individuals from Africa
have fled to Yemen--again, a country that defines, almost, a
country--a failed country--so that they can try to get on a
list to come to the United States. Well, the people that are
coming, to use that example, from another part of the world,
Africa in this case, to go to Yemen are people that themselves
may or may not have proper paperwork but they are going to a
country that I absolutely do not trust right now in terms of
what they provide us to vet people from Yemen. So it is a work
in progress.
Mrs. Demings. So you have indicated that some may stay on
the list, some may not. But is the list prioritized?
Secretary Kelly. It is seven now. Again, two of them are on
the list of the State sponsors of terrorism, and I think four
or five of the others we don't even have an embassy there. When
you don't have an embassy there is no Americans to sit there
and do the interviews, the consular interviews, to start the
process of determining if this person is the kind of person we
want to come to our country.
Mrs. Demings. OK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Gallagher,
is recognized.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Kelly, you and your family have sacrificed a lot
for this country, and I thank you for that. Your willingness to
step up again is inspiring.
As a fellow Marine I just have to share that I am currently
on an e-mail chain with about 10 of my basic school buddies,
and they are all debating whether with you and Jim in critical
spots we should all reenlist. But I will do my best to work
with you in this position.
You talked a lot to your commitment to securing the
Southern Border. I applaud you for that and I share it.
One of the things that concerns me, however, is no matter
how robust the physical barrier, no matter how long this pause
or how extreme the vetting process, we still confront the issue
of domestic radicalization, whereby ISIS and its adherents will
send out a call and an American citizen or a Muslim-American
will answer that call. Can you talk a little bit about how you
think about that problem and what we can do as a committee to
help you confront the problem of domestic radicalization?
Secretary Kelly. Huge problem. What you are trying to do is
get into someone's head before they make a decision.
You know, I share this responsibility with other law
enforcement, all law enforcement agencies as well as the FBI.
But, you know, I think it starts and maybe--it starts and maybe
the solution, such as it is, with parents and spouses, siblings
maybe watching the kind of websites that their kids are on or
their brothers are on.
You know, and I think it is a--most people would agree, all
parents have to watch what their kids are doing on the
internet, but I think it begins with that, people who are
watching their kids and what they are doing.
I believe, whether it is white supremacists in Christian
churches, you know, people in--you know, holy men, rabbis in
synagogues, imams in mosques, to be watchful of the--
particularly the young people, particularly maybe the young
males to see what kind of talk, what kind of questions, what
kind of things they are doing and report before the person--the
young person makes a decision to, you know, to go radical, I
think.
So in my view, you know, there is a certain level of
usefulness, I guess, in kind of campaigns that--to try to
convince young people or any people to not do the wrong things,
but I really do believe it starts down in the home. I don't
think the Federal Government can do it; I don't think the State
government. It really, I think, begins in the home, and then
into the churches and in the synagogues and the mosques, the
idea being to prevent it.
I remember meeting, I think, with someone, a young woman
from Mississippi, who was going down that trail. Her father, I
think, was a police officer and reported it. I think that is
what we need because for the most part we learn about these
terrible things when it happens, whether it is a shooting in a
club in Florida or at a holiday party in San Bernardino. It is
a tough problem.
Mr. Gallagher. I take your point about the limits of the
Federal Government in this space, but to what extent do you
view engagement with the Muslim-American community as well as
our Muslim allies abroad as part of your integrated strategy
for securing the homeland?
Secretary Kelly. Well, you know, from my military time, you
know, we delivered a win in Anbar Province, which is
overwhelmingly 99 percent Sunni. We delivered a win there not
just simply by killing people--and we killed a lot of people,
and they were the right people that needed to die--but mostly
because we--and you know this--we engaged Sheiks, the community
leaders, the elected leaders, and particularly the mosques.
You know, when I left Iraq my last time I was--the title
escapes me, but it was essentially ``defender of the faith,''
the Islamic faith. They gave me a beautiful Quran, gold
embroidered and all that kind of thing, and had a big, you
know, a big celebration when I left, and it was because how
closely we worked and protected the imams and protected the
mosques and the people within them.
The imams overwhelmingly, the holy men, were targeted by
this small percentage of erratic--I mean radical Muslims. Small
percentage, don't represent true Islam, and they--and we
protected the imams from those men.
So I know how to engage on this issue and I will continue
to do that. But my message has got to be to the communities of
Americans who happen to follow the Muslim faith. It would be
the same message I would give to community--Christian
communities of Americans who follow the Christian faith,
relative to, say, white supremacy and that kind of thing, is,
``Keep an eye on your kids; keep an eye on your sisters and
your brothers and report before they get too close to that
point where they walk into a church in South Carolina and shoot
a bunch of innocent people, or go into a bar somewhere and
shoot a bunch of gay people.''
So I really do--I mean, that is the best answer I can come
up to right now. We don't have to convince the vast majority of
American Christians, Muslims, Jews not to do bad things. What
we have to convince them to do, though, is to report when they
see one of their flock or one of their family members going
down the wrong road.
That is my thought.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Chairman McCaul. Chair recognizes Ms. Barragan, from
California.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, one day ago the President went on another
Twitter rant after the judge halted the Muslim ban. This was
one of his tweets, and hopefully you can see it. It says, ``I
have instructed Homeland Security to check people coming over
into our country very carefully.''
``Very carefully'' is in all capital letters.
My question is what was DHS not doing before this order
that you are now doing? In other words, this order, which was
post the judge's ruling?
Secretary Kelly. First of all, I can see it because it is
big enough to see from this seat.
We are doing business as normal now that the--now that we
are--you know, right from the beginning we quickly adjusted to
obey every one of the judge's rulings. So we are back to normal
operations, if you will, and doing nothing different today than
we were doing before.
That is to say when someone comes in as long as they have
the right paperwork and all of that kind of thing, they are
allowed to enter. If there is something that the officer at the
counter, so to speak, doesn't like or suspects of something
they would be taken aside for additional screening. That is
normal.
Ms. Barragan. So there is nothing new as a result of this
order that the President tweeted out that now he has given an
order that you are supposed to do very carefully? Because this
insinuates that we were not doing it very carefully.
Secretary Kelly. Right.
Ms. Barragan. So I just want to clarify. There is no new
order here, right?
Secretary Kelly. The men and women that work the counters
always do their business very carefully.
Ms. Barragan. So this is not a new order, correct, Mr.
Secretary?
Secretary Kelly. We didn't have to see the President's
concern about what has taken place post-Federal ruling to
continue to do things very carefully.
Ms. Barragan. OK, thank you.
Are there any specific examples, any evidence of any recent
refugees from the seven listed countries that may have slipped
through DHS in the recent past? Do we have any evidence of
that?
Secretary Kelly. Well, if they slipped through we wouldn't
have any evidence because we wouldn't know that they had
slipped through.
Ms. Barragan. Well, there is an instance where they may
have slipped through and through intelligence you have--could
have stopped some activity or a plot. Do you have any evidence
that somebody maybe slipped through from one of these seven
countries that you now know about?
Secretary Kelly. Let me take that for the record.
Ms. Barragan. Earlier, well, do you know how many countries
there are where we do not have an embassy?
Secretary Kelly. I don't off-hand, but I know that in the
case of the seven countries we are dealing with, most of them
do not have functioning embassies. As you know, I think, when
we leave, generally speaking, another embassy will take up, you
know, certain duties to help us out in that country.
Ms. Barragan. So would you say there are more than seven
countries where we don't have an embassy?
Secretary Kelly. I would guess there are, but I would have
to take that for the record. I will get with the State
Department to find out specifically, but I will get that answer
to you.
Ms. Barragan. OK. Well, according to your testimony, one of
the reasons for the seven countries is that we don't know--you
said, ``I don't know how we would vet people where there is no
embassy.''
So my question is do you think it would be safer for us to
close down our borders to all those countries where we don't
have an embassy? That kind-of follows the rationale then----
Secretary Kelly. If there are countries--and I am not sure
there are, but if there are countries--I guess there is, but if
there are countries that we don't have an embassy that we have
not put on this list of seven it is because we have confidence
that the structure, police, intelligence, that kind of thing is
still operating to the degree that we can have confidence that
individuals are at least who they say they are and we have some
background information on them.
Ms. Barragan. OK. You testified earlier that there was no
chaos at CBP, is that correct?
Secretary Kelly. I said there was no chaos where CBP were
working at the airports, yes.
Ms. Barragan. OK. Well, you know, I went down to LAX on
Saturday night and there was chaos.
Now, let me tell you there was chaos in the terminals at
Bradley International Airport. Now, I got there and I asked to
speak with somebody from CBP. Conveniently, the office was shut
down, so I couldn't ask a question of somebody in the office. I
asked to be taken down to speak to somebody at CBP but they
wouldn't take us anywhere so I couldn't see for myself.
We heard from people coming off planes there was dozens of
people being detained. When I called CBP asking for a briefing
just to find out if any of my constituents were being held,
given access to an attorney, I was told call a 202 Washington
number. Then I was hung up on.
How are we to know that there was no chaos down there?
Members of Congress couldn't even see for themselves.
Secretary Kelly. Well, you could take my word for it. If
the--my people in the--in CBP say there was no chaos, that they
were doing their normal job at the counters with people coming
into the United States, most of whom were allowed to pass,
those that needed additional screening were put aside, this is
normal, everyday operations in any airport in the United
States, there was no chaos.
Their job normally would not be--I mean, it would be
unusual for someone to say, ``Hey, I am a Congresswoman and I
want to talk to people in CBP.'' My opinion, they need to do
their jobs on the spot.
There is a 24-hour watch at DHS headquarters. I can report
to you that more than one of your colleagues call the right
number and unfortunately or fortunately, I was engaged
throughout the night with Members of Congress. Again, most of
what I was getting was very anecdotal. I am not saying that you
didn't see what you saw, but there is a process to engage this
DHS leadership and the people that are on the front lines are
down there doing their job in the normal course of the events
don't interact with Members of Congress.
Ms. Barragan. I will yield back, since my time is up.
Chairman McCaul. Gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rutherford, is recognized.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Kelly, thank you very much for you service, and
particularly for your service here today with this very lengthy
testimony. I appreciate you taking the time. Thank you. A true
public servant.
I represent Florida's--America's first coast, northeast
Florida, Port of Jacksonville. One of the concerns that I have
is as the administration strengthens the southern land border,
the security there, that the drug cartels will again shift
their operations back to the maritime domain.
Can you talk briefly about your experience at SOUTHCOM? You
know all too well the difficulties of interdiction, and
particularly with, now, the Navy sort-of pulling out of that
role. Can you speak briefly about any intentions that you may
have to also strengthen at the same time our maritime security?
Secretary Kelly. My information is a little dated, but I
think it is still accurate.
While we can see the flow of drugs, particularly cocaine as
it comes up from South America, with a very, very high degree
of clarity, primarily because of, you know, an organization in
Key West, the Joint Interagency Task Force, that really
leverages the entire U.S. interagency. Like most organizations
that are far from Washington, DC, it works better than if it
was here because people actually talk to each other. You know,
DEA and FBI and Homeland Security, everyone is in the same
fight. So the point is we have a great deal of clarity.
The vast majority of the drugs, we know, are moving up the
Central American isthmus into Mexico, as we all know, and into
the United States. There is not really, as I testified many
times in--when I was in SOUTHCOM, not even really a speed bump.
It gets in. The network is so well-developed; it is so
efficient and it will move anything--drugs, people, you know,
counterfeit industrial items, whatever.
What we did start to see--and I am going back a year ago
now--we did start to see more flow coming up the island chain,
the old cocaine cowboy days, if you will, mostly flights out of
Venezuela up to--trying to get to places like Dominican
Republic or even Puerto Rico.
We started to react to that but, simply put, we don't have
enough assets. I don't believe, with the exception of transit,
there has been a U.S. Navy ship, certainly in the last 2 years
of my time at Miami we didn't have a single Navy ship.
The good news is United States Coast Guard, our fifth
military service, kind-of doubled the number of cutters. But
that was like four.
So we don't have enough to monitor the flow. We can monitor
the flow; we don't have enough to interdict the flow. Remember,
when we interdict down there in SOUTHCOM we are getting it a
ton a time, two tons, some of the submersibles 8 or 10 tons at
a time.
As we have success on the Southwest Border--and there is no
doubt we will--we are going to start to see it flow up toward
the--it will go back up the old island chain. The good news is
Dominican Republic is a great ally in this whole effort. Many
of the smaller island nations are great allies in this effort.
But they will adjust to it, which goes back to the demand
issue. If we simply reduce the demand significantly, like we
have on other items and other things in the past, we would
really, really cut into their profits.
Even if we don't care about the 47,000 Americans that died
last year from these drugs, the $250 billion dollars it costs
the American taxpayer to deal with these drugs--even if we
don't care about that, it is the profits that come out and
cause death and destruction all over the Western Hemisphere.
Frankly, some of that money is drawn off into the radical Islam
organizations. Long answer, sorry.
Mr. Rutherford. No, that is very good. Thank you, General.
Also, Mr. Secretary, you mentioned the Coast Guard cutters.
Will you continue to support the recapitalization of those
cutters in the plan going forward now?
Secretary Kelly. If I didn't say yes to that the Coast
Guard commandant would come in here and hit me with a bat. But
yes, absolutely. Their equipment is very, very, very old. They
are a phenomenal group of men and women. They are in the fight
every day, in terms of not only saving lives but crime-
fighting. We have to recapitalize the organization.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you.
The gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fitzpatrick, is
recognized.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Kelly, our country is better for having you serve
in this role, and thank you for being willing to step up. I
know you could be enjoying your retirement right now, but you
chose to serve a cause bigger than yourself, and thank you for
doing that.
Just to expand on Mr. Rutherford's comments, and I believe
Representative Katko, as well, asked about the drug issue,
specifically opioids. We have an absolute epidemic in this
country when it comes to opioids. It tends to
disproportionately affect the northeastern part of the United
States, my hometown of Levittown is being absolutely decimated.
We know that they primarily come from three countries:
Mexico, Columbia, and Afghanistan. We also know that they are
primarily taking the route across the Southwest Border. There
is a lot of talk about securing the border and what is involved
with that, as far as a physical barrier.
We also talked about what else can be done. Is there going
to be, sir, a comprehensive strategy by your administration to
focus specifically on not just slowing it down--we always, in
the FBI, refer to physical barriers as a speedbump for cartels,
but that is all it is. It requires more, and I just wondered if
you could expand on that a little bit.
Secretary Kelly. Well, I will let the demand reduction
argument--not argument, comments. I have made them enough. I
believe by reinforcing the Southwest Border and getting some
level of control over it, it will make it harder for the
importation of drugs that way.
But, you know, the phenomenon we are seeing now--and I will
go back in--for a second on the opioid thing--you know, these
cartels are absolutely brilliant in how they do business. They
saw a need that the United States wanted more heroin. So, they
just, you know, they were the ones that were providing mostly
marijuana over the years.
But they said, ``OK, if the American consumer wants heroin,
we will start growing heroin. We will start growing poppies
here and turning it into heroin and we will import that, if
that is what they''--you know, so really, almost, I would say
99 percent of the heroin that is consumed here in the United
States comes up through Mexico. These guys are, you know,
really brilliant businessmen and they figure out how to deliver
to the American market.
Methamphetamine, because of Congressional action a few
years ago, the precursors to making methamphetamines harder and
harder to achieve inside the continental United States, so the
Mexican cartel said, ``OK, so we will fill the need. The
Americans want methamphetamines.''
So most of it is made down there now because the precursors
come in from China, India, a few places. Most of it comes in
legal, by the way, and then the cartels use it to--and then
finally the cocaine is cocaine, and it has been coming up
through.
So we just have to watch the flow. When we are successful
on the Southwest Border--and we haven't even talked about
enhancing the border crossings. I think, in my view, part of
the wall is also to enhance the border crossings that we are--
the legal ones so that we can move larger volumes through, you
know, as quickly as possible.
But just as importantly, actually, the South Americans will
say, you know, from their view, the things that we import into
their country that is killing thousands of their citizens and
wreaking havoc in their societies are guns--as I understand it,
mostly legally purchased up there and then brought down through
the ports of entry into Mexico; and cash, bulk cash--billions
and billions and billions of--unlimited amounts of bulk cash.
When I was in Southern Command I worked very closely with
the FBI, CIA, and Treasury Department. Treasury Department has
a really dedicated group of men and women who follow the money.
Somehow, if we can bring all of that together and go
after--you know, if you go to bed at night as a cartel guy with
$10 billion in the bank--and I use ``b'' purposely--and wake up
the next morning and you don't have any money in the bank, you
are not only not a cartel guy anymore, you are dead.
I think that kind of thing, going after the money; working
with cooperative countries; and making them cooperative if they
don't want to be--that is an aspect of it; the demand
reduction; better ports of entry; working closer. But in my
view, once it is in the States we are done; we lost.
You know, there are a million law enforcement, roughly,
individuals in our country. They are superheroes in every sense
of the word.
They cannot keep up with the amount of drugs, and, for that
matter, people that make it into the country. They are just
overwhelmed. The most selfless people on the planet. We owe
them a debt of gratitude, and they are just overwhelmed by the
numbers and the tonnages.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, sir.
One other question, with regard to the Executive Order.
There have been some in the counterterrorism community that
have expressed some hesitancy and concern about cooperating
witnesses--cooperating human sources that are being deployed
overseas in furtherance of counterterrorism investigations,
possibly getting caught up in that. I just ask that your
administration be cognizant of that, as far as preserving those
investigations.
Secretary Kelly. I have the authority to make National
security decisions--exemptions. We have already done it, and we
will continue that.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, sir.
I yield back, Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. Chair recognizes Mr. Higgins, from
Louisiana.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Secretary, I echo the sentiments of my
colleagues when I say thank you for your service, sir.
Like to ask your opinion regarding the increased and
advanced use of social media to track potential terrorists. In
my opinion, the previous administration showed a glaring
deficiency and hesitancy to use that publicly available data.
So to what extent do you envision that we will increase the use
of this? I mean, it is out there. It is for public purview.
Even in countries where, as you have so carefully pointed
out, we don't have vetting procedures in those countries, those
guys are on social media. I would hope that under your
leadership your Department will increase its efforts to dig
into that available data and to link visa applicants with their
social media activity, you know, whereby we may determine
whether or not they are talking to the wrong kind of people and
have some bad plans for us. This would apply also to profile
potential radicalization of domestic terrorists.
Please give us some feedback on that.
Secretary Kelly. Certainly great points on the social media
thing. Again, it is still a work in progress, but this pause is
giving us an opportunity. Well, it is not quite a pause anymore
since we are under court order to allow people to continue.
But even if we don't get under--get out from under the
court order, we are looking at some enhanced or some additional
screening. I think I mentioned them a little bit.
You know, if someone comes in and wants to come into our
country, you know, it might be not only do they bring a
passport or whatever their stories are. Again, it is very hard
to truly vet these people in these countries--the seven
countries--because they just don't have the internal
infrastructure. They are failed States in many cases.
But if they come in and say, we want to say, for instance,
``What websites do you visit? And give us your passwords,'' so
that we can see what they do on the internet. This might be a
week, might be a month. They may wait some time for us to vet.
If they don't want to give us that information then they don't
come.
We may look at their--we want to get on their social media
with passwords. What do you do? What do you say? If they don't
want to cooperate, then they don't come in.
There are other things like that. So these are the things
we are thinking about. No one should take this as this is what
we are going to do right now.
But over there we can ask them for this kind of
information, and if they truly want to come to America they
will cooperate. If not, you know, next in line.
But I think we honestly have to, if we are doing our jobs,
enhance the way--or get more serious than we have been about
how we look at people coming into the United States--not only
individuals, but what they bring. You know, many countries look
at immigration from the point of view of what do their
countries need. We don't necessarily always do that.
So I think two things: One, reliable information on people
so we can have a reasonable expectation they are not coming
here to do the wrong thing or to be a burden on our society;
and the other issue is, do they bring skills that we want?
Mr. Higgins. Your answer is encouraging, and I would hope
that you would move forward with that as a mandatory part of a
visa application to provide our own people with social media
accounts and passwords. That is a crucial window into their
intent.
Thank you, sir. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Garrett, is
recognized.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you immensely for your service, Mr. Secretary. I was
trying to count the number of times I have taken an oath in my
life to defend the Constitution and the Nation, and I thought
you have probably taken a few more than me. I presume you took
an oath when you took your current position as Secretary?
Secretary Kelly. I did. I am right at 16 times.
Mr. Garrett. I am at 8, so you got me.
Secretary Kelly. I got you.
Mr. Garrett. Do you consider it part of your oath to
support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies foreign and domestic--do you consider part
of your oath to ensure that the vetting that we apply to
individuals who would seek to come to this country be as
thorough as it can legally and constitutionally be?
Secretary Kelly. I do.
Mr. Garrett. Without regard to any individual in this panel
or anywhere else, would you consider that to be sort of the
minimum that you could do if your responsibility was to support
and defend the Constitution--that is, to insure that the
individuals who live under the blessings of that Constitution
have the blessing also of the level of security that we could
best guarantee?
Secretary Kelly. I do.
Mr. Garrett. So what we know, then, is that no vetting can
prevent all risk. Am I correct?
Secretary Kelly. Correct.
Mr. Garrett. You are certainly familiar with comments by
the director of the FBI who indicated, based on some of the
same things that you pointed out, that we are unable to
adequately vet certain individuals because there is just nobody
to call. ``Tell me about Kelly. What does he do? Who does he
hang out with?'' Right?
Secretary Kelly. True.
Mr. Garrett. But you would concede that more thorough
vetting is more effective than less thorough vetting, correct?
Secretary Kelly. I would.
Mr. Garrett. I want to apologize on behalf of my
colleagues, Mr. Secretary, who aren't in the room. I don't want
to conjecture as to why they left, but I appreciate your time.
I know that the media is in the hallway. I think we have
more to learn from you than we have to tell them and that we
owe you the full bearing of the time you are willing to spend
here.
Would it surprise you to know that, in fact, there have
been multitudinous instances of individuals from the seven
nations named where individuals were arrested and subsequently
prosecuted for either engaging in or plotting to engage in acts
of terror on U.S. soil? Would that surprise you?
Secretary Kelly. It would not surprise me.
Mr. Garrett. In fact, one of my colleagues indicated that
you might not be able to point out any instances where this had
happened. I would say you are unable to point out any instances
where this has happened on your watch so far, correct?
Secretary Kelly. Right.
Mr. Garrett. But you would agree with the sentiments
expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld that essentially the terrorists
only have to be right once; we have to be right all the time.
Secretary Kelly. Exactly right.
Mr. Garrett. So inevitably, regardless of how good you are,
how faithfully you discharge those duties, sometimes you lose
soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, sometimes things go wrong.
Secretary Kelly. Sometimes they go wrong.
Mr. Garrett. Yes, sir.
Are you familiar with--and I just wish my colleagues were
in here because they said they had never heard of these--Dafar
Adnan or Abdul Razakal Arton, any of these names? If you are
not, it is OK.
Secretary Kelly. No, but I am tough on--I am not good on
names.
Mr. Garrett. Well, sir, I am not very good on these names
either. But I could continue to read off names.
Ultimately what we have is six Iranians, six Sudanese, two
Somalis, four Iraqis, one Yemeni, all off this seven-nation
list, who either executed attacks in this Nation--the mall
attack in St. Cloud, Minnesota; the car and knife attack at
Ohio State University, both refugees; a bomb plot at a mall in
Texas that was foiled, by an Iraqi. None of these instances--
you have heard of these, you just couldn't----
Secretary Kelly. Right.
Mr. Garrett. Yes, sir.
So let me ask you this. We know that there is rhetoric
about a Muslim ban. Do you believe that the rhetoric globally
of a Muslim ban would, in fact, serve to enrage our enemies and
be used by our enemies as a recruiting tool? Do you believe
that that is the case?
Secretary Kelly. If I could just elaborate a little bit,
the kind of people that are trying to get here and kill us
don't need any more reason to come here and try to kill us than
the ones they already have. The ones they already have, of
course, is it is about us and how we live our lives, our
religions, or no religion, how we treat women, how we treat
each other. That is why they hate us--a very small percentage--
--
Mr. Garrett. Yes, sir.
Secretary Kelly [continuing]. But that is why they hate us.
So, you know, if we do something like this and it is
advertised as a Muslim ban, I mean, they can only be so mad at
us. I think their mad red light is on. They can't get any
madder at us.
Mr. Garrett. As they seek, though, to justify the--and
recruitment and cite, ``Hey, see look what the Americans do,
and this proves my point that they are bad''----
Secretary Kelly. What I found about--when I ran Guantanamo
Bay--and, you know, Guantanamo Bay is a super well-run--you
would be proud of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines down
there. It is all misinformation.
So the point is when the previous President--I don't--I am
not criticizing here. Mr. Obama was our President and I respect
him. But when he would say that because we had Guantanamo Bay
open it added more people to the jihad, the jihad information
warriors said, ``Ah, if he is saying that, that is a good thing
to use and we will say it.''
They hate us. They don't need any more reasons to hate us.
Mr. Garrett. Mr. Secretary, I suppose my question is
ultimately--and I am inartful sometimes with words--if it does
aid our enemies and there is no Muslim ban, is it not those who
are perpetuating this myth who are aiding our enemies?
Secretary Kelly. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the negative 33 seconds.
Chairman McCaul. I thank the gentleman.
Let me just close. I want to enter into the record a, Mr.
Secretary, a letter I sent to the DNI about a reported re-
investigation of dozens of Syrian refugees already admitted
into the United States. Because of a lapse in vetting through
technology defects that Syrian refugees with potentially
derogatory information in their files came into the country for
resettlement.
That obviously concerns us. This has been our great concern
all along with the refugee program, and I look forward to the
response to that letter.
[The information referred to follows:]
Letter From Chairman Michael T. McCaul to Michael Dempsey
January 26, 2017.
Michael Dempsey,
Director of National Intelligence (Acting), Washington, DC 20511.
Dear Director Dempsey: I write to express my alarm regarding the
reported reinvestigation of dozens of Syrian refugees already admitted
into the United States. A January 25, 2017 article in the Los Angeles
Times\1\ indicated that a ``lapse in vetting'' stemming from a
technological issue had allowed Syrian refugees with potentially
derogatory information in their files into the country for
resettlement. Needless to say, this alleged gap in the security vetting
of Syrian refugees raises serious national security concerns,
especially considering more than 15,000 Syrians were admitted in 2016
alone under the direction of former President Obama and former
Secretary of State Kerry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Del Quentin Wilber and Brian Bennett, ``Federal agents are
reinvestigating Syrian refugees in U.S. who may have slipped through
vetting lapse,'' The Los Angeles Times, January 25, 2017, http://
www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-syria-refugees-vetting-gap-20170125-
story.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For two years, my Committee has highlighted frustration with
serious security weaknesses related to the Syrian refugee program.
Indeed, leaders from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the National
Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) have testified before the House Homeland
Security Committee that intelligence gaps prevented them from fully
vetting such individuals--and that extremists could potentially slip
through the cracks. Despite these public concerns, the Obama
Administration vowed that Syrians would be screened ``without cutting
any corners when it comes to security'' through what was described as
an ``extraordinarily thorough and comprehensive''\2\ process. But it
now it appears that the process may not have been as secure as the
White House promised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Alex Leary, ``John Kerry defends `thorough' Syrian refugee
screening in letter to Rick Scott,'' The Miami Herald, November 22,
2015, http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2015/11/john-kerry-
defends-thorough-syrian-refugee-screening-in-letter-to-rick-scott.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already we know that hundreds of individuals with ties to
terrorismu have tried to enter the United States through the Syrian
refugee program, and apparently some have succeeded. In a letter sent
to me by the FBI, DHS, and NCTC the day before the Presidential
Inauguration, I was informed for the first time that DHS has denied
more than 500 refugee applications since Fiscal Year 2011 from Syrians
trying to enter the United States who were known or suspected of having
terror ties--a total of almost seven percent of those who have applied.
Some of these individuals had ties to the Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria (ISIS). Moreover, those agencies informed me that there were
several hundred additional Syrian cases are on hold pending final
review for denial on national security grounds. I find it very
disturbing that so many terror-connected individuals have already tried
to reach our shores through the Syrian refugee program. But what is
worse, this new report suggests that potentially dozens of them have
managed to make it into our country because of a ``glitch.''
We cannot be blind to the threat. ISIS has already used the global
migrant crisis as Trojan Horse to send operatives to the West and
conduct attacks. For instance, some of the suspects behind the heinous
attacks in Paris and Brussels posed as refugees to sneak into Europe,
and dozens of other suspected jihadists reportedly have entered the
continent the same way. In just the past year, a number of European
terror plots have been uncovered in which operatives had arrived under
the guise of refugees fleeing the Syrian civil war. We must do
everything possible to keep this from happening in the United States.
I request answers from the Intelligence Community (IC) about the
extent of this reported ``glitch,'' its impact on screening refugees
and any other individuals trying to enter the United States, and
efforts to mitigate the vulnerability. I therefore respectfully request
classified and unclassified responses to the following questions by
February 3, 2017. If questions require an answer from another
department or agency, please coordinate with them to provide as part of
a consolidated response:
1. Please detail any and all lapses in vetting that have occurred
with regard to Syrian refugees, including the ``glitch'' in the
aforementioned report. How was this security gap discovered?
2. Please explain how any such lapses have affected the screening
of other individuals entering the United States. How many
foreign nationals, including refugees, were not fully screened
against our intelligence holdings because of the alleged
``glitch''?
3. What specific steps is the IC taking to mitigate any such
lapses?
4. Is the IC aware of any Syrian refugee(s) with ties to a
designated foreign terrorist organization that have been
admitted and resettled in the United States since 2011? If so,
how many? How were they located? Have they been removed from
the country?
5. Is the IC aware of any Syrian refugee(s) with ties to a known or
suspected terrorist that have been admitted and resettled in
the United States since 2011? If so, how many? How were they
located? Have they been removed from the country?
6. How many, and what percent of, admitted Syrian refugee applicant
cases have been referred to the USCIS Fraud Detection and
National Security Directorate?
7. How many, and what percent of, Syrian refugees have been
rejected for resettlement due to national security concerns?
We face a determined enemy, and we must ensure we are aggressively
closing all security gaps which they might exploit. I thank you in
advance for your responses.
Sincerely,
Michael T. McCaul,
Chairman.
CC: The Honorable John F. Kelly, Secretary, Department of Homeland
Security
The Honorable Rex Tillerson, Secretary, Department of State
Chairman McCaul. With that, let me congratulate you on
getting through your first Congressional hearing.
Secretary Kelly. This has been great.
Chairman McCaul. I think you are going to like this
committee better than some of the other ones you may have to
report to, if I can say. We just really appreciate your
service, and I sincerely mean this when we look forward to
working with you.
I think the terrorists don't check our political stripes.
We are all Americans, and I know all of us on this committee
want to help you in your effort to protect America.
So thank you, sir.
With that, votes have been called on the House floor. We
have a second panel, and once we return from votes we will hear
from the second panel after conclusion of the vote series.
[Recess.]
Chairman McCaul. Committee will come to order. We will now
hear from the second panel of witnesses.
Our second panel includes Steve McCraw, director, Texas
Department of Homeland Security. Steve McCraw became the
director of the Texas Department of Public Safety in 2009. Also
serves as the Governor's homeland security advisor.
So I know him well from my prosecutor days.
It is good to have you here, sir.
Mr. Joe Frank Martinez, sheriff of Val Verde County, Texas.
Sheriff Joe Martinez served as a Texas police officer for 35
years. In 1999 Sheriff Martinez was promoted to the rank of
sergeant of Narcotics Service in Eagle, Texas. Served in this
capacity until his retirement, 2007; 2009 elected sheriff of
Val Verde County.
Mr. Leon Wilmot is the sheriff of Yuma County, Arizona.
Worked in law enforcement for the county of Yuma for over 30
years since completing his service in the United States Marine
Corps, and was elected to sheriff of Yuma County in 2012.
Continues to serve in this capacity.
Final witness is the Honorable Eddie Trevino, who is judge
for Cameron County, Texas. He has served in Cameron County for
15 years. He is a partner and founder of Trevino and Bodden Law
Firm; was then elected as Brownsville's mayor from 2003 to
2007. In November 2016 elected to Cameron County bench, where
he currently serves.
I want to thank all of you for being here today. Full
statements will appear in the record.
I know many of you have flights to catch, so with that the
Chair recognizes Mr. McCraw for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN C. MC CRAW, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. McCraw. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Thompson.
Texas has, as you know--and we have heard testimony already
about how big Texas is, and, Congressman Hurd, thank you for
pointing that out. I think it is obligatory to note that 1,200
to 1,900 miles belongs to Texas, and that is very important and
it does impact--what happens on the border doesn't just stay at
the border; there are consequences throughout Texas and the
Nation.
We talked a little bit. The Secretary, who I think did a
great job of testifying, noted that there is--some of those
consequences is that heroin epidemic that is happening in the
Northeast that I think Congressman Fitzpatrick was worried
about. Other things have happened.
Of course, in 2014 when Border Patrol was overwhelmed by
the surge and influx of Central Americans, they were--it was a
threat, from a Texas standpoint. The Governor and the State
legislature has always been proactive about doing something
when it comes to protecting people, and they were concerned
about the influx of gangs--transnational gangs, cartel
operatives, cartel members, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine,
and marijuana, and this other thing that hasn't been talked
about today: sex trafficking--international sex trafficking,
this impact throughout the State and Nation.
So we are sent down there, OK, to do something, work with
our Federal partners, but importantly, coordinate with our
local and State partners--our State partners, National Guard,
also Texas game wardens--conduct surge operations in direct
support of the U.S. Border Patrol to deter, detect, and
interdict smuggling between the ports of entry. As we have seen
in doing so over a period of time that you can influence the
amount of drugs coming in and the amount of illegal aliens
coming in. There is no question about it. It is border control
physics.
You can go back to 1991, when the Sandia Laboratory
physicists were tasked by ONDCP to look at this issue, and they
came back and said yes, it can be done, but what they
recommended is what Secretary Kelly talked about, and that is
what was so encouraging today. That is rather than wait for it
to come in, prevent it from coming in in the first place. There
are many positive aspects of doing that.
That is the Texas way that we have been obligated to work.
Put the Border Patrol at the river and not inward. Any defense-
in-depth we have looked at is defense-in-height, being able to
stack it, whether it starts on the water, goes from sensors, to
cameras, to RAID towers, to the aerostat balloons, to the
helicopters. Of course, we have got 14 aircraft dedicated
specifically to support Border Patrol agents on the ground.
We have got a tactical Marine unit, which I wouldn't have
believed that we would ever have an opportunity to have a Navy
in the Department of Public Safety. We do now, and there is a
reason for it, because that is what Border Patrol needed at the
time.
We don't need yesterday's technology for tomorrow. I mean,
those sensors are archaic, OK? The private sector are the
experts in developing, you know, technology and making it work.
That is what we did in terms of support. We got 4,000
cameras deployed that are detection--motion-detection cameras
that are infrared to support Border Patrol that they install,
not us. We turn it over to them. Border Patrol agents install
those. We support them with State Guard to be able to help
their capacity, but because they don't have that technology and
they need it.
I have got no question whatsoever, and we understand, and
the Governor has clear--been clear about this and so has the
legislature, that we know that the Border Patrol can secure the
U.S. border. Ron Vitiello, the new chief that was named, was an
outstanding Border Patrol sector chief, worked with us in Rio
Grande Valley. I have got no question that he can do it if
given the resources to do so.
We look forward to working with the brave men and women of
the Border Patrol. Until that time, I can tell you this: On
behalf of the State legislature--I get to speak for them a
little bit--and the Governor, because I talked to his chief of
staff last night, is that there is a concern that the amount of
money that we continue to spend at the State level in--to a
Federal mission, it is--right now we--there is a--the price tag
is over $1.4 billion.
But our leaders and legislators have said, you know, that
Texans are so important that we are going to spend this money
if it can provide direct support for the Border Patrol. The
last thing we want to do is diminish or degrade what already is
out there right now, and I am concerned about when I report
tomorrow before the Senate Finance hearing is that--what I am
going to say. You know, how am I going to explain?
We are hoping strategically to get out of the business. We
had 3,742 deaths on Texas highways last year; not to mention
transnational gangs; not to mention we rescued 36 children who
were victims of predators on our highways by our troopers,
another 26 by some of our special agents on the highway. We
have much to do inwards inside the State of Texas, including
transnational gangs.
Now, Texas is a hub city for Mexican--or for the MS-13,
simply because of an unsecure border. So we must deal with
those things.
Right now our directive is to continue to support Border
Patrol as we are, and we will do everything we can, as the
Secretary Kelly said, which is one of the concerns with how
fast can they do it? How long is it going to take them to
take--get those resources in place?
With that, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my testimony.
Questions?
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCraw follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven C. McCraw
February 7, 2017
Good morning, Chairman McCaul, and distinguished Members of the
House Committee on Homeland Security. My name is Steven McCraw and I am
the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety. I would like to
thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee on this
vitally important public safety and homeland security issue to Texas
and the Nation. For more than 17 years, I have had the honor to testify
before the United States Congress as a deputy assistant director and
assistant director for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Texas
homeland security director, and the colonel and director of the Texas
Department of Public Safety.
On December 13, 2000, I told the House Judiciary Committee,
``Organized crime, drug trafficking, and terrorist acts are no longer
insular, distinct activities that can be contained and eradicated
through traditional enforcement. Instead, they are integrated
activities, which through their very commission have a reverberating
impact on our National interests.'' The testimony went on to describe
the threat posed by Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations citing the
Carrillo Fuentes Drug Trafficking Organization based in Juarez, Mexico
and its propensity for violence and use of corruption to support their
drug trafficking operations, which at the time was predominantly
cocaine and marijuana. I also used an example personal to me, the June
3, 1998, murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Alexander Kirpnick who was
shot and killed after he confronted three Mexican Drug Smugglers in the
Sonoran desert of Arizona. At the time, I was the FBI assistant special
agent in charge of the Tucson Resident Agency in the Phoenix Division
of the FBI and oversaw the investigation of this tragic murder. The
three subjects escaped to Mexico, but were later identified, captured,
and returned to the United States to serve life sentences.
At this point in my testimony, I must digress to raise a serious
concern of Governor Greg Abbott. For reasons inexplicable to us, the
Federal Government has declined to prosecute subjects who assault U.S.
Border Patrol Agents in the performance of their duties. Mr. Chairman,
as you know, Texas is a law-and-order State and its citizens cherish
the rule of law, its men and women who enforce it, and those who serve
or have served in the United States Military. In the absence of Federal
prosecution, we have assigned the Texas Rangers to investigate assaults
on U.S. Border Patrol agents, and the Texas Border Prosecutor's Unit,
funded by the State Legislature, are prosecuting these cases until the
Federal Government policy changes. On February 1, 2017, Governor Abbott
brought this concern to the attention of Secretary Kelly when they met
and he agreed to address this issue with the United States Attorney
General. We are hopeful that this policy will change with a new
Attorney General.
The Congressional testimony provided in December 2000 was not
prescient because it was abundantly clear to local, State, and Federal
law enforcement agencies and the U.S. intelligence community what was
happening at the time and that it would most likely get worse.
Unfortunately, it has, as Texas law enforcement leaders have testified
to for many years.
The Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations diversified their drug
trafficking activities and now dominate the U.S. heroin, cocaine,
marijuana, and methamphetamine smuggling and trafficking market,
leveraging transnational and U.S.-based gangs to support their
operations on both sides of the border. They also diversified their
criminal activities, which now includes human smuggling and
trafficking, extortion, kidnapping, and theft of oil and other
commodities. Most disturbing is their embracement and use of the most
vile and depraved terrorist tactics to intimidate and coerce their
rival cartels, journalists, elected officials, police, and military to
support their criminal operations. An essential element in their
evolution to our Nation's most significant organized crime threat is an
unsecured border with Mexico, which they exploit profiting in billions
of dollars made on the unending demand for drugs and commercial sex
with young women and children. In addition, as long as the border
remains unsecured, there is a significant National security threat of
global terrorists and their supporters entering the United States
undetected. There are many other negative consequences in having an
unsecured border with Mexico that this committee is aware of from
previous testimony over the years.
Securing our Nation's border is the sovereign responsibility of the
Federal Government, and I never envisioned that someday it would be
necessary for the State of Texas to dedicate substantial resources to
increasing the level of security at the border. However, Texas Governor
Greg Abbott and the Texas Legislature have been clear that there is no
more important function of Government than the protection of its
citizens and that they will do everything they can despite the enormous
diversion of State funds to a Federal responsibility.
The Governor and Legislature have insisted that State funds
expended on border security support an evidence-based approach that
integrates resources and capabilities and complements existing U.S.
Border Patrol efforts. As I have testified on several occasions, the
U.S. Border Patrol can secure the U.S./Mexico border if provided the
necessary personnel and capabilities as a proven doctrine already
exists. In fact, Congressman Silvestre Reyes demonstrated this in 1993
when he was the U.S. Border Patrol chief for the El Paso sector. The
then-sector chief, Silvestre Reyes noted that there were approximately
8,000 to 10,000 illegal border crossings daily and that only 1 out of
every 8 was being apprehended. At the time, the El Paso Police
Department estimated that illegal aliens committed as much as 75 to 80
percent of all motor vehicle thefts and burglaries in El Paso.
Operation Hold the Line began in September 1993, which changed the
strategy from arresting illegal aliens after they entered the United
States to preventing their illegal entry. A subsequent GAO report
titled ``BORDER CONTROL: Revised Strategy Showing Some Positive
Results'' noted that ``Although El Paso Sector did not have the
resources to install physical barriers, they were able to accomplish
the same goals with a human barrier comprised of U.S. Border Patrol
Agents.''
By saturating a border area with agents, the El Paso Sector was
able to significantly decrease the number of people being smuggled into
Texas as evidenced in the rapid decrease of illegal alien apprehensions
even though there was a much larger amount of resources available to
make apprehensions. Within 1 year, the apprehensions reduced from
285,781 to a low of 79,688 or a 72.1% decrease. The El Paso Police
Department reported a decrease in crime for the same time and credited
Operation Hold the Line as the reason for the dramatic decrease. The
Sandia National Laboratories recommended this approach after being
tasked in 1991 to conduct a systematic analysis of the security along
the U.S.-Mexico border. The Sandia scientists recommended that Border
Patrol change its tactics from apprehending illegal aliens after they
enter the United States to preventing their illegal entry. This
approach has worked whenever used to address hot spots along the border
and is the approach the Texas Department of Public Safety took when
first integrating State resources into Border Patrol operations with
the then-Border Patrol Sector Chief for the Rio Grande Valley and
newly-named U.S. Border Patrol Chief, Ron Vitiello.
There has long been a renascence in technology since 1993 that
could substantially augment the U.S. Border Patrol's ability to secure
the border and yet they are seriously lacking in technology despite the
billions of Federal dollars spent on the ``Secure Borders Initiative''
and the ``Merida Initiative.'' The State of Texas has provided Border
Patrol agents more than 4,000 low-cost, high-capability cameras to
detect smuggling activity along the border. The Department of Public
Safety has diverted much of its fleet of high-technology aviation
assets that are capable of communicating directly with Border Patrol
agents on the ground to the border security mission. This includes 8
helicopters and 4 fixed-wing aircraft with night vision and FLIR
capability to support detection and interdiction operations around-the-
clock. The Governor has also directed that Texas Military aviation
assets funded through the Governor's Counter Drug Program provide
direct support to U.S. Border Patrol. The combined aviation assets
ensures aircraft availability around-the-clock within the Rio Grande
Valley Sector, which is the most active smuggling area in the Nation
and those State assets serve as an important force multiplier and
essential Officer/Agent safety capability.
The following implementing principles guided the deployment of
State resources:
A sense of urgency is imperative as an unsecure border with
Mexico threatens border communities and communities throughout
the State and the Nation.
The border is best secured at the border and forfeiting
territory to the cartels is not acceptable. Moreover, when
drugs and people reach public roads and stash houses, they
become far more difficult to detect and interdict.
Integration of effort among local, State, and Federal
agencies is essential to success.
The timely collection, integration, production, and
dissemination of multi-agency information and intelligence is
required to support operations.
Integrated air, marine, and ground operations must be
sustained around the clock.
Integrated cost-effective technologies and capabilities are
needed to increase detection coverage and interdiction
capacity.
Operations must achieve meaningful and measurable results
that can document increased levels of border security zone-by-
zone and county-by-county and sector-by-sector.
Operations should begin where the highest concentration of
smuggling exists to maximize the impact on smuggling.
Important to the State of Texas and the U.S. Border Patrol was the
integration of detection capabilities and interdiction assets to
maximize their effectiveness. The best approach that we have observed
is multi-layered, redundant, and vertically-stacked resources. When the
cartels are able to move people and drugs onto the improved roadways or
into stash houses, it is far more difficult to detect and interdict.
The integration and overlapping of detection technologies and
capabilities is a highly efficient means of increasing the level of
security within an area. For the Rio Grande Valley Sector, it begins on
the Rio Grande River and the around-the-clock deployment of DPS, Border
Patrol, and Texas Game Warden tactical marine boats with ground-
tracking and water-rescue capabilities. The Border Patrol ground
sensors serve as the first ground layer, which is integrated with the
Drawbridge motion-detection cameras by the Border Patrol Sensor Teams
recently augmented with a Texas State Guard Team to assist Border
Patrol. The Texas Military Forces have deployed Observation Post/
Listening Posts (LP/OP) in direct support of detection operations along
the Rio Grande River. Law enforcement tactical units serve as an added
ground layer in hot spots and include the Border Patrol BORTAC, DPS
Ranger Recon and SWAT Teams, and Texas Game Warden tactical personnel.
Texas Military Forces provide UH-60 Black Hawks in support of the
tactical teams.
Border Patrol observation towers provide the next layer followed by
the Border Patrol Aerostats with long-range video detection capability.
The aerostats are important in providing sustained long-range detection
coverage and Governor Abbott has repeatedly requested that the Federal
Government increase the number of operational aerostats in the Rio
Grande Valley Sector and places located in the Border Patrol Laredo
Sector. Rotary aircraft serve as the next level and then the mid-
altitude and high-altitude fixed-wing aircraft with long-range
observation, FLIR and night vision capability. The last in the vertical
stack are Federal drones when they are available for use. As additional
technologies and capabilities are developed and/or acquired, they can
easily integrate into the stack. The coordinates for the Border Patrol
sensors and the State's detection cameras are placed into DPS aircraft
optical systems, which enables the timely verification and tracking of
smuggling events and serves as a good example of cross-agency
technology integration to better support the Border Patrol agents and
DPS officers on the ground.
In addition to the fixed and rotary aircraft and substantial DPS
and Texas Game Warden marine assets provided, the Governor and
Legislature directed the DPS to deploy additional resources from around
the State until more than 250 newly-funded officer positions were
recruited, hired, trained, and deployed to the border region. Since
June 23, 2014, DPS State troopers, special agents, and Texas Rangers
from around the State have continuously deployed to the border to work
12- to 14-hour shifts for 7 days until relieved by the next wave. These
selfless and dedicated men and women continue to work side-by-side with
their Border Patrol and local and State partners until the last of the
permanently assigned Troopers complete their Field Training Program and
can begin conducting patrol operations on their own. The Texas Rangers
have been instrumental in conducting and overseeing integrated tactical
operations along the Rio Grande River; the oversight of the Drawbridge
camera detection and monitoring program; and the conduct of major
violent crime and public corruption investigations. DPS special agents
conduct enterprise investigations working with their local and Federal
partners and the State-funded Border Prosecution Unit to dismantle
those gangs working directly with the Mexican cartels along the Texas/
Mexico border such as the Texas Chicano Brotherhood operating
predominantly in Starr County.
A diagram of what the vertical stack currently looks like is on
Page 1 of the attachment.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
I am often asked if building a wall along the Texas/Mexico border
will secure it. Certainly, a wall and/or strategic fencing will make it
more difficult for the cartels and easier for law enforcement. However,
it is important to note that the cartels are highly adaptable and
creative. A wall without sufficient overlapping detection technology
coverage on the ground and in the air, and a sufficient number of
Border Patrol agents to respond quickly, becomes a very expensive
obstacle but not a barrier. Moreover, in some locations along the
border there are in effect natural walls that serve as obstacles to
smugglers, which with sufficient detection technology and agents, could
serve as a barrier.
Dramatic increases in detection and interdiction capability at any
location along the border increases the percentage of the drugs and
people interdicted and the risk to the cartels. If sustained for a long
period, the following consistently happens:
Decrease in the amount of drug smuggling between the Ports
of Entry
Decrease in the amount of drugs being seized at the interior
checkpoints
Decrease in overall amount of drugs smuggled into Texas
Increase in the amount of drug smuggling on the
international bridges
Increase in drug seizures in adjoining locations outside the
area of operation
Decrease in bailouts
Decrease in the overall amount of people being smuggled into
Texas who are not detected
Decrease in smuggling deaths
Decrease in crime rate
Decrease in home invasions
For example, the Border Patrol Leadership at the station and sector
level in the Rio Grande Valley identified the busiest zone, within the
busiest station, within the busiest county (Starr) in the busiest
sector in the State and Nation. In direct support of the Border Patrol,
local and State law enforcement agencies and Texas Military Forces
worked together to dramatically increase the detection coverage and
interdiction capacity on the water, in the air and on the ground zone-
by-zone. The amount of drugs seized in Starr County between 2014 and
2016 decreased by 83.7 percent; Hidalgo County by 65 percent; Jim Hogg
County by 64 percent; Brooks County 63 percent; Kenedy County by 88
percent; and Zapata County 66 percent.
The average amount of drugs seized at the Border Patrol Falfurrias
Checkpoint from October 2012 to May 2014, was 11,474 pounds per month
which decreased by 85 percent to 1,715 pounds per month for the period
of June 2014 to December 2016. Similarly, at the Border Patrol Sarita
Checkpoint for the same time period, 2,503 pounds of drugs per month
were seized, which decreased to 605 pounds per month or a 75.8 percent
decrease. Bailouts decreased by 64 percent between 2014 and 2016, and
home invasions decreased by 58 percent for the same time.
According the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC)--which is operated
by the Drug Enforcement Administration--local, State, and Federal drug
seizures within 150 miles of the Texas/Mexico Border decreased by 43.17
percent between 2014 and 2016, illustrating the advantages of focusing
limited resources in the busiest smuggling areas along the U.S.-Mexico
border.
Although the Index Crimes in the annual Uniform Crime Reporting
system currently do not capture organized crime-related offenses (such
as drug and human smuggling, kidnapping, and public corruption) the
crimes that are reported decreased overall in the area of operation.
For example, Index Crimes decreased by 17.5 percent in Starr County
between 2014 and 2015; 12.3 percent in Hidalgo County for the same
time; 54 percent in Jim Hogg County; and 50 percent in Kenedy County.
State-wide there was a 4.7 percent decrease of the Index Crime rate for
the same time. Importantly, there was a 2.35 percent decrease in
violent crimes in Starr County between 2014 and 2015; a 9.54 percent
decrease in Hidalgo County; a 66.7 percent decrease in Jim Hogg County;
a 31.58 percent decrease in Brooks County; and a 50 percent decrease in
Kenedy County. State-wide there was 3.6 percent increase in the Violent
Crime Rate for the same period. As the U.S. Border Patrol has long
known, when additional detection and interdiction resources are
deployed to unsecured areas along the border, the level of security
increases and the amount of organized criminal activity decreases--as
evidenced above. (Border Control Physics, 101) Finally, I would like to
conclude by publicly thanking Secretary Kelly for taking the time to
observe first-hand on-going border security operations in the Rio
Grande Valley with Governor Abbott.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Steve.
Chair recognizes Sheriff Martinez.
STATEMENT OF JOE FRANK MARTINEZ, SHERIFF, VAL VERDE COUNTY,
TEXAS
Sheriff Martinez. Distinguished Member of the House
Homeland Security Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
address you all today on issues that affect every citizen in my
border county of Val Verde, the State of Texas, and the United
States of America.
I have spent 39 years as a career law enforcement
professional. As immediate past chairman of the Texas Border
Sheriff's Coalition and current chairman of the Southwest
Border Sheriff's Coalition, I have dedicated my law enforcement
career to serving the citizens of the State of Texas right on
the Texas-Mexico border, both at the State level and as a
member of the Texas Department of Public Safety, the local
police department of the city of Del Rio, and now as the
current sheriff of Val Verde County.
The Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition is comprised of 20
border sheriffs, all who are within 20 miles--25 miles of the
Mexico border. They share approximately 1,254 miles of border
with the Republic of Mexico.
Val Verde County consists of 3,200 square miles and share
approximately 110 miles of border with the Mexican State of
Coahuila.
The Southwestern Border Sheriff's Coalition, which includes
the State of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas,
combine for a total of 1,989 miles of border between the United
States and the Republic of Mexico. Within the 1,900 miles of
border from San Diego, California to Brownsville, Texas lie 31
counties.
The terrain throughout much of these areas varies from
rural ranchlands, high desert, to desert-like valleys, and
mountain ranges. Most of these lands are titled to private
landowners. Some areas are National or State parks. So the need
for each of these individual counties is unique in its own way.
The Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition, founded in 2005--was
founded in 2005 to provide a cooperative effort to effect a
regional solution to a National problem. We all share common
issues, but there is one issue--but there is no one issue more
important than making sure that we secure our communities in
which the people feel safe in their homes and surroundings.
Sheriffs have a vested interested in the law enforcement,
economic, social impact, health, and the overall quality of
life of those that we serve. Sheriffs are unique in the
understanding of the pulse of their communities and public that
evaluates them during election time that determines whether
they stay employed every 4 years.
The Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition was organized and
represented by the chief law enforcement officer of each
respective county. Texas sheriffs, empowered by the State
constitution, are committed, from a National security
perspective, to protect the lives and property and the rights
of the people by maintaining order and security of the United
States along the Republic of Mexico border and enforcing the
laws impartially while providing police service in partnership
with other law enforcement agencies and community partners.
The consequences of an unsecure border are felt throughout
the United States. Each border county sits at the gateway into
our country and is a first line of defense in dealing with law
enforcement, social, and economic issues for both legitimate
and illegitimate trade and travel.
The issue here is public safety. Immigration, though an
important factor, is a separate but related issue whose
responsibilities lies within the Federal Government agencies.
These Federal agencies that we work with every day have had a
difficult job in carrying out their duties due to
administrative policy issues and changes and not laws that are
on our books.
Sheriffs only encounter immigration issues as a by-product
of other criminal acts which are referred to the Federal
Government further actions. Some of the problems we encounter
most are drug smuggling; human smuggling; stolen vehicles;
crimes against persons; crimes against property; the violent
crimes such as murder, rape, sexual assault, dealing with
transnational organizations; and the list goes on.
As many of you know, the lower populations and property
values most counties lack a sufficient tax base to support the
multifaceted needs at the sheriff's office. Each and every one
of us our affected directly in one way or another by what
happens on the border, and as such, border States and the
Federal Government are a natural resource to support the needs
of the border as it impacts public safety.
A problem for most sheriffs is a shortfall of resources to
address the problems identified here, which are not all-
inclusive but are prioritized as: Manpower, travel and
training, equipment, direct operating expenses, and contract
services.
The sheriffs of the Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition offer
a positive, effective, and less expensive approach to border
security based on a partnership of action. The solution offered
by the Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition is one of cooperation.
Being at the table to discuss these issues that affect all of
our communities on a daily basis, all Federal, State, and local
law enforcement needs to work together as we move forward in
finding the solution and securing our borders and our future.
No one single form of government can go it alone.
The plan for security in our--in the communities along the
border with Mexico, as presented by the members of the Texas
Border Sheriff's Coalition, is to provide a regional solution
to a National problem. The plan is based on partnership of
action and not rhetoric. It is based on existing cooperative
working agreements and the willingness to share lessons learned
and put into place best practices.
The plan is formulated by sheriffs who have ownership in
the respective communities they serve and understand how local
needs interrelate from a law enforcement, economic, social,
health, and environmental perspective. The initiative, created
by sheriffs, with respect to all Federal and State agencies and
in support of the men and women who are working on the front
lines each and every day.
The difference is in the solutions that are based on the
local community impact and not on policies enacted by people a
thousand miles away.
I want, once again, to thank Chairman McCaul, the entire
committee, for this opportunity to address the needs of our
border sheriffs. May God bless the United States of America and
every law enforcement officer protecting the front lines.
[The prepared statement of Sheriff Martinez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joe Frank Martinez
February 7, 2017
introduction
Chairman McCaul and distinguished Members of House Homeland
Security Committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you today
on issues that affect every citizen in my border county of Val Verde,
the State of Texas, and the United States of America.
I have spent 39 years as a career law enforcement professional. As
immediate past chairman of Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition and current
chairman of the Southwestern Border Sheriff's Coalition, I have
dedicated my law enforcement career to the serving the citizens of the
State of Texas right on the Texas/Mexico border, both at the State
level, as a member of the Texas Department of Public Safety and as a
local police officer for the city of Del Rio and now as sheriff of Val
Verde County.
The Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition is comprised of 20 border
sheriffs, all of whom are within 25 miles of the Mexican border. Texas
shares approximately 1,254 miles of border with the Republic of Mexico.
Val Verde County Texas consists of 3,200 square miles and shares
approximately 110 miles of border with the State of Coahuila Mexico.
The Southwestern Border Sheriff's Coalition which includes the
States of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas combine for a
total of 1,989 miles of border between the United States and the
Republic of Mexico. Within that 1,986 mile of border from San Diego
California to Brownsville, Texas lie 31 counties. The terrain
throughout much of these areas varies from rural ranch and farmlands,
high desert to desert-like valleys and mountain ranges. Most of these
lands are titled to private landowners; some areas are National or
State parks, so the needs of each of these counties are unique in their
own way.
The Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition was founded (2005) to provide
a cooperative effort to affect a regional solution to a National
problem. We all share common issues, but there is no one issue more
important than making sure that we have secure communities in which the
people feel safe in their homes and surroundings.
Sheriffs have a vested interest in the law enforcement, economic,
social impact, health, and the overall quality of life of those that
they serve. Sheriffs are unique in understanding the pulse of their
communities and a public that evaluates us during election time that
determines whether we stay employed every 4 years.
mission statement
Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition was organized on May 4, 2005, and
is represented by the chief law enforcement officer of each respective
county. Texas sheriffs, empowered by the State constitution, are
committed, from a National security perspective, to protect lives,
property, and the rights of the people by maintaining order and
security in the United States along the Republic of Mexico border and
enforcing the law impartially, while providing police service in
partnership with other law enforcement agencies and community partners.
problem statement
The consequences of an unsecure border are felt throughout the
United States. Each border county sits at the gateway into our country
and is the first line of defense in dealing with law enforcement,
social, and economic issues for both legitimate and illegitimate trade
and travel.
The issue here is public safety. Immigration, though an important
factor, is a separate but related issue whose responsibility lies
within Federal Government agencies. These Federal agencies that we work
with every day have had a difficult job in carrying out their duties
due to administrative policy issues and changes and not laws that are
on our books. Sheriffs only encounter immigration issues as a by-
product of other criminal acts which are referred to the Federal
Government for their action.
Some of the problems we encounter most are drug smuggling, human
smuggling, stolen vehicles, crimes against persons, crimes against
property . . . and violent crimes such as murder, rape, sexual assault,
dealing with transnational criminal organizations and the list goes on
As many of you know, because of lower populations and property
values, most border counties lack a sufficient tax base to support the
multi-faceted needs of the sheriff's office. Each and every one of us
are affected directly, in one way or another, by what happens on the
border, and as such border States and the Federal Government are a
natural source to support the needs of the border as it impacts public
safety.
There is talk about a border wall or fence; in some areas this is a
viable solution, but it is not the solution in and of itself. Manpower
and technology play a major key role in securing our borders.
The problem for most sheriffs is a shortfall of resources to
address the problems identified here, which are not all-inclusive, but
are prioritized as manpower, travel and training, equipment, direct
operating expenses, and contract services. The sheriffs of the Texas
Border Sheriffs Coalition offer a positive, efficient, and less
expensive approach to border security based on a partnership of action.
solution
The solution offered by the Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition's is
one of cooperation, being at the table to discuss these issue that
affect our communities on a daily basis. ALL Federal, State, and Local
law enforcement need to work together as we move forward in finding the
solution in securing our borders and our future. No one single form of
government can do it alone.
summary
The plan for security in the communities along the border with
Mexico as presented by the members of the Texas Border Sheriffs
Coalition is to provide a regional solution for a National problem.
The plan is based on a partnership of action and not rhetoric. It
is based on existing cooperating working agreements and the willingness
to share lessons learned and put into place best practices.
The plan is formulated by sheriffs who have ownership in their
respective communities they serve and understand how local needs
interrelate from a law enforcement, economic, social, health, and
environmental perspective.
The initiative is created by sheriffs with respect for all Federal
and State agencies, and in support of their men and women who are
working on the front lines each and every day. The difference is in a
solution that is based on local community impact and not by policies
enacted by people thousands of miles away.
I want to once again thank Chairman McCaul and the entire committee
for this opportunity to address the needs of our Border Sheriffs. May
GOD Bless the United States of America and every law enforcement
officer protecting our front lines.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Sheriff. We appreciate your
work along the border with all the sheriffs.
So, Sheriff Wilmot.
STATEMENT OF LEON N. WILMOT, SHERIFF, YUMA COUNTY, ARIZONA
Sheriff Wilmot. Good afternoon, Chairman McCaul, Ranking
Member Thompson, and Members of the committee. Thank you for
the invitation to speak to you today on this very important
subject.
For a geographical perspective, Yuma County is at the
southwest border of the States of Arizona and California, and
we cover the border of Mexico. We have roughly 110.5 miles of
international boundary that we share with the State of Mexico.
For historical perspective, back in 2005 the Yuma Sector
Border Patrol tallied 272,300-plus illegal entries. The adverse
effects of the drug and humans trafficking organizations
operating in Yuma County not only significantly diminished the
quality of life of country residents but also placed unbearable
strain upon the budgets and resources of private and government
agencies in Yuma County.
The community, unfortunately, experienced a significant
spike in ancillary crime, such as rapes, robberies, homicides,
thefts of property, burglaries, home invasions, tractor and
vehicle thefts, high-speed pursuits, assaults on law
enforcement officers, military incursions by the Mexican army,
as well as ransom groups holding those that they smuggled
across the border for additional moneys.
Mexican drug-trafficking organizations operating along our
U.S. international boundary were explained eloquently by
Sheriff Mark Dannels of Cochise County when he testified in his
own words: They are highly sophisticated and innovative in
their transportation methods. Aside from our normal use of
human backpackers, which we refer to as mules, clandestine
tunnels and vehicles, the trafficking organizations have
resorted to the use of ultralight aircraft and GPS-controlled
drones, which cannot be detected with normal radar. They are
even utilizing cloned vehicles of our law enforcement and other
legitimate companies. Most recently they are still utilizing
catapults, T-shirt launchers, as well as--to get their bundles
of marijuana into the United States awaiting their co-
conspirators.
I have witnessed the escalation of violence by these
careless assailants on our citizens, but I have also seen the
successes that can be accomplished through coordinated law
enforcement response with local, State, and Federal partners
working in concert and cooperation with the prosecutorial
agencies, as witnessed first-hand in Yuma County. By fiscal
year 2008 the number of illegal entries totaled just 15,900, in
comparison to the 270-some odd thousands in 2005, 2006. That is
a decline of 91-plus percent.
This turnaround can be attributed to four critical
developments: Significant upgrades in tactical infrastructure--
anything from your fencing, to the vehicle barriers, to camera
systems and surveillance equipment and upgrades; border
security increased manpower for the United States Border
Patrol; the implementation of Operation Streamline, which was a
program designed for 100-percent prosecution of illegal
entrants caught involved in criminal activity; and Operation
Stonegarden, which to us, as sheriffs and local law
enforcement, has been one of the most major successes of any
Federal grant program that we have ever witnessed before.
With this we were able to have a force-multiplier along the
border area that otherwise could not be done within agency
budgets. Operation Stonegarden assists agencies with overtime
and equipment that we need.
I will tell you that the following comprehensive
recommendations are directly linked to our Federal leaders: A
need to redefine the plan of the 1990's and build upon those
successes. Have to have the political will to make border
security a mandated program. Border security first, immigration
reform second.
Support and embrace the first-line agents that work the
border regions and our Federal partners. They have a dangerous
job and it is no secret that their frustration is high based on
the unknown complexities referenced their assignments every
day. They have great ideas to share, and it was refreshing to
see the general speaking about the fact that he would go to
each geographic location and sit down with those areas, talk
with State, local, and Federal law enforcement officers, see
what was best for that geographic area.
Continued funding and support for Operation Stonegarden
program; that is vital to our success. But we need to remove
that funding from FEMA. Just by their very name they are
cumbersome to law enforcement and being able to do our
reporting and requesting those grants. Move that funding back
into the Department of Homeland Security, where they know what
is best for our mission as we partner and work alongside our
Federal partners.
Restore full reimbursement of SCAAP, State Criminal Alien
Apprehension Program. It has been devastating to our budgets
every year. I will tell you, last year $30 million is what the
sheriffs of Arizona had to swallow because we only got
reimbursed 5 cents on the dollar for housing illegal, criminal
aliens that had committed crimes in our counties.
In summary, our efforts and teamwork philosophy with our
local, State, and Federal law enforcement partners has proven
to be beneficial in bringing overdue solutions to our unsecure
border. Unfortunately, border security has become a
discretionary program for those Federally-elected leaders and
policymakers that have been entrusted to protect our freedom
and liberties.
One would hope that the priority of securing our border
doesn't become just about a price tag, but rather the legal and
moral requirement to safeguard all of America. Today's
opportunity to address this committee instills fresh hope that
the--our voice does matter.
[The prepared statement of Sheriff Wilmot follows:]
Prepared Statement of Leon N. Wilmot
February 7, 2017
introduction
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of this
committee, thank you for the invitation to speak to you today on this
very important subject.
history of yuma county
Yuma County is located in southwest Arizona. It is bordered on the
west by California, on the south by Mexico, on the east by both
Maricopa and Pima Counties, and on the north and northwest by La Paz
County. The lowest point in the State of Arizona is located on the
Colorado River in San Luis in Yuma County, where it flows out of
Arizona and into Sonora, Mexico. Yuma County has a year-round
population of approximately 200,000 residents. During the winter, the
population increases by about 90,000 due to an influx of winter
visitors and seasonal agricultural workers. Agriculture, tourism, and
two military bases--the U.S. Marine Corp Air Station (MCAS) and the
U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground (YPG)--are Yuma County's principal
industries. Yuma County also contains portions of two Tribal
Reservations, the Cocopah and Quechan Nations.
Agriculture in Yuma is one of the Primary industries:
$1.5 billion (aggregate)
90 percent of North American winter vegetables
200,000 acres under cultivation
$134,000,000 livestock industry
Roughly 50,000 farm workers employed per year
7 irrigation districts
For geographical perspective, Yuma County shares 110.5 miles of
international boundary with Mexico.
In fiscal year 2005, Yuma Sector Border Patrol tallied 272,319
illegal entries. The adverse affects of the drug and human trafficking
organizations operating in Yuma County not only significantly
diminished the quality of life of county residents, but also placed
unbearable strain upon the budgets and resources of private and
Government agencies in the county.
Yuma County became the worst in the Nation for illegal entries and
with that, the community unfortunately experienced a significant spike
in ancillary crimes such as rapes, robberies, homicides, thefts of
property, burglaries, home invasions, tractor and vehicle thefts, high-
speed pursuits, assaults on law enforcement officers, military
incursions by the Mexican Army, as well as ransom groups holding those
they smuggled across the border for additional monies.
In the southeastern portion of our county, the out-of-control
border has also affected our own military with frequent interruptions
of military training on the Barry M. Goldwater range. Scheduled
training in those areas, such as the Weapons and Tactics Instructor
(WTI) Course, has frequently had to shut down due to smugglers using
the remote areas of the bombing range to smuggle both human and
narcotic cargo.
The Mexican drug trafficking organizations operating along our U.S.
International Boundary were explained eloquently by Sheriff Mark
Dannels of Cochise County when he testified in his own words: ``they
are highly sophisticated and innovative in their transportation
methods. Aside from the normal use of human backpackers (mules),
clandestine tunnels, and vehicles, the trafficking organizations have
resorted to the use of ultra light aircraft and GPS controlled drones
which cannot be detected by normal radar, cloned vehicles appearing to
be law enforcement or other legitimate companies, and most recently the
use of catapults which hurl bundles of marijuana into the United States
to awaiting co-conspirators. The organizations utilize sophisticated
and technical communications and counter surveillance equipment to
counter law enforcements interdiction tactics and strategies. Scouts or
observers are strategically placed along smuggling routes to perform
counter surveillance on law enforcement and report their observations
to those controlling the drug/human smuggling operation so they may
avoid and elude law enforcement. The use of cell phones and
sophisticated two-way radio encryptions for communications are standard
equipment, as are night vision and forward looking infra-red devices.''
action-based solutions local government
Local solutions and programs are no longer a thought, but a reality
for bringing relief to our citizens who consciously choose to live near
our International Boundaries.
Local law enforcement is best suited to understand their geographic
community needs and solutions based on the expectations of their
citizens. Community policing begins and succeeds at the local level
first.
As the sheriff of Yuma County, and as all Arizona sheriffs clearly
feel, it is our statutory duty (oath of office to support the United
States Constitution and the Constitution and Laws of the State of
Arizona) to protect and secure the freedoms and liberties of our
citizens, with or without the help of our Federal law enforcement
partners/policy makers.
No longer are the border problems and issues we face restricted to
the international border communities, but in fact, these problems and
issues have now spread all across the United States and impacted
agencies and budgets in every state of our Nation.
Having the true-life experience of living and working as a deputy
sheriff, and now sheriff, in Yuma County since 1985, border security
has been a continuous educational lesson. Not only have I witnessed the
escalation of violence by these careless assailants on our citizens,
but I have also seen the successes that can be accomplished through a
coordinated law enforcement response with local, State, and Federal
partners working in concert and cooperation with the prosecutorial
agencies. As witnessed first-hand in Yuma County by fiscal year 2008,
the number of illegal entries totaled just 15,979--a decline of 91.9%
from fiscal year 2005.
This turnaround can be attributed to four critical developments:
Significant upgrades in tactical infrastructure. Fencing,
Normandy (vehicle) barriers, cameras, and surveillance
equipment and upgrades.
Increased manpower for United States Border Patrol.
The implementation of Operation Streamline, a program
designed for 100% prosecution of illegal entrants caught
involved in criminal activity.
Operation Stonegarden helped with creating partnerships with
local law enforcement and as a force multiplier along the
border area that otherwise could not be done within agency
budgets. Operation Stonegarden assists agencies with overtime
and equipment purchases.
Our successes were based upon:
Frequent communication with all local, State, and Federal
agencies.
Face-to-face contact with local, State, and Federal
officials.
Common goals that address real issues.
Working on these issues at the local level.
Consequence delivery and prosecution.
problematic issues--what changed?
Yuma County had the worst record in the United States for illegal
entries by undocumented immigrants and as a result, our community
suffered numerous ancillary crimes. Several Federal programs, such as
the Secure Communities Program and Operation Streamline, were put into
place and had a significant positive impact on curtailing the criminal
activity in our county. The concept of these programs was that if they
were successful (which they were), they would be expanded all along the
international boundary. However, changes and restrictions to these
programs made by our prior Federal administration placed a significant
burden on local governments not only to bear the costs associated with
the apprehension, prosecution, and incarceration of criminal illegal
aliens, but to also ensure that this criminal element was not released
back into society to continue to prey on our citizens. Furthermore,
State and local resources which have become necessary to address the
criminal activity by illegal aliens and its effects on our communities,
have also been burdened to the point of exhaustion and aggravation. How
does all this translate in actual dollars?
scaap
The intent of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP)
was to fully reimburse States for the cost of housing criminal aliens
in State, county, and city prisons, and jails.
Funding has never fully covered State costs. Arizona, California,
New Mexico, Texas, and Florida incarcerate nearly 60 percent of the
criminal alien population Nation-wide but are reimbursed for less than
15% of the cost to house these inmates.
SCAAP was funded
For fiscal year 2016, Yuma County received $72,570 in SCAAP funds
while inmate costs exceeded $1,076,078; a reimbursement of only 6.7% of
the costs. Arizona sheriffs as a whole had to absorb $29 million in
unanticipated costs due to lack of reimbursement, which also does not
cover any medical costs for those inmates with significant medical
issues, i.e., dialysis, surgeries, etc. (See attachment).
operation streamline/``smart on crime'' initiative
Federal law mandates border security. However, an order issued by
the previous Attorney General reduced Federal prosecutions under
Operation Streamline and called it the ``Smart on Crime'' Initiative,
which in essence reduced the Federal Government's enforcement of our
Nation's laws regarding border security and the prosecution of
undocumented aliens committing crimes against our citizens, our States
and our Nation. The USAG's lack of prosecuting this criminal element
has left a significant burden on local governments not only to bear the
costs associated with the apprehension, prosecution, and incarceration
of this criminal element, but to also ensure that this criminal element
was not released back into society to continue to prey on our citizens.
Working with limited budgets and staffing, border sheriffs struggle
to find ways to maintain the quality of life and safety for those they
serve and to deter those who cross our borders to promote their
criminal activities. Unfortunately, without aggressive prosecution by
the U.S. Attorney's Office of all those committing criminal acts as a
result of breaching our border, the American people will continue to
see a border that is an open opportunity for this criminal element to
exploit.
As a result of this change of policy and due to the failure of the
USAG's Office to prosecute undocumented aliens who committed crimes in
Yuma County as of October 2014, I submitted a bill to AG Loretta Lynch
for services provided by my agency (see attached) which as of this date
is over $1.8 million. As of today's date, I am still waiting for
reimbursement or even a response.
backpackers cost to yuma county
From October 2014 through December 2016, the Yuma County Detention
Center housed a total of 241 inmates (illegal aliens) on drug transport
and identity theft charges after they were detained by Federal agents
and the USAG's office deferred prosecution, and they in turn were
transferred to a local agency. The total jail bed days for these
inmates were 23,684 jail days with an average length of stay of 98 jail
days. The cost to house these prisoners for Yuma County was
approximately $1,855,000.00. This does not cover the court costs, cost
of prosecution, major medical expenses, or the public defender's cost.
pep--priority enforcement program/secure communities
In 2015, the Federal administration announced their ``Priority
Enforcement Program'' as a replacement for the ``ineffective'' Secure
Communities Program. According to Director Jeh Johnson, the goal of
this new program was `` . . . to better focus our immigration
enforcement resources on convicted criminals over undocumented
immigrants who have been here for years, have committed no serious
crimes, and, have, in effect, become peaceful and integrated members of
the community.''
The Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) that the previous Federal
administration touted as ``a new way to protect our citizens from the
worst of the worst'' seems more like a complete failure when you look
at the numbers.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released 36,007
convicted criminal aliens in 2015 who were awaiting the outcome of
deportation proceedings, according to a report issued by the Center for
Immigration Studies. The group of released criminals includes those
convicted of homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping and aggravated
assault, according to the report, which cites a document prepared by
the ICE.
A majority of the releases were not required by law and were
discretionary, the organization says. According to the report, the
36,007 individuals released represented nearly 88,000 convictions,
including:
(1) 193 Homicide convictions
(2) 1,160 Stolen Vehicle convictions
(3) 426 Sexual Assault convictions
(4) 9,187 Dangerous Drug convictions
(5) 303 Kidnapping convictions
(6) 16,070 Alcohol/Drugged Driving convictions
(7) 1,075 Aggravated Assault convictions
(8) 303 Flight Escape convictions
(9) Resettled nearly 13,000 Syrian refugees in the United States
this past fiscal year.
(10) 38,901 Muslim refugees entered the United States in fiscal
year 2016, making up almost half (46%) of the nearly 85,000
refugees who entered the country in that period, according to a
Pew Research Center analysis of data from the State
Department's Refugee Processing Center.
(11) Syria (12,486) and Somalia (9,012) were the source of more
than half of fiscal 2016's Muslim refugees. The rest are from
Iraq 7,853), Burma (Myanmar) (3,145), Afghanistan (2,664), and
other countries (3,741).
prime example of releasing the worst of the worst into arizona society
Musa Salah Abdelaziz Abdalla
Abdalla had multiple arrests for assault in Randall County,
Texas.
Abdalla was arrested for aggravated assault in Maricopa
County in September 2007. He accepted a plea agreement which
stipulated 5 years probation and dropped a second aggravated
assault in the City of Phoenix (Phoenix Police Department
Report Number 200771553320).
Abdalla violated probation three times and was finally
sentenced to the Arizona Department of Corrections (DOC) for 13
months starting June 2014. Abdalla had an ICE detainer on him.
Abdalla was released from DOC on July 21, 2015--the same day
that ICE releases any holds.
Dennis Valerievitch Tsoukanov--Russia
On December 15, 2001, Tsoukanov was involved in a scheme to
rip off a delivery of Human Growth Hormones worth
$1,000,000.00. Tsoukanov and two Russian accomplices kidnapped
a police informant and took him to the Fossil Creek area near
Camp Verde where they beat, stabbed, and then poured gasoline
on him and set him on fire while he was still alive. The three
Russian suspects were arrested; however, Tsoukanov's two
accomplices made bail and fled. Both suspects were caught later
on. One was caught in Canada after America's Most Wanted
profiled him (news articles enclosed).
Tsoukanov turned State's evidence against the two co-
defendants and was spared a life sentence. He was sentenced to
13 years in DOC for kidnapping and second-degree murder; his
co-defendants both received life sentences without parole.
Tsoukanov was released from DOC on December 21, 2014. There
was an ICE Detainer on him at the time of his release.
Tsoukanov was released from ICE on July 16, 2015.
Tsoukanov is a Russian citizen born in Estonia. Whose
country refused to take him back.
Nasser Hanna Hermez--Iraq
Hermez was arrested in April 2009 and charged with second-
degree murder of his 7-week-old daughter (victim report
enclosed). After a lengthy court process, he finally took a
plea agreement on April 4, 2011 for negligent homicide per
domestic violence and endangerment per domestic violence. He
received 6 months in jail and 3 years of probation (Court case
activity information enclosed).
Hermez was arrested and indicted in April 2015 for third-
degree burglary--a class 4 felony. He accepted a plea and on
July 30, 2015, he was sentenced to 2 years probation (Court
case activity information enclosed).
Hermez was released from ICE on July 31, 2015.
recommendations federal government
The Federal Government (elected and policy makers) has been slow to
react to the voices and concerns of those living on the Southwest
Border. Counties along the border have become VIP attractions, venues
for those seeking to make a difference or promising change only to
become another faded high-hope. The following comprehensive
recommendations are directly linked to our Federal leaders:
Re-define the plan of the '90s and build upon successes.
Political will to make Border Security a mandated program.
Border security first; immigration reform second.
Maximize allocated resources such as staffing on the actual
border.
Support and embrace first-line agents that work the border
regions. They have a dangerous job and it's no secret that
their frustration is high based on the unknown complexities
reference their assignments. They have great ideas to share.
Quality of life/citizens living on border supported by
sheriffs need to be involved from the very beginning regarding
implementing improved security/safety.
Funding supplement for local law enforcement, prosecution,
detention, and criminal justice in support of border crimes.
Continued funding and support for Operation StoneGarden
program. Remove funding from FEMA; move this funding to DHS.
Enhanced funding for Regional Communication and
Interoperability with local law enforcement.
Restore full reimbursement of SCAAP funding to non-sanctuary
cities and counties.
estore Operation Streamline.
Restore Safe Communities.
Restore/lift restrictions on 1033 Program for law
enforcement agencies to screen military surplus property for
law enforcement purposes.
Assign a district judge to the new Federal court house in
Yuma County. Right now there is only a Federal magistrate to
conduct initial appearance duties. Officers and attorneys
continue to have to travel to Phoenix on every case they have,
tying up resources and manpower by having to travel to court 3
hours away.
Enhance U.S. Customs ``ICE'' by providing adequate holding
facilities and manpower so that USBP agents are not tied up
performing this function in their holding facilities that are
not equipped to handle that function.
summary
Our efforts and team work philosophy with our local, State, and
Federal law enforcement partners has proven to be beneficial in
bringing overdue solutions to an unsecure border.
Unfortunately, border security has become a discretionary program
for those Federally-elected leaders and policy makers that have been
entrusted to protect our freedoms and liberties. As a sheriff elected
by the good people of my county, my biggest fear--which is shared with
all sheriffs--is the loss of life to one of our citizens and/or law
enforcement officers/agents that would be attributed to a border that
is NOT secure. We have seen it happen on more than one occasion.
One would hope the priority of securing our border doesn't become
just about a price tag and/or political posturing, but rather the legal
and moral requirement to safeguard all of America, which so many heroic
Americans have already paid the ultimate price for.
Today's opportunity to address this committee instills fresh hope
that our voice does matter and on behalf of the citizens of Yuma
County, Arizona and beyond, we hope that you will carry out your
Constitutional mandate to bring positive change to an overdue
vulnerable situation.
As always, you have an open invitation to visit Yuma County, along
with a personal guided tour, and visit with our citizens to see/hear
first-hand America's true rural border; even when its 115 degrees
outside.
Again, thank you very much for the opportunity to share this
information with you. I will be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
ATTACHMENT 1
SCAAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009
-----------------------------------------------------
Requested Received Deficit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache County............................................. $59,394.00 $8,875.00 $50,519.00
Cochise County............................................ 480,173.96 664,261.00 184,087.04
Coconino County........................................... 314,100.00 64,977.00 249,123.00
Gila County............................................... 108,058.14 19,403.00 88,655.14
Graham County............................................. 41,415.00 5,737.00 35,678.00
Greenlee County........................................... 4,650.00 1,402.00 3,248.00
La Paz County............................................. ................ ................ ................
Maricopa County........................................... 49,607,648.00 4,006,872.00 45,600,776.00
Mohave County............................................. 312,808.16 24,135.00 288,673.16
Navajo County............................................. 894,187.11 50,457.00 843,730.11
Pima County............................................... 8,014,395.00 832,379.00 7,182,016.00
Pinal County.............................................. 1,176,279.72 215,025.00 961,254.72
Santa Cruz County......................................... 507,130.00 49,657.00 457,473.00
Yavapai County............................................ 1,671,956.00 239,719.00 1,432,237.00
Yuma County............................................... 1,724,811.78 162,766.00 1,562,045.78
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTALS.............................................. $64,917,006.87 $6,345,665.00 $58,571,341.87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010
-----------------------------------------------------
Requested Received Deficit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache County............................................. $191,805.00 $15,594.00 $176,211.00
Cochise County............................................ 791,271.71 468,199.00 323,072.71
Coconino County........................................... 230,100.00 27,671.00 202,429.00
Gila County............................................... 220,705.20 37,408.00 183,297.20
Graham County............................................. 157,850.00 16,721.00 141,129.00
Greenlee County........................................... 1,050.00 314.00 736.00
La Paz County............................................. ................ ................ ................
Maricopa County........................................... 47,016,440.70 2,819,911.00 44,196,529.70
Mohave County............................................. 402,372.32 29,769.00 372,603.32
Navajo County............................................. 825,161.42 47,844.00 777,317.42
Pima County............................................... 7,786,850.00 709,628.00 7,077,222.00
Pinal County.............................................. 831,441.24 107,290.00 724,151.24
Santa Cruz County......................................... 559,780.00 103,383.00 456,397.00
Yavapai County............................................ 1,261,393.00 178,483.00 1,082,910.00
Yuma County............................................... 1,356,300.42 133,551.00 1,222,749.42
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTALS.............................................. $61,632,521.01 $4,695,766.00 $56,936,755.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011
-----------------------------------------------------
Requested Received Deficit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache County............................................. $154,185.00 $11,619.00 $142,566.00
Cochise County............................................ 878,255.26 70,214.00 808,041.26
Coconino County........................................... 191,250.00 17,185.00 174,065.00
Gila County............................................... 60,475.41 10,012.00 50,463.41
Graham County............................................. 132,495.00 9,909.00 122,586.00
Greenlee County........................................... 6,650.00 1,759.00 4,891.00
La Paz County............................................. ................ ................ ................
Maricopa County........................................... 39,744,804.85 2,241,068.00 37,503,736.85
Mohave County............................................. 296,947.84 20,515.00 276,432.84
Navajo County............................................. 676,438.08 38,299.00 638,139.08
Pima County............................................... 5,417,730.00 429,695.00 4,988,035.00
Pinal County.............................................. 898,178.40 115,075.00 783,103.40
Santa Cruz County......................................... 397,475.00 61,261.00 336,214.00
Yavapai County............................................ 1,116,270.00 118,583.00 997,687.00
Yuma County............................................... 1,183,717.40 93,406.00 1,090,311.40
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTALS.............................................. $51,154,872.24 $3,238,600.00 $47,916,272.24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012
-----------------------------------------------------
Requested Received Deficit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache County............................................. $59,565.00 $4,883.00 $54,682.00
Cochise County............................................ ................ ................ ................
Coconino County........................................... 99,825.00 6,936.00 92,889.00
Gila County............................................... 69,598.62 9,700.00 59,898.62
Graham County............................................. 62,755.00 3,458.00 59,297.00
Greenlee County........................................... ................ ................ ................
La Paz County............................................. ................ ................ ................
Maricopa County........................................... 26,997,649.55 1,281,403.00 25,716,246.55
Mohave County............................................. 163,268.00 10,077.00 153,191.00
Navajo County............................................. 410,254.77 16,230.00 394,024.77
Pima County............................................... 3,830,950.00 247,571.00 3,583,379.00
Pinal County.............................................. 905,514.12 104,266.00 801,248.12
Santa Cruz County......................................... 271,895.00 40,000.00 231,895.00
Yavapai County............................................ 537,279.00 41,853.00 495,426.00
Yuma County............................................... 1,314,780.22 84,202.00 1,230,578.22
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTALS.............................................. $34,723,334.28 $1,850,579.00 $32,872,755.28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013
-----------------------------------------------------
Requested Received Deficit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache County............................................. $84,873.00 $6,820.00 $78,053.00
Cochise County............................................ 443,832.79 31,423.00 412,409.79
Coconino County........................................... 132,300.00 9,008.00 123,292.00
Gila County............................................... 78,284.79 9,649.00 68,635.79
Graham County............................................. 58,630.00 3,800.00 54,830.00
Greenlee County........................................... ................ ................ ................
La Paz County............................................. ................ ................ ................
Maricopa County........................................... 24,116,693.25 1,127,899.00 22,988,794.25
Mohave County............................................. 175,729.68 11,226.00 164,503.68
Navajo County............................................. 395,957.08 17,375.00 378,582.08
Pima County............................................... 5,210,330.00 310,851.00 4,899,479.00
Pinal County.............................................. 779,196.60 99,032.00 680,164.60
Santa Cruz County......................................... 278,525.00 16,426.00 262,099.00
Yavapai County............................................ 679,558.00 51,113.00 628,445.00
Yuma County............................................... 991,706.06 73,752.00 917,954.06
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTALS.............................................. $33,425,616.25 $1,768,374.00 $31,657,242.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014
-----------------------------------------------------
Requested Received Deficit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache County............................................. $94,278.00 $4,959.00 $89,319.00
Cochise County............................................ 282,990.61 18,759.00 264,231.61
Coconino County........................................... 252,450.00 14,321.00 238,129.00
Gila County............................................... 26,222.40 2,661.00 23,561.40
Graham County............................................. 51,480.00 3,586.00 47,894.00
Greenlee County........................................... 11,350.00 2,336.00 9,014.00
La Paz County............................................. ................ ................ ................
Maricopa County........................................... 25,435,133.05 832,073.00 24,603,060.05
Mohave County............................................. 161,335.44 7,306.00 154,029.44
Navajo County............................................. 269,193.35 12,248.00 256,945.35
Pima County............................................... 4,752,265.00 227,337.00 4,524,928.00
Pinal County.............................................. 534,374.40 50,354.00 484,020.40
Santa Cruz County......................................... 427,505.00 27,690.00 399,815.00
Yavapai County............................................ 524,086.00 28,901.00 495,185.00
Yuma County............................................... 965,618.84 57,747.00 907,871.84
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTALS.............................................. $33,788,282.09 $1,290,278.00 $32,498,004.09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015
-----------------------------------------------------
Requested Received Deficit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache County............................................. $53,979.00 $4,861.00 $49,118.00
Cochise County............................................ 801,734.50 48,445.00 753,289.50
Coconino County........................................... 155,025.00 9,675.00 145,350.00
Gila County............................................... 72,767.16 6,093.00 66,674.16
Graham County............................................. 9,460.00 613.00 8,847.00
Greenlee County........................................... 29,950.00 6,800.00 23,150.00
La Paz County............................................. ................ ................ ................
Maricopa County........................................... 21,772,509.25 792,124.00 20,980,385.25
Mohave County............................................. ................ ................ ................
Navajo County............................................. 156,180.03 7,143.00 149,037.03
Pima County............................................... 4,394,585.00 203,949.00 4,190,636.00
Pinal County.............................................. 707,211.12 64,543.00 642,668.12
Santa Cruz County......................................... 358,930.00 33,204.00 325,726.00
Yavapai County............................................ 601,111.00 37,707.00 563,404.00
Yuma County............................................... 1,071,221.16 65,516.00 1,005,705.16
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTALS.............................................. $30,184,663.22 $1,280,673.00 $28,903,990.22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016
-----------------------------------------------------
Requested Received Deficit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache County............................................. $78,432.00 $10,057.00 $68,375.00
Cochise County............................................ 722,737.34 52,083.00 670,654.34
Coconino County........................................... 62,625.00 4,578.00 58,047.00
Gila County............................................... 84,785.76 9,308.00 75,477.76
Graham County............................................. 25,300.00 1,687.00 23,613.00
Greenlee County........................................... 25,250.00 6,128.00 19,122.00
La Paz County............................................. ................ ................ ................
Maricopa County........................................... 17,734,766.90 737,649.00 16,997,117.90
Mohave County............................................. 48,580.56 2,783.00 45,797.56
Navajo County............................................. 160,010.99 6,870.00 153,140.99
Pima County............................................... 3,676,250.00 213,593.00 3,462,657.00
Pinal County.............................................. 344,361.36 45,188.00 299,173.36
Santa Cruz County......................................... 418,080.00 38,003.00 380,077.00
Yavapai County............................................ 702,073.00 49,576.00 652,497.00
Yuma County............................................... 1,076,078.24 72,570.00 1,003,508.24
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTALS.............................................. $25,159,331.15 $1,250,073.00 $23,909,258.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT 2
May 18, 2015.
The Honorable Loretta E. Lynch,
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC 20530.
RE: Operation Streamline and Smart on Crime Initiative
Dear Attorney General Lynch: I would like to take this opportunity
to introduce myself. My name is Leon Wilmot and I am the Sheriff of
Yuma County in Arizona. As Sheriff of Yuma County, my primary duties
are to serve and protect the citizens of my community, and to enforce
the Constitution and the laws of the state of Arizona and our nation,
As Sheriff, I follow the ``Rule of Law'' in my service to my community
and my country, and expect the same from our federal administration, I
firmly believe that the existing laws of our great nation should be
fully enforced and that there should be no efforts to circumvent these
laws. I also believe that it is the duty and responsibility of our
federal government to ensure the safety and security of our nation. As
such, the southern, northern and maritime borders should be effectively
and efficiently secured.
With that being said, it's no secret that the sheriffs serving in
counties along the U.S./Mexico border are in the epicenter of the
border crisis. As a member of the Southwestern Border Sheriffs'
Coalition, I can assure you that every border sheriff is dealing with
the negative impacts resulting from the smuggling of contraband and
illegal d rugs; the exploitation of human beings; and the infiltration
of criminals and subversives determined to cause harm to our counties,
states and country. The quality of life normally enjoyed by our
citizens is being jeopardized by an unsecure border that enables
transnational criminals and their accomplices to prey on our citizens.
Federal law mandates border security. However, due to an order
issued by your predecessor reducing prosecutions under Operation
Streamline and his ``Smart on Crime'' initiative, he in essence reduced
the federal governments enforcement of our nation's laws regarding
border security and the prosecution of undocumented aliens (UDAs)
committing crimes against our citizens, our states and our nation. The
USAG's lack of prosecuting this criminal element has left a significant
burden on local governments not only to bear the costs associated with
the apprehension, prosecution, and incarceration of this criminal
element, but to also insure that this criminal element is not released
back into society to continue to prey on our citizens. Working with
limited budgets and staffing, border sheriffs struggle to find ways to
enhance the quality of life and safety for those they serve and to
deter those who cross our borders to promote their criminal activities.
Unfortunately, without aggressive prosecution by your office of all
those committing criminal acts as a result of breaching our border, the
American people will continue to sec a border that is an open
opportunity for this criminal element to exploit.
Your predecessor's orders to U.S. Attorneys concerning Operation
Streamline Prosecution Guidance, along with his Smart on Crime
Initiative, only confirmed his lack of willingness to do his job. As a
result of his policies, during fiscal year 2014, Arizona Sheriffs
incurred over 30 million dollars in costs to house UDAs in our state.
Of this total, the federal government only reimbursed Arizona Sheriffs
approximately 1.5 million dollars. Yuma County alone requested
reimbursement for over $965,000.00; however, we only received
approximately $57,000.00.
Due to the failure of the USAG's Office to prosecute UDAs who
committed crimes in Yuma County as of October 2014, I have enclosed a
bill and am requesting reimbursement of the costs incurred by Yuma
County for housing these criminals who otherwise would have been
released into society with no repercussions for the crimes they
committed. This amount does not include the costs for medical expenses
or the costs to the courts for their time or the costs to the Office of
the Public Defender. Please remit payment at your earliest convenience.
In closing, I would ask that you reconsider the directives from
your office in regards to Operation Streamline and the Smart on Crime
Initiative. I would like to thank you for your time and consideration
of my request. If you have any questions or need further information,
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Leon N, Wilmot,
Sheriff, Yuma County.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Sheriff. I agree on all
accounts.
Judge Trevino.
STATEMENT OF EDDIE TREVINO, JR., COUNTY JUDGE, CAMERON COUNTY,
TEXAS
Judge Trevino. Good afternoon, Chairman McCaul, Ranking
Member Thompson, Congressman Vela, and distinguished Members of
the committee.
I want to thank Secretary Kelly for his distinguished
service to our country and for his recent visit to South Texas
and the border last week. I hope it was productive and the
first of many more to come.
My name is Eddie Trevino, Jr. and I am honored to serve as
the county judge of Cameron County, Texas.
Cameron County borders the Gulf of Mexico on the U.S.-
Mexico border and is part of the Rio Grande Valley, with
approximately 1.5 million people living on the U.S. side and an
additional 2.5 million on the Mexican side. We are also home to
South Padre Island, the premier tourist destination for many
throughout the United States and Mexico.
Given all the attention over the past several weeks and
months, this committee hearing could not have been timelier.
Border security, immigration, and the facilitation of
legitimate trade and travel on the U.S.-Mexico border is a
reality that we live with every day.
As a locally-elected official, I have an obligation to try
and inform this panel and others involved to make cost-
effective decisions based upon common-sense solutions that will
work long-term and be effective for all of us. On the border,
we have had to endure many policies and programs put in place
by the Federal and State governments over the years--many of
them unfunded mandates. You just heard several of them by the
sheriffs.
After 9/11 we fully understood the reasoning for the sudden
changes to life on the border. We are a community that believes
in the rule of law and want our country to be safe and secure.
Many of our residents answered the call to defend our country,
and unfortunately, many of our local veterans were either
wounded or killed in serving our country.
Despite all the post-9/11 changes, businesses have thrived,
our communities are safe, and the Rio Grande Valley continues
to grow and prosper. The claims of lawlessness and rampant
violence in our border communities is just wrong and nothing
more than an attempt to paint it as something that it is not in
order to support the misguided rhetoric against border
communities, Mexico and its people, and the immigrant--both
legal and undocumented.
I come before you today to request that you seek other
alternatives and opportunities other than the border wall
proposal put forth by President Trump. Contrary to what has
been proposed, the border wall concept is ineffective and
creates a false sense of security that will do nothing to
alleviate the problem with the criminal element, drug cartels,
gangs, and other organizations looking to harm our country.
Our Federal agents on the front lines do an unbelievable
job with the resources that they have. We must do all that we
can to continue to help them in their mission, but not at the
expense of our relationship with our country's second-largest
trading partner, and Texas' largest trading partner, Mexico.
This will not work by developing a one-size-fits-all
approach such as a border wall. Utilizing a 14th-Century
solution to address a 21st-Century problem makes no sense,
especially as it is the most expensive of all possible
alternatives or solutions.
If we provide a virtual wall of cameras, sensors, and other
State-of-the-art technology, including UAVs, we arm our Federal
agents with the resources that they need to perform their jobs.
Improving road conditions along the border, removing barriers
like the carrizo cane and salt cedar and other invasive non-
native plants that provide cover to smugglers and allow for
more lateral mobility and use on Federal lands along the border
will also give agents a better chance at controlling and
surveilling the border.
I recently learned that the technology investments in
border security made 20 years go in the Brownsville sector have
yet to be improved. Imagine investing the $15 billion to $20
billion estimated to build a wall on equipment, training,
technology, road infrastructure, and more boots on the ground.
The natural barrier of the Rio Grande River can also work
as an advantage for our National security. There have been
extensive studies on the Weir Dam project by our local utility,
BPUB, which would broaden the reach, width, and surface area of
the river, making it that much more difficult to cross.
Once illegal immigrants are detained, there needs to be a
commitment of additional financial resources to the judiciary
to address their processing. The judicial system is
undermanned, underfunded, as there are just not enough
immigration judges to handle the backlog of approximately half
a million cases, which should be unacceptable to all of us.
I must also touch on America's need for workers. Despite
what many say or want to believe, low-skilled workers are
desperately needed in our country. Estimates state that the
United States will need between 600,000 to 650,000 workers
annually to keep our economy growing. The lack of human capital
for so-called basic jobs in this country is something we should
all be concerned about if we want our country to continue to
prosper and grow.
On the issue of trade and a so-called border tax, I do hope
that this issue is studied in a more objective and rational
manner. Do we want to harm businesses in Texas and the rest of
the Southwest just because of the negative impact that these
policies will cause? An eye-for-an-eye policy will just leave
all of us blind.
Governor Abbott said last week while on the South Texas
border tour with General Kelly, ``We want to achieve safety and
security, but we also want to promote economic development.''
We have made great strides as a result of NAFTA, and the Trump
administration wants to make changes to such agreements then
there are diplomatic channels in which to get the job done.
Any negotiations to improve NAFTA don't have to be
difficult or adversarial, but they must and should be
respectful and mutually beneficial. At a recent border summit
of elected and business officials from all sides of the
political spectrum the message was the same: How can we improve
the ideas and suggestions coming from Washington for our
border? How can we tell our story of the farmers, the
restaurant owners, the construction companies, the hospitals,
the waitresses, and countless others that will be affected by
such harmful and consequential proposals?
My Republican and Democratic friends back home are worried.
This proposal to build a wall, to renegotiate NAFTA, to create
a border tax, and not address immigration reform will have
lasting effects across our country if we continue to kick this
problem down the road without addressing it.
History will judge us on our actions. We must build on our
successes by continuing to build bridges and not tear down or
divide what we have achieved together with expensive,
unbudgeted, and outdated proposals such as a border wall.
Thank you for having me this afternoon. I am happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Judge Trevino follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eddie Trevino, Jr.
Good morning Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, Congressman
Vela, and distinguished Members of the committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to come before each of you today.
General Kelly, thank you for your distinguished service to our
great country and thank you for your recent visit to South Texas and
the border last week.
I hope your visit was informative and productive and the first of
many more to come, to better understand the issues facing our border
communities and the rest of the country.
My name is Eddie Trevino, Jr. and I am honored to serve as the
county judge in Cameron County, Texas.
Cameron County borders the Gulf of Mexico and the U.S.-Mexico
border and is a part of what is referred to as the Rio Grande Valley, a
growing part of the State with approximately 1.5 million people on the
U.S. side and an additional 2.5 million across the border in Mexico.
Our county owns and operates three international bridges. Trade and
economic activity and commerce are critical to our area.
Life on the border is unique. People, along with goods and services
move back and forth on a daily basis.
We are dependent on one another as families go back and forth via
our bridges for dining and shopping, for medical visits, to work, to go
to school, and to do many other social and economic activities.
We are also home to South Padre Island, the premiere tourist
destination for many throughout the United States and Northern Mexico.
I am honored and humbled to be before you today. I know you have my
full testimony, so today I wanted to try and cover as much as possible
with the allotted time given.
Given all the attention over the past several weeks and months on
border security, trade, and immigration this committee hearing could
not have been timelier.
Border security, immigration, and the facilitation of legitimate
trade and travel on the U.S.-Mexico border is a reality we live with
every day.
The decisions made at the Executive and Legislative branches of our
Federal and State governments in the coming weeks, months, and years
will have long-lasting and profound impacts on our communities on both
sides of the border.
I hope I can provide some information and context to this committee
and this administration to first understand and realize how this region
impacts the entire State of Texas and our country before making any
rash and costly decisions.
As a locally-elected official, I have an obligation to try and
inform this panel and others involved in the decision-making process to
make decisions based upon common-sense solutions that will work long-
term and be effective for all of us.
From 2003 to 2007, almost 10 years before I became the county judge
last year, I was the mayor of Brownsville, Texas and the largest city
in the Rio Grande Valley.
I was fortunate to become involved during that time frame on
various issues including advocating for immigration reform and border
security.
I was first elected as a city commissioner in Brownsville 2 months
after 9/11 and saw first-hand the impacts 9/11 had on border security
and trade.
On the border, we have had to endure many policies and programs put
in place by the Federal and State government.
And all of us fully understood the reasoning for the sudden changes
to life on the border.
We are a community that believes in the rule of law.
We are a community that cherishes our flag and country.
And we are a community that wants for our Nation and world to be
safe and secure.
Many of our residents have been on the front lines to answer the
call to defend our country in times of war and peace. Unfortunately, we
are well represented when it comes to Veterans killed or wounded in
action.
And their faith and determination to make this the greatest country
on this God given earth cannot be questioned.
But in recent years there has been an evolution and transformation
of the border.
During this time, the economies of our nations, the United States
and Mexico, have gotten stronger and even more intertwined.
And the coordination and communication dealing with intelligence
issues has been beneficial and critical for local law enforcement on
both sides of the border.
Despite all the post-9/11 changes, Businesses have thrived, our
communities are safe, and the Rio Grande Valley continues to grow and
prosper.
The claims of lawlessness and rampant violence in our border
communities is just wrong and nothing more than an attempt to paint our
community and region as something that it is not in order to support
the misguided rhetoric against border communities, the country of
Mexico and the immigrant, both legal and undocumented, Hispanics, and
in particular, Mexicans.
Data we have from our local police chiefs and county sheriff show
that crime has gone down and our communities are safer than ever.
Inner cities have more serious criminal activity than border
cities. In Chicago, last year there were 762 murders. In Brownsville,
Texas the murder rate was 4 last year and in Harlingen, Texas it was
the same.
In spite of the negative attacks, rhetoric, and commentary, there
is a strong sense of optimism for our region.
It is because of our people--our most valuable resource and trusted
asset--that we continue to thrive and prosper.
People in the business sector, our educational system, and our men
and women in law enforcement have made the Rio Grande Valley a great
and safe place to live, work, and play.
Because of this and because of what we know we can accomplish, I
come before you today to implore you to seek other alternatives and
opportunities other than the Border Wall proposal put forth by
President Trump.
Contrary to what has been proposed, the border wall concept is
ineffective and creates a false sense of security that will do nothing
to alleviate the problem with the criminal element, drug cartels, gangs
and other organizations looking to harm the country and our people.
In fact, as a result of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, there is
already border fencing in place in the Rio Grande Valley covering 54
miles in Cameron and Hidalgo Counties.
If you have lived and worked on the border, you have seen first-
hand the decline in crime, the increase in opportunity, and the
understanding and commitment of both governments to work together.
I for one can tell you that it is better. Our Federal partners have
the tools necessary to do their jobs effectively and efficiently and
because there are more boots on the ground, the detection and response
time has improved.
As a local elected official, our county sheriff and local law
enforcement have a great working relationship with Customs and Border
Protection and Border Patrol.
The men and women on the front lines do an unbelievable job with
the resources they have. We must do all that we can to continue to help
them in their mission but not at the expense of our relationship with
our country's second-largest trading partner and Texas's largest
trading partner, Mexico.
Because of what they do, our communities along the border have
become safer. With this in mind, no one disputes the fact that we need
to uphold the rules and laws of our Nation to continue keeping us safe.
But understandably, we also have to continue growing our economy,
ensuring this country's long-term sustainability with an ample and
dedicated labor pool, and doing it in a way that embraces the ideals
and principles of this great Nation.
Collectively, there are still many things that can be done to
improve border security and give our people the tools they need to be
ahead of the game.
This will not work by developing a one-size-fits-all approach such
as a Border Wall. We need to be innovative and have a strategy to fix
our problem.
Utilizing a 14th-Century solution to address a 21st-Century problem
makes no sense, especially as it is the most expensive of all possible
alternatives or solutions.
If we provide a wall of technology utilizing cameras, sensors, and
other state-of-the-art technology, we arm our Federal law enforcement
personnel with the necessary and proven resources they need to perform
their jobs and duties.
Operational control is paramount.
Improving road conditions along the border, removing barriers like
the Carrizo Cane and Salt Cedar and other invasive non-native plants
that provide smugglers havens and cover, and allowing for more lateral
mobility on Federal lands along the border, will give agents a better
chance at controlling and surveilling the border.
Just recently, I learned that the technology investments in border
security made 20 years ago in the Brownsville Sector have not been
improved or upgraded. The cameras and equipment bought and implemented
in 1997, while still operational and beneficial, have not been replaced
or updated.
Why would we want to saddle our taxpayers with billions of dollars
to build a wall?
Doesn't it make more sense to use that money to deploy our most
formidable technology and to upgrade our existing technology
infrastructure?
Not only would we save money, spending millions instead of
billions, but we could utilize methods and technology that have already
proven successful.
We must invest in the latest and the greatest technology such as
deploying Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to have eyes in the sky.
We must take an approach that utilizes our most valuable resource,
which is our people to operate and man the intelligence centers that
can watch and detect illegal activity and then direct personnel to the
trouble spots before, rather than after, an event or incident has
occurred.
Just imagine being able to invest the $15-40 billion estimated that
it will take to build the Wall on equipment, training, technology, road
infrastructure, and more boots on the ground.
If you ask the experts in the field, they will tell you that this
is where the money should go.
The natural barrier of the Rio Grande River can also work as an
advantage for our National security.
In Brownsville, there have been extensive studies undertaken on a
Weir Dam project by the Brownsville Public Utilities Board. The
opportunity to construct a weir dam using Border Wall dollars or
infrastructure fund dollars is a win-win.
This project would broaden the reach, width, and surface area of
the river making it much more difficult to cross.
In addition, a weir dam could be coupled with sensors, cameras, and
the eradication of non-native plant species along the river banks to
add security layers to enhance the efforts of the border patrol.
And once illegal immigrants are detained, there needs to be a
commitment of additional financial resources to the judiciary to
address their processing.
The current backlog of half a million cases is unacceptable.
The judicial system is undermanned and underfunded. There are not
enough Immigration Judges to handle these cases.
People should not be left in limbo in our judicial system for
hundreds of days until there is some sort of resolution.
That is not fair to them and it is not fair to our communities.
I want to take a moment to also touch on the need for a policy that
addresses America's need for workers.
All nations are built on a foundation of growth. If a nation does
not grow, our destiny and way of life will be beyond our control.
Despite what many say or want to believe, low-skilled workers are
desperately needed in our country.
Some estimates I've seen, state that the United States will need
between 600-650,000 workers annually to keep our economy growing.
The U.S. birth rate has fallen to 1.9 births per female and it is
established that a country, just to sustain itself must have a birth
rate of 2.1 births per female.
Today, the largest part of our workforce comes from the millennial
generation and there are not many millennials interested or committed
to low-skilled-type labor.
The jobs that are needed are not the ones that middle- or upper-
middle-class workers will want anyway.
The lack of human capital for so-called basic jobs in this country
is something we should all be concerned about if we want our country to
prosper and continue to grow.
On the issue of trade and a so-called border tax, I do hope that
this issue is studied in a more objective and rational manner.
Do we want the price of foods and services to skyrocket?
Do we want to put small businesses in Texas and the rest of the
Southwest out of business because of the undue competitive
disadvantages these policies will cause?
An eye-for-an-eye policy will leave all of us blind!
Bilateral discussions regarding the long-term economic viability of
the border region are extremely important to our future, not only in
Texas but throughout the entire country.
As a local elected official, I know the importance of economic
development and job opportunities for our citizens.
And as Governor Abbott said last week while on a South Texas border
tour with General Kelly, ``we want to achieve safety and security, but
we also want to promote economic development.''
He also noted that Mexico is Texas' largest trading partner adding
that, ``we must ensure we are able to continue that very effective
trade.''
We know there are certain parts of the Nation that do need help and
do need assistance to spur economic growth.
But we cannot put forward ideas that strain our communities and
push us back even further educationally and economically.
Any proposal that is debated and approved by this Congress should
improve our economic conditions throughout the entire Nation and not do
anything to impact its success.
Doing it on the backs of South Texas and U.S.-Mexico border
communities is not a viable option.
Historically, the Rio Grande Valley has been one of, if not the
poorest areas in our country.
We've made great strides as a result of NAFTA and the investments
in our local school districts and institutions of higher learning such
as the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Texas Southmost College,
Texas State Technical College, and South Texas Community College.
Conversely, along the border there have been sizeable investments
made by local communities in partnership with the Federal and State
government to modernize our Ports of Entry.
Millions of dollars are being invested to build bridges, modernize
technology, and man our ports. The goods and services moving through
these ports make their way to all parts of the entire country.
Again, investing in upgrading and updating our Ports of Entry
infrastructure would better serve to enhance our Border Security.
I believe that the President's Infrastructure plan can help play a
role with many of our local projects along the border.
Finally, we have come so far in the last 20 years since the passage
of NAFTA. There have been many achievements and cooperative agreements
to improve bilateral relations.
Destroying the groundwork of so many who had the vision for Free
and Secure Trade and taking us back in time and reversing these
economic accomplishments is a recipe for disaster.
If the Trump administration wants to make changes to trade
agreements, border security, and immigration policy, there are
diplomatic channels to get the job done.
Any negotiations to improve NAFTA don't have to be difficult or
adversarial; but they must and should be respectful and mutually
beneficial.
It appears that President Trump is unlike other past Presidents and
tends to draw upon unconventional wisdom and his hard-charging manner.
Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't.
Recently, I was at a border summit of elected and business
officials from all sides of the political spectrum and the theme and
message was the same.
What can we do to better the border? How can we improve the ideas
and suggestions coming from Washington? How can we tell our story of
the farmer, the restaurant owner, the construction company, the
professor, the hospital, and countless others that will be affected
with such stringent and consequential proposals?
I can tell you that many of my Republican friends are worried. This
proposal to build the wall, to renegotiate NAFTA and not address
immigration reform will have lasting effects across our country and it
will take every bit of effort to fix it.
I ask that you stay apprised of the bilateral negotiations and do
all that you can to keep our neighbor and ally on our side, working
with us to improve conditions both for the United States and Mexico.
History will judge us on our actions. We must build on our
successes by continuing to build bridges and not tear down or divide
what we have achieved together with expensive and outdated proposals.
Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Judge.
I recognize myself for questioning.
I got elected--it is hard to believe--over 12 years ago as
a Federal prosecutor stating I was going to get the border
secure. Here I am going into my seventh term in Congress. It is
still not done.
I think for the first time--and I know there are differing
issues as to how to accomplish this--but we have the political
will in Washington to finally possibly get this done.
It is a Federal responsibility, Steve, not a State.
I believe the State of Texas, and my home State, has
stepped up to the plate and taken on this responsibility
instead of the Federal Government.
My first question is to Director McCraw. As you prepare for
your testimony before senate finance in Austin, knowing that we
will have a defense border supplemental bill coming down the
pike in the springtime, what do you--what would be the ask, if
you will, from the State of Texas?
Mr. McCraw. Certainly. We have had Representative Chairman
Boddom speaker pro tem an ask of $2.3 billion, based on what
the State has already spent. But obviously going forward, and
then we would have to coordinate with the Governor what he
wants, but bottom line is how do you leverage existing
capabilities at the State level, at the local level, so that
Border Patrol can get--can gain control and continue to augment
level of border security every day.
Our concern just sitting here after listening to Secretary
Kelly, who is very realistic that it takes time to build that
infrastructure up, it takes time to put those roads, it takes
time to build any types of obstacles as opposed to barriers or
technology. Particularly, hiring 5,000 to 10,000 Border Patrol
agents takes time.
So what does the State need to do to be able to stave off
any kind of incursions or influx or any problems that we have
already gained to this point in time? That is the challenge
that we have.
I can tell you that, you know, going forward ideally it
would be in a--we would be in a far better position if we can
look and say, ``Hey, Border Patrol needs three sheriff's
deputies; it needs two game wardens; it needs four troopers;
needs two DPS aircraft; needs three tactical boats; needs a
SWAT team,'' and be able to leverage that like we do under the
Stafford Act. That would allow us to be able to capture not
just the cost but also some of the operating cost that goes
into it because it is clear that the--the Secretary made it
clear, they are serious about border security and doing it.
Our concern is how fast can we do it, because every day
matters. If you get involved in these sex trafficking
investigations, you get involved in some of the sexual assault
and some of the things that we have seen the Mexican cartels be
engaged in, you know, every day matters and--but every level of
security that increases, the better off we are.
I guess one thing I would like to add, Chairman, while I
have got the microphone here is that the great thing about
technology, it gets smaller, it gets cheaper. Also it provides
us a new way of metrics that we didn't have before, as
Congressman McSally was concerned about, that how do you
measure success. We don't have to use formulas; we can actually
prove what our collection posture is, what our detection
posture is, and what our interdiction posture is.
Every troop or every Texas ranger, every special agent in
their vehicle and on their phone has a GPS-locating device, and
we are doing operations. I can prove any time any day of the
week what is our coverage posture right then and there.
One of the challenges I know that Secretary Kelly is going
to address is that Border Patrol needs that same capability,
blue force tracking. You would expect that they would know if
not just for a security standpoint and being able to defend in
terms of exactly what their security posture is; it is officer
safety issue. Because as you know, every day Border Patrol
agents are threatened along that Rio Grande River.
To that end, I would like to include the fact that it is
absolutely disgraceful that the Federal Government has not
prosecuted those that have assaulted Federal agents in the
performance of their duties. I am confident that will change,
but until that time the Texas border prosecutors have stepped
up to the plate, as well as we have had our Texas rangers will
investigate every one of those and will prosecute them at the
State level until the Federal Government prosecutes those
cases.
Chairman McCaul. So we are trying to build a record here on
the committee as to how to move forward with all this. Texas
has a very unique challenge with the Rio Grande. You can't
build a wall in the river. You can build levies, but a--I don't
see--I think it is actually symbolic, saying ``the wall,''
symbolic for a physical barrier, but a multi-layered defense
using all available assets, including technology and aviation
and fencing.
So I throw this out to all four of you: How would you
best--and I asked this of the Secretary and we heard his
response--how would you best describe ``the wall'' to finally
achieve operational control?
Mr. McCraw. You have got a chart that Texas did because our
legislators demanded that we do have a way to measure success
beyond numbers. So you have seen what we have come up with:
Unsecured, minimal control, operational control, and
substantial control. There are different things that have to be
in place before you can go up to the next level. So those
things are measurable, and if you can measure it--if you can
discern it then you can measure it.
From a Texas standpoint, a wall, a strategic defense, all
those things are obstacles and they work for us and against the
cartels. But as I have said before, absent, you know, the
personnel, the technology, the things that the judge talked
about--maybe the removal of salt cedar and carrizo cane--it is
simply, you know, an obstacle to the cartels, not a barrier,
because the cartels will, you know, clearly go under, through,
and around it, and then certainly over it to be able to meet
the unending demand for drugs and commercial sex in the United
States. That is clear and compelling.
Chairman McCaul. So an obstacle, not a barrier.
Mr. McCraw. Yes, sir. But it can be--it becomes a barrier
when you have enough border patrol agents and detection
technology. When they step over that fence or they step on that
fence you can immediately see it and you can work.
Today you get to see a picture of it. You don't have to
guess that it is a sensor, that it is a four-legged, you know,
creature or if it is two--it has two legs and carrying a bundle
of marijuana. You know that by looking at it, so there is no
reason not to leverage this technology that is out there and
available.
I totally agree.
Sheriff Martinez.
Sheriff Martinez. I agree with Colonel McCraw. A fence is
just a barrier, but I think more importantly is the manpower
initially, to get the manpower.
Let me give you an example. In my county there is 84 miles
from Lake Amistad to the county line. I have one deputy for
that--to cover that country.
On a good day we will have anywhere from 12 to 15 Border
Patrol agents to cover that same area, which will consist of
8,000 square miles, which will go all the way into Crockett and
Sutton Counties. So that is like a needle in a haystack trying
to find a needle in a haystack--manpower in that rugged area,
geographical area of the State of Texas.
So manpower in combination with, you know, a physical
barrier in some strategic locations, along with technology,
will go a long way.
Chairman McCaul. Sheriff Wilmot.
Sheriff Wilmot. Yes, sir. I would tell you that in Yuma
County we had to do a conglomeration of all of that.
You have to look at your geographic location and what are
your natural and man-made boundaries that you already have. I
have the Colorado River that is flowing through Yuma that goes
right into Mexico. I have two Tribal reservations, which is
sovereign land. I have the Barry M. Goldwater Range, which is
our military WTI premier training center for our military
forces that are being shipped overseas. I also have a U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Refuge, Cabeza Prieta.
So I think in each and every location, much like the
general talked about today, the Secretary, is he needs to go
down, ascertain from those different geographic locations what
is needed best. It could be a fence; it could be vehicle
barriers; it could be just electronic infrastructure such as
radar-operated camera systems or detection radars or lasers.
But I think they need to approach that from the perspective
on the boots-on-the-ground level, like I mentioned earlier, in
order to address that.
Chairman McCaul. Would access to Federal lands help? That
would be a law that we would have to change.
Sheriff Wilmot. Absolutely, sir. We encountered that same
situation down there in Yuma County back in 2005, 2006 when
they were actually install--putting in the fence utilizing our
National Guard.
We worked with our Tribal partners and were able to do the
brush-clearing, much like was asked about before, because it
was along the Colorado River corridor. It opened up
recreational areas for the Yuma citizens to be able to enjoy
again, versus the criminal element that was so often exploiting
that for getting their illegal contraband across the river.
Chairman McCaul. Judge Trevino.
Judge Trevino. Mr. Chairman, just like everybody else on
this committee, I am more in the listening phase because of the
fact that I rely on what law enforcement has to tell us. I have
had the opportunity to meet with, obviously, our local
sheriff's department and also our Border Patrol sector chiefs.
The thing that was surprising to me was when I learned that
they were not able to utilize and be on Federal park land--
National park lands in order to do their surveillance and
investigation.
The other part of the equation was the fact that much of
the technology is already several decades old, and while it is
still operational it is nowhere near as effective as the
advance of the technology as provided to law enforcement. So we
need to upgrade.
The other part of this that they wanted to utilize in
conjunction with the technology upgrade is that allows the
boots on the ground a much more direct and a quicker response
because the people operating the technology or the UAVs,
whatever it may be that is entailed, will be in a better
position to direct our boots on the ground to wherever the
incident or impact is going to be.
So I think we are all in agreement that the resources to
upgrade the technology and provide the resources to the boots
on the ground is something that is absolutely needed.
If I may quickly say, you mentioned that 10 years ago when
you first started and you were a former prosecutor you thought
you would have the border secure. I think part of the problem,
Mr. Chairman, is that if we really, really utilize a clear
definition for a secure border I don't know if we can ever
achieve that. The reality is as long as there is a criminal
element, as long as there is human activity they are going to
do everything they can to either provide the product, whether
it is drugs or human trafficking or whatever the case might be.
But I think it is safe to say that the border is definitely
much more secure today than it was a decade ago or 20 years
ago, and I think that is important for the rest of the country
to understand that because we are able to live our lives, have
a good quality of life on the border, as a result of these
gentlemen to my right and all the law enforcement officials
that are still operating back home on the border.
Chairman McCaul. Well, thank you. You have given us an
excellent record, testimonial as we move forward with our
border supplemental bill as to what is effective, what is not,
what needs to be appropriated, and what shouldn't be.
So, with that I now recognize the Ranking Member.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses for their testimony. It has been a
long time since we have had a panel of people who live it every
day, in terms of this issue before us, and I think it has been
quite enlightening.
The question that a lot of us have is why not come up with
a sound policy that addresses border security rather than
coming up with a product, in terms of a fence? I think, as just
about everyone has said, there are ways that fencing might be
good; there are other ways that technology; there are other
ways of using other things might be good.
But when you come with a one-size-fit-all model, that
creates some real challenges: The Rio Grande River, the lakes
and some other areas, Tribal lands. So I guess the question is
what I am hearing from the witnesses--and I heard it from the
Secretary in his testimony--that you will be involved in the
process so that rather than Washington coming to your
communities and say, ``Well, Big Brother is here; we have the
solution,'' we would say, ``What do you think? You do this
every day. You live it. What suggestions or recommendations
that you might have?''
I think that is a very good model for us to adopt, because
in Washington we can just see one part.
So for the record, we are 1,500 persons short in the
approved CBP allotment for boots on the ground. I think we have
been 2 years, 3 years--about 2 years trying to complete that.
So if we get 5,000 more that means we have 6,500 vacancies that
we can't fill.
So part of what we are going to have to do is try to work
with State and locals to figure out, since we can't put all
these boots on the ground, are having trouble filling it, how
do we backfill it? Technology.
You know, if we can see somebody 5, 10, 20 miles away
approaching an area then if we had ability to communicate with
local law enforcement or whomever, we can perhaps move assets
to that area from an interdiction standpoint. I would--for the
sheriffs, especially.
Are you allowed to train with CBP and other Federal
officials in a manner that gives you comfort, or are there some
things that you would like to see being done that is not being
done?
Sheriff Martinez.
Sheriff Martinez. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
We work very well with our Federal partners. We don't train
with them. Basically, if we come across a crime that has an OTM
or a Mexican national we refer those individuals to Border
Patrol and we are--we work through Stonegarden. In the last
week we had eight referrals in our sector, so I take it that
that is from the locals referring someone over to our Federal
partners and they take over from there.
But going on to some of your question, I would like, you
know--you say you are miles away, but I would like to invite
each and every one of you to our communities where we live
every day. No to--don't show up when they have all the manpower
and resources. Visit us in our natural State, and you can see
all the deficiencies that we have. That will be a big impact on
what happens up here, on your votes up here.
Mr. Thompson. Sheriff.
Sheriff Wilmot. Thank you, sir.
I will tell you that there are--our agency trains quite a
bit with the U.S. Border Patrol Yuma Sector under Chief
Provaznik. We have awesome lines of communication. Most of our
training has to do with search-and-rescue type or narcotics
interdiction, working side-by-side with their personnel. Most
of that occurs under Operation Stonegarden, which I mentioned
before.
The other hamper that we are running into with the sheriffs
all across the United States right now is actually getting some
sort of legal opinion in regards to 287 JM, the honoring of
detainers in our jails, because some sheriffs in some places
along the United States are being sued for violation of 4th
Amendment rights. We are being told on one side that we have to
honor them by Federal law, but we are also being told by State
that you cannot honor that because you are violating this law
or that law, whether it is Arizona, Texas, New York, Illinois,
Idaho.
So the sheriffs as a whole, the one thing that we need is
some sort of legal opinion in regards to honoring detainers for
the jails. That is one of the things that has a significant
impact for us when an individual is in our jails.
Typically for us they are booked into the jail, they go
through the State process, they get sentenced to prison, and
then they are turned over to the State for DOC. That is
something that all the sheriffs across the United States--and
we articulated that to the Secretary yesterday.
Mr. Thompson. So thank you.
Judge, in your everyday duties what security issues would
you be concerned about, and do you see the wall as an answer to
those security issues, from your standpoint?
Judge Trevino. Thanks for the question, Congressman. Let me
point out that with regard to Cameron and Hidalgo County, our
neighboring county, which is approximately 70 miles, we already
have 54 miles of fencing already in place.
You alluded to it right now when you said we have got 1,500
vacancies and we are looking at another 5,000, and looking at
6,500. Let me tell you how that impacts us locally. These
gentlemen to my right, their responsibility is to provide local
law enforcement to the community that they serve. Because of
the change in dynamics in our country, they have also had to
become quasi-Federal agents because of the demands that have
been placed on them with regards to border security.
The concern that I have--and just for the record, the
county judge in Texas is not a judicial position; it is an
administrative position. I don't want anybody to think that I
am holding court back home. It is basically the mayor of the
county, so I work with all of the agencies in that endeavor.
The concern that I would have, and I would venture to guess
that they have also, is I can tell you that in the valley many
of our local law enforcement agencies, whether it is local
police departments or the sheriff's department, the jailers, we
have lost a lot of those individuals to the Federal Government
because of the demand for Federal agents, whether it be Border
Patrol, Customs, or what have you, because they pay, obviously,
better than our local law enforcement entities.
We rely on, unfortunately, usually very low property tax
bases to fund our budgets. As a result of that, in addition to
the jail costs associated that the sheriff alluded to, we also
have the medical costs associated to take care of them in the--
while they are in our custody.
So all of these what I referred to earlier as ``unfunded
mandates'' are concerns because we don't have an immense
backload or a rainy day fund that can help us get through these
days, but we are doing the best that we can. I think that is
something, as the--as Congress takes this into account they
have to understand that the demands placed upon our local
entities and jurisdiction on the Texas-Mexico border are so
different than the demands placed elsewhere in the country.
So when we are asking for those funds and resources we are
not doing it because we want them; we are asking because we
need them because we are already performing the job. And
obviously if there is a big increase in--on boots on the
ground, which I think we all agree is necessary, the concern we
are going to have is we are going to need those additional
funds ourselves to make sure that our local law enforcement
positions are also well met.
I don't like hearing the fact--and I know about situations
like that, where you got one officer patrolling a square--84
square miles. You know what that means. He can't be everywhere
all the time.
So thank you.
Mr. Thompson. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Let me just say, Sheriff Martinez, I agree
with your point, go down to see it, because you can't
understand it unless you go down and see it. I always, you
know, advocate for Members to do that. There is no real
simplistic answer to this, and it is multifaceted.
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania.
Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen.
Is it Mr. McCraw?
Very briefly, you know, some people don't like the
terminology ``the wall,'' so whether it is a wall, whether it
is a fence, whether it is unmanned vehicles or sensors or
cameras or whatever, some protection, security belt along the
border that keeps incursions from happening, I think we need
that, but I think it begins with an attitude that you want to
uphold the law and defend the border of your country and the
sovereign Nation.
So with that, you mentioned that one of the things that you
saw a problem with is the Federal Government is not prosecuting
people here illegally that assault Border Patrol agents. Can
you talk about that a--very quickly, but with a little more
depth to it?
Mr. McCraw. Well, I am going to actually give you the
examples, the cases. I will get back to you on what they are,
but there have been instances where Border Patrol agents have
been assaulted when they are trying to make an arrest.
The normal process when I was in the FBI we used to work
Federal--assault on Federal officers in those cases. When I was
in Tucson that is what we did. Alexander Kirpnick was killed by
two drug traffickers from Mexico. That is what we did. We
worked assault on a Federal officer, and the prosecutor, the
United States attorney, would prosecute those things.
Over the last several months that hasn't been the case.
There has been no prosecution. They have been turned down.
All we have done is basically we got the advantage because
the State legislature has funded these border prosecutor units.
We just go into the district attorney's offices, ``Hey, look
Border Patrol agents are being assaulted, not prosecuted. In
Texas we are a law-and-order State. You assault a police
officer there has gotta be consequences.'' They get it. They
immediately take the cases, and what we are doing is using
State resources to investigate those cases, turn it over to the
border prosecutors to prosecute.
Mr. Perry. So you said over the last couple months. Is it--
--
Mr. McCraw. Several months. It could be 6 months; it could
be 8 months. I will give you the exact time and I will give you
the exact cases that we have worked for them, as well.
Mr. Perry. So what do you think the impetus for failure to
follow through from the Federal Government standpoint is? Why
would they not do that?
Mr. McCraw. I don't know. It is inexplicable.
Mr. Perry. OK. We will have to look into that. I appreciate
that information, if you can get it to me.
Also, Federal park----
Mr. McCraw. I do need to mention, though, that was
brought--Governor brought that to Secretary Kelly's point. When
he took the time--he is the first Secretary out of all the
secretaries I have met--and I have met some great ones in
Secretary Johnson, Secretary Napolitano, Secretary Chertoff,
Secretary Ridge. You know, he has taken the time to went down
there. He has already been down there, asked questions, very
specific, listened to briefs. So we are very encouraged that he
did that.
The Governor brought that to his attention, so I have got
no doubt--and he took it back with him--that he is going to
talk to the attorney general about that, that that will be
fixed. I am very confident that will be addressed.
Mr. Perry. I would think that has to be a minimum standard
so that the Border Patrol agents know that when they are
putting their lives on the line that there is going to be a
penalty for assaulting, and as there should be for any law
enforcement officers anywhere in the United States.
Turning quickly to Federal park lands, can you give us an
indication of--you know, the--I don't think a lot of people
realize that there is a restriction for Border Patrol agents in
those circumstances. Can you give us some information from your
viewpoint on how that affects the ability of the Federal
Government to safeguard the border?
Mr. McCraw. Yes. There are several pockets of refuges along
the Rio Grande River that--to protect wildlife, and what they
end up doing is often protect the cartels or smugglers because
they are havens for hiding. Plus, because Border Patrol, they
are allowed access; they are just not allowed to build
infrastructure or use some of their tools to use to be able to
pursue smugglers and traffickers within those areas.
Hence, they may take an hour to get to a location that
could take 10 minutes. So they are not allowed to build the
type of infrastructure you would expect other parts of the
border. So we are hopeful that that will be addressed at some
point.
Mr. Perry. So it sounds like if we are serious about
securing the border something has gotta change there, right?
Mr. McCraw. Change, and Judge had a very good point. Salt
cedar and carrizo cane, it is a drought weed and it sucks the
water out but it also is a security risk to Border Patrol
agents and those trying to defend that, and also it works for
the cartels.
Mr. Perry. Right.
OK, Sheriff Wilmot, very quickly, the Operation Stonegarden
program and your trouble getting money through FEMA is
something I would like to--you to elaborate on, and also the
reimbursement of your SCAAP funding, and as you put--to non-
sanctuary cities, which I think it is important to note, at
least I get from this, is that sanctuary cities are receiving
SCAAP money, so they are inviting, essentially, people to be in
their city illegally, but also getting Federal funds in that
regard. Is that correct, or--if you can elaborate?
Sheriff Wilmot. What we wanted to get across is if you do
have an entity that runs a jail, that supports that, then that
funding should be given to those other entities that run the
jail that are actually doing the job for SCAAP.
I will tell you that we still need to get 100 percent
reimbursement on that, as well as the medical costs associated
with it, because I can't put in for an individual who I have to
take to dialysis three times a week. That is impacting my
budget at over $100,000 just for one person. I have got 117
backpackers that went through my jail, of which I still have
19.
I sent a bill to the attorney general of the United States
last year because of the policies that went into effect on not
prosecuting these individuals. I cross-deputized Border Patrol
agents in DEA so they would be able to get these cases taken
where normally anybody would get charged.
So I am eating the housing, I am eating the cost of that.
To this point attorney general owes me $1.8 million just for
housing those.
Mr. Perry. Sheriff, does the government south of you, the
national government south of you, do they spend as--anywhere
near the resources or have the same diligence that you have in
patrolling the border from their people going northward?
Sheriff Wilmot. To answer your question in regards to Yuma
County, I will tell you that we have great cross-border
communication with our law enforcement counterparts. We work
together a lot in regards to promoting the quality of life and
safety of our communities on both sides of the border, and that
is why we were able to do what we did to curb that criminal
enterprise from doing what they were doing in 2005, 2006, so--
--
Mr. Perry. I mean, I get the perception that the Mexican
government doesn't feel as strongly about Border Patrol, at
least, or controlling the border north of the border, that--as
we do. I don't know if that is accurate or not, but I get that
perception.
My concern is all the American taxpayers are paying for
this, and you are out the money because you are providing the
service and the American taxpayers really can't afford to pay
for it. But what is the government to the south doing to help,
from a financial standpoint or from a tactical standpoint?
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
But that is something if you could elaborate throughout
your conversation I would love to hear it. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. Would you like to respond to that, sir?
Would you like to respond, or no?
Sheriff Wilmot. Whatever you are comfortable with, sir.
Chairman McCaul. If you would like to respond I would give
you that time.
Sheriff Wilmot. I will tell you that we in Arizona have a
great cross-border communication with our law enforcement
counterparts to--even through the PISA program, Policia
Internacional Sonora and America law enforcement, where those
entities come across the border, we do training together, we
cover the problems that we are encountering in our geographic
locations.
To a certain extent they are doing what they can with what
they have.
Chairman McCaul. Chair recognizes Mr. Vela.
Mr. Vela. To follow up on that, Sheriff Wilmot, that kind
of cooperative arrangement that you have with your counterparts
on the Mexican side of the border, that is why it is important
to have a positive and productive relationship with our
neighbors to the south, right?
Sheriff Wilmot. I would agree with you 100 percent. You
have to have that open line of communication.
Mr. Vela. Thank you.
Colonel McCraw, you made some reference to the expenditure
of State funds along the border and how it might have impacted,
for example, traffic deaths in other parts of the State and
maybe--and perhaps affected other areas of responsibility that
the Department of Public Safety would have had. Can you
elaborate or tell us specifically how you think the diversion
of funds to the border has affected those other
responsibilities?
Mr. McCraw. Well, to begin with, we weren't over-staffing.
We are understaffed for the number of troopers that we need,
based upon the State's growth. Over the last 10 years we have
nearly 28 million people and we have over 313,000 miles of
roadway. For us to be able to do proactive, high-visibility
patrols we need a certain amount of troopers in each sergeant
area.
What we had to do, because of the influx and because of the
mission we have been given, is to surge troopers from around
the State--doesn't matter whether it is from Perryton--and that
is, by the way, that is 14 hours away from the border, OK--
Texas, or from Dallas, move them down there on a day, work 7
days straight, 12- to 14-hour days, go back home, and continue
that cycle month after month and wave after wave. We have been
doing that for 2.5 years.
So any time you move a trooper or a Texas ranger, as we
have, or a special agent who was engaged in these enterprise
investigations targeting gangs, to the border to be able to
support Border Patrol there are consequences to it.
Now, the advantages are--because at the end of the day most
of the trafficking is coming right at the border, so there is
some positive impact in terms of the rest of the State. But it
still makes it less safe in other parts where we take those
resources from.
Mr. Vela. So have you seen a direct correlation to this
diversion of State funds to the border with respect to traffic
deaths, or----
Mr. McCraw. I can't say it is causal right now. I can see
correlations, but I just can't say that it is enough right now
we could make that causal determination.
I know just from the--talking to sheriffs in other parts of
the State, when there are less troopers in that area, you know,
they believe that it is less safe in that area. I don't
disagree.
Mr. Vela. So I am just curious. Have we seen an increase or
a decrease in highway traffic deaths?
Mr. McCraw. Increase in highway deaths across Texas. It is
not just in terms of the rural area, but urban areas, as well,
we have had increased fatalities.
Mr. Vela. Thank you, Colonel.
Judge Trevino, I have got two questions and about 3
minutes. The first question: With respect to the Weir Dam, how
would that environmentally impact, from either a flood control
standpoint, you know, the area that we live in, and what would
be the impact from a security standpoint?
Judge Trevino. Well, my understanding, Congressman, is that
after decades of studying, the environmental impact would be
minimal at best. As you know, Brownsville is the last stop on
the Rio Grande before it empties out into the Gulf of Mexico,
and because of the rapid growth that we have had on both sides
of the border from El Paso south, everybody on the border
utilizes the Rio Grande as their source for water.
Since we are the last stop it was a concern years ago that
if the river was to ever run dry--and in certain areas of the
State there are trickles--we would be in a bad, bad situation.
Brownsville was very progressive in developing a reverse
osmosis by the utilization of brackish groundwater so that the
Brownsville community is no longer completely reliant on the
river.
The Weir proposal would obviously raise the water level. It
would not impact the water table, which was a--which was
initially a concern, and it would allow the flood control
situation to be utilized in the event of we ever had a
shortage.
Lake Amistad and Lake Falcon, which is where we basically--
that is our reserve system, it was developed back, I believe,
in the 1950's, and the long-term goal was it would get
replenished by Mother Nature any time we ever had a natural
disaster. As for growth, no one foresaw the growth on both
sides of the border and its impact, so we have had to be more
progressive as far as that goes.
Mr. Vela. One last question: So what is life like for the
96,000 winter Texans mostly from the Midwest that are living in
the Rio Grande Valley right now?
Judge Trevino. It is safe to say that those winter visitors
are our lifeblood during the winter months. They bring, first
of all, a lot of resources. They spend their money in the
valley.
But more than anything, they are a complete asset to our
area. Many of them are from the Midwest--Minnesota, Iowa, all
those States--and they have been a huge, huge asset. They spend
their money, they go to Mexico on a daily basis to shop and to
receive medical care and eat. They spend their money buying
refrigerators and cars and the consumable goods that we all
rely on.
Their impact, on an economic basis, is huge, and not just
on the United States side but obviously on the Mexican side. If
it was--if there was any chaos or danger down there they
wouldn't keep coming in those numbers that continue to grow
every--each and every year.
Mr. Vela. Well, thank all four of you for being with us
today.
Chairman McCaul. Chair recognizes Mr. Hurd, from Texas.
Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, appreciate you all being here today.
You know, Director McCraw, Sheriff Martinez, and Judge
Trevino, you have helped educate me on this issue.
Sheriff Wilmot, your testimony today has given me three or
four things that I didn't know about before, so thank all of
y'all.
My first question is to the two sheriffs.
Maybe, Sheriff Martinez, you first. We talked about
Stonegarden, and Sheriff Wilmot, in his remarks, talked about
moving those funds back to DHS from FEMA. Is there other uses
of--Stonegarden is restrictive in how you can use those funds.
Are there other areas where you--where currently right now you
can't use Stonegarden funds that you wish you could?
Sheriff Martinez, let's start with you, and then Wilmot.
Director, I am sure you have some opinions, too.
Sheriff Martinez. I think on the Stonegarden funds there
has to be a little bit of flexibility. Border Patrol, DPS,
every sheriff is short on manpower. We are talking about hiring
all kinds of people, so I would like to see that same
opportunity extended to the sheriffs to be able to hire
manpower to support securing our border.
Mr. Hurd. Sheriff, that is because right now you can only
use Stonegarden funds to pay overtime, is that correct? You
would like to be able to use those initial funds for the first-
year salary or something like that?
Sheriff Martinez. Yes, sir. Correct.
Mr. Hurd. Excellent.
Mr. McCraw. Congressman, I have been listening to the
sheriffs talk about this for a good 7 years. I mean, what is
frustrating, they can only eat so much overtime. We can give
them all the overtime in the world; they have got only so many
deputies.
For them to be--to use that money, if you would allow them
to use it, OK, as an agreement up front that this is only as
long as the money is there, a deputy--now they--now all of a
sudden they have got an increase of resources in the area, and
that is better for Border Patrol, that is certainly better for
the State, as well. There is value in that investment.
So there are other funding streams that are far more
flexible that Stonegarden funds, although we like what DHS did
with that, you know, being allowed to at least let them use. Of
course, the State doesn't benefit at all. We don't get any use
of it. The Stonegarden funds aren't allocated for State police
agencies.
Mr. Hurd. Sheriff Wilmot, you have some opinions?
Sheriff Wilmot. Yes, sir, I do, and I will be more than
happy to throw those in there.
In regards to Operation Stonegarden, obviously it is labor-
intensive just doing the reporting requirements as well as the
purchasing of the equipment that we need. It also restricts the
type of equipment that you need going through FEMA.
Another thing is in regards to Stonegarden is that you can
only use so much for overtime and then you have to use so much
for equipment and then so much for mileage on your vehicles. So
it is broken down then you can't change the percentage at all.
So it is something that--and this is the one true grant that
actually comes to the sheriffs to actually allocate out to
local law enforcement as--at least in Arizona--as well as share
with other counties along our borders, and the State as well,
if they can help complement our operations.
So that is where we need to keep it. DHS is more qualified
to say, ``Yes, this type of equipment is what we need for this
location,'' because again, we can't paint that broad brush
across the whole border, so----
Mr. Hurd. Good. Thank you.
Director McCraw, my next question is for you. When I got
elected and came in last Congress we had a lengthy debate about
what operational control of the border actually means. You
know, in your materials you provided the Texas border security
levels, and I have always fought to use DPS' perspective on
what operational control means because of all the arguments and
conversation I have had on this it seems to be the most
thoughtful.
So first question is, you know, have you seen reticence in
some of our--your Federal partners in adopting a similar
framework? Do your partner States have a similar--do your peer
organizations have a similar perspective on what operational
control of the border means?
Mr. McCraw. I don't believe that is the case right now, but
we have been working with our legislature and the Governor's
office to be able to do this, to be able to have some
standards, so--and I have, you know, frankly, have not looked
at some of our peers.
We have looked at our Federal partners. You go back with a
GAO study back to the 1990's and it is the same thing all over
again. You can't use the number of illegal aliens to predict
success and failure. You have to come up with something more
substantive.
Technology has allowed us to do that. Now we can actually
identify and track out and map the level of security. So the
focus that we have come up with is just simply figure out what
those levels of security are, agree upon what those variables
are, county those variables, crack them.
The point with evidence is that unless you can prove it
then there is no way to be able to justify that--saying that we
are at this point or that point. So you have got to be able to
prove it, too. You can't just say--declare, ``I am
operationally in control.''
The only way to do--an advantage we have right now is, like
I said before, GPS will allow you to do that--both the
infrastructure, both in terms of technology, the coverage
level, and your interdiction capacity.
Mr. Hurd. Excellent. Well, thank you for your leadership on
this topic, and we need you to keep talking about this because,
again, as we get into those debates again up here we need to
have a common--we need to be speaking the same language.
I have run out of time, but one thing that I will be
following up with all of y'all about is intelligence sharing
and how do we improve that, how do we make sure that we are
able to extend our defenses? Because let's stop the problem
before they get to our borders, or if we know something is
imminent and, you know, y'all are going to be the ones that get
called first, not Border Patrol, whenever there is a problem.
So making sure y'all have access to information and how we can
improve that is something I would look forward to talking with
y'all about in the future.
So, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Chair recognizes Mrs. Watson Coleman.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Judge Trevino.
Judge Trevino. Yes, ma'am?
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Did I say that properly?
Judge Trevino. You sure did.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Good. Thank you. I have a couple of
questions for you first.
You have been pointed out that--you have pointed out that
Cameron County owns three international bridges and you have
described how critical cross-border trade is to your economy
and how important that cross-border travel is to your
constituents as they go about their daily lives.
How have CBP staffing shortages at ports of entry affected
bridges in your county? Have they--these shortages resulted in
increased wait times at the bridges? What more should the
Federal Government do to support cross-border commerce and
trade?
Judge Trevino. I would love to be able to tell you,
Congresswoman, that there has been no impact, but that wouldn't
be accurate. The reality that is you just hit the nail on the
head.
Because of the shortages of CBP personnel the lines can be
much longer. It is not unusual for many people to live in
Brownsville and work in Matamoros or live in Matamoros and work
in Brownsville. There are numerous cross-border businesses and
industries that rely on each other, so the fact that if
somebody is going over there for work, well, they are
probably--they are--they kind-of have to do it. But for those
that are looking to either more of a recreational, whether it
is to eat, shop, dine, or receive health care on either side,
the reality is we will have less and less of those cross--we
have had that in the impact.
I am not going to sit here and tell you that the cartel
violence in Mexico didn't have an impact, but the reality is
things have calmed down, and I think that is exactly why the
cooperation between our two countries at the National level is
critical because at the local level that is what needs to be
done, and that is what the local law enforcement--they rely on
their counterparts on the Mexican side and vice versa, whether
it is locating an individual who wants to be--or is under
indictment or charged with a particular serious crime, whatever
it may be.
But obviously staffing levels need to be at a--at the rate
where the wait times are as minimal as possible without
sacrificing security and surveillance. But it would also allow
more opportunity to catch those individuals that are crossing
at our ports of entry that are either crossing illicit drugs or
merchandise or whatever the case may be.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So what is that you would tell the
Federal Government that you think that it should support or do
in order to support and sustain and ensure that there is this
sort of cross-border trade and travel that is both sufficient
for the economy and safe for the communities?
Judge Trevino. In addition to increasing the staffing----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Yes.
Judge Trevino [continuing]. As we alluded to earlier, we
would also heavily request a reinvestment in our
infrastructure. While the county owns the bridge, all the
facilities on there are owned by the Federal Government. The
Gateway Bridge, for in particular, was opened in 1960. There
has been literally no reinvestment or upgrade since that time
frame to the present.
We moved all the truck traffic from the Gateway Bridge over
to another bridge, Veterans Bridge, and because of that some of
the facilities at the Gateway are basically just sitting there.
If we were to open up additional lanes of travel--I did a--we
did a recent trip to El Paso. We have one pedestrian lane at
Gateway for the entire--for all three bridges. Last year we had
over 2 million people crossing with that one particular lane.
In El Paso, which at one bridge has 14 lanes--it looked
like an airport to me--they have 5 million. They have got 14
lanes just at one bridge, and I believe they have seven ports
of--seven bridges.
So I know that it would generate a lot more revenue at the
local basis, and also allow us to enhance the relationship
between our border communities.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
A very quick question, if you might answer, to the three
gentlemen, Mr. McCraw, Mr.--Sheriff Martinez, and Mr. Wilmot.
My question has to do with the proposed wall. Do you believe
that the proposed wall is the best utilization of resources to
keep our borders protected in the areas that you represent and
are concerned with?
I will start with you, Mr. McCraw.
Mr. McCraw. Yes, ma'am. As I indicated before, a wall----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. I apologize for not being here.
Mr. McCraw. No, not at all. But a wall in itself is an
obstacle, not a barrier. It takes a combination of things.
I will go along with--I think Secretary Kelly did a very
good job today explaining that, you know, in some places he
noted--and you get out to Big Bend Country, you have, in
effect, a barrier out there already, a natural barrier. How do
you exploit technology, how do you exploit resources on top of
that?
So it is not one thing for one area. It changes. As the
Judge Trevino notes very well, in Cameron County, you get out
to Boca Chica, you build a wall, doesn't make sense. There is
Lake Amistad--very good point today by one of the Congressman--
doesn't make sense.
Every place is different. But one thing is in mind: You
need a barrier between the ports of entry.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
I have exceeded my time, if I could simply get my questions
answered from Mr. Martinez and----
Mr. Duncan [presiding]. Gentlelady's time is expired.
We will now go to Mr. Rutherford, from Florida.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So you are not extending that very
short request and indulgence? I just want to make sure I
understand that.
Mr. Duncan. I will allow them to answer your question.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. Thank you.
Sheriff Martinez. A fence in and of itself is not the only
answer. Del Rio and Ciudad Acuna are separated by a fence, a 2-
mile fence, that has made our side of the border a little bit
safer when it comes to property crimes. It has rerouted
everything to the outside of that fence. But in and of itself
it is not the answer.
Thank you.
Sheriff Wilmot. Ms. Congresswoman, in regards to that
question Yuma County has 110.5 miles of border with Mexico.
Most of it is fenced. Other areas that cannot be fenced already
have vehicle barriers.
I will tell you that once that was put into place the
humanitarian side of that, preventing the deaths in the desert,
has stopped. We are very minimal on that.
I have had to go out there and process 14 victims that were
left for dead on one occasion when it was 115 degrees out. I
don't think anybody wants to experience what we have had to see
as law enforcement when we have to go out there and process
those victims that have been abandoned and died. But 14 all at
once, just a travesty. To see them and what they went through,
and to see a fence go up and prevent that, to me what is the
cost of a life?
Mr. Duncan. Thank the gentlelady.
Chair will now recognize Mr. Rutherford, from Florida.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony today. I want to
ask something a little more away from the border and back into,
I think, the interior of the country.
The 287(g) program, can you give me your experience and
position on how effective 287(g) has been at the border and
then further away from the border? Is it well utilized within
law enforcement? Is that your experience?
Mr. McCraw. Congressman, it depends on the agency. It
depends on the locale. It certainly works very well in jails--
in large jails where there is a criminal alien population and
they train individuals to look and identify and be able to
curry some of the Federal databases to identify that, and that
is always helpful when they get the hit on the secure
committees or a priority hit through fingerprints.
Certainly from an investigative standpoint when we used to
work terrorists it was an advantage--or drug traffickers--it
was an advantage having a legacy INS expert, you know, on the
team that would help you in many ways or shape or form. But it
is each individual jurisdiction needs to make that decision.
Sheriff Martinez. I know that in Val Verde County we have a
jail population 1,200-plus, ICE is in our jails every day, so
detainers are honored in our facility.
Sheriff Wilmot. In regards to your question, Congressman,
the--in regards to the 287(g), we participated in it at one
time, but I can't use taxpayer funding to do the Federal job.
So it was only on a overtime basis if they had the moneys to be
able to pay our officer on overtime to perform that function.
What we have done in Yuma, because they are right there
working with us, is they have access to our facility and they
can screen through all those documents, and they placed a hold
on--the question for the sheriffs throughout the United States
that do not have that ability to have a 2-hour response or a
hour response for someone to come pick them up is by what legal
ability are they able to honor the detainers. That is our
biggest concern, as far as sheriffs across the whole United
States who are impacted with--they don't have that privilege of
ICE ERO being in our counties.
So we release them into them, but it is very seldom because
most of them leave our jails and go to prison.
Judge Trevino. Congressman, I wish I had a better answer
for you but I don't believe our local sheriff's department is
still involved in that. But I would have to get a better answer
for you. I wish I could tell you that right now.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognize I
think the last Member, the gentlelady from California, Ms.
Barragan, 5 minutes.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask
for unanimous consent that a statement prepared by the American
Immigration Council be submitted for the record.
Mr. Duncan. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Statement of the American Immigration Council
February 7, 2017
The American Immigration Council (Immigration Council) is a non-
profit organization which for over 25 years has been dedicated to
increasing public understanding of immigration law and policy and the
role of immigration in American society. We write to share our analysis
and research regarding an unnecessary border wall and the already
massive investment that has already been made along the Southwest
Border.
what have we spent
Since the last major overhaul of the U.S. immigration system in
1986, the Federal Government has spent an estimated $263 billion on
immigration enforcement.\1\ As discussions with a new President and
Congress start to focus on what immigration enforcement and border
security should look like it is important to review how much money has
already been spent on these initiatives and what outcomes have been
produced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See American Immigration Council, Giving the Facts a Fighting
Chance: Addressing Common Questions on Immigration (Washington, DC:
December 2015), 16, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/
research/addressing-common-questions-immigration; U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Budget-in-Brief, FY 2017, 17, https://www.dhs.gov/
publication/fy-2017-budget-brief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigration enforcement spending (further detailed in Attachment A)
largely falls into two issue areas: Border security and interior
enforcement. Border spending includes staffing and resources needed for
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), an agency of the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) working at and between United States ports
of entry. Interior enforcement is primarily focused on staffing and
resources for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), also part
of DHS, to apprehend noncitizens in the interior of the country,
detention for those undergoing removal proceedings, and the deportation
of those ordered removed.
Currently, the number of border and interior enforcement personnel
stands at more than 49,000.\2\ The number of U.S. Border Patrol agents
nearly doubled from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2016.\3\
Additionally, the number of ICE agents devoted to its office of
Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) nearly tripled from fiscal
year 2003 to fiscal year 2016.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See American Immigration Council, Giving the Facts a Fighting
Chance: Addressing Common Questions on Immigration (Washington, DC:
December 2015), 18, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/
research/addressing-common-questions-immigration.
\3\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, ``U.S. Customs and
Border Protection: Review of the Staffing Analysis Report under the
Border Patrol Agent Reform Act of 2014,'' May 2016, http://www.gao.gov/
assets/680/677475.pdf.
\4\ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ``Congressional Budget
Justification'', Fiscal Year 2016, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/
files/publications/FY%202017%20Congress-
ional%20Budget%20Justification%20-%20Volume%202_1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What has this spending bought? The United States currently has over
650 miles of fencing along the Southern Border, record levels of staff
for ICE and CBP, as well as a fleet of drones--among other resources.
Some of these resources have been spent on ill-conceived projects, such
as the $1 billion attempt to construct a ``virtual fence'' along the
Southwest Border, a project initiated in 2005 that was later scrapped
for being ineffective and too costly.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Julia Preston, ``Homeland Security Cancels `Virtual Fence'
After $1 Billion is Spent,'' New York Times, January 2011, http://
www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/us/politics/15fence.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of these efforts that have accumulated in the name of security,
however, do not necessarily measure border security.\6\ It is past time
for the United States to focus on metrics that actually assess
achievements and progress on security.\7\ DHS lacks transparent,
consistent, and stable metrics for evaluating border enforcement.
Before deciding how to address border security, Congress should require
clear reporting on metrics from DHS.\8\ Such metrics would better allow
Congress and the public to hold the immigration agencies accountable
and assess whether and what additional resources are needed (or not
needed) to secure our border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Bipartisan Policy Center, ``Measuring the Metrics: Grading the
Government on Immigration Enforcement,'' February 2015, http://
bipartisanpolicy.org/library/measuring-the-metrics-grading-the-
government-on-immigration-enforcement/.
\7\ Ibid.
\8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
what have we built and what do we need
For generations, politicians have talked about constructing a
border wall. The fact is that (as further detailed in Attachment B)
building a fortified and impenetrable wall between the United States
and Mexico might make for pithy sound bites, but in reality it is
unnecessary, complicated, ineffective, expensive, and would create a
host of additional problems.
The Government Accountability Office found that single-layer
pedestrian fencing could cost approximately $6.5 million per mile. In
addition, millions would have to be spent on roads and maintenance.\9\
The easiest parts of the border fence have been built, according to
Marc Rosenblum, formerly of the Migration Policy Institute and the
current DHS Deputy Secretary of the Office of Immigration
Statistics.\10\ The estimated cost of the remaining border wall
segments are between $15 and $25 billion, with each mile of fencing
costing $16 million.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Government Accountability Office, ``Secure Border Initiative
Fence Construction Costs,'' January 2009, available at, http://
www.gao.gov/new.items/d09244r.pdf.
\10\ Kate Drew, ``This is What Trump's Border Wall Could Cost,''
CNBC, available at, http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-
border-wall-could-cost-us.html.
\11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the fiscal year 2017 DHS budget, $274 million was
spent on border fence maintenance.\12\ Based on that expense, one can
extrapolate that if fencing is built on the final two-thirds of the
Southern Border, the maintenance costs will triple to more than $750
million annually. In fiscal year 2006, appropriations for building and
maintaining border infrastructure was $298 million, and then jumped to
$1.5 billion in fiscal year 2007 to pay for the fencing mandated in the
Secure Fence Act.\13\ Fiscal year 2016 appropriations were $447
million.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Department of Homeland Security, ``Fiscal Year 2017
Congressional Budget Justification, Volume 1,'' February 2016,
available at, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/
FY%202017%20Congressional%20Budget%20Justification%20%20Volume%201_1.pdf
\13\ Carla Argueta, ``Border Security: Immigration Enforcement
Between Ports of Entry,'' Congressional Research Service, April 2016,
available at, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42138.pdf.
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outgoing Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
Gil Kerlikowske said in January 2017, ``I think that anyone who's been
familiar with the southwest border and the terrain . . . kind of
recognizes that building a wall along the entire southwest border is
probably not going to work,'' adding that he does not ``think it is
feasible'' or the ``smartest way to use taxpayer money on
infrastructure.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Brian Ross, Brian Epstein, and Paul Blake, ``Retiring Border
Chief Calls Trump's Wall a Waste of Time, Money,'' ABC News, January
2017, available at, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-border-wall-
waste-time-money-retiring-border/story?id=44978156.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The head of the National Border Patrol Council, a union
representing 16,000 Border Patrol agents which endorsed President Trump
during his campaign, said, ``We do not need a wall along the entire
2,000 miles of border.''\16\ He went on to say, ``If I were to quantify
an actual number, I would say that we need about 30 percent. Thirty
percent of our border has to have an actual fence [or] wall.''\17\ The
existing 650 miles make up more than 30 percent of the 2,000-mile
border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Morning Edition, Border Patrol Agents' Union Confers with
Trump on Securing the Border, National Public Radio, November 2016,
available at, http://www.npr.org/2016/11/17/502402360/border-patrol-
agents-union-confers-with-trump-on-securing-the-border.
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to an internal U.S. Government study obtained by Reuters
in April 2016, CBP believes that more technology is needed along the
border to create a ``virtual wall.'' The agency requested better radios
and more aerial drones, but only 23 more miles of fences.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Julia Harte, ``No Wall, But More High-Tech Gear, Fencing
Sought by U.S. Border Agents, Reuters, January 2017, available at,
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-fence-exclusive-
idUSKCN0XP28J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
border security is about more than enforcement
While today's hearing is focused on enforcement along our Southern
Border, the Immigration Council concerns about the border go far beyond
concerns related to further militarization of our Nation's borders. The
Immigration Council promotes the development of immigration policies
that reflect our proud history as a nation of immigrants that respects
fundamental principles of fairness and due process. To that end, our
report, A Guide to Children Arriving at the Border: Laws, Policies and
Responses, provides information about the tens of thousands of
children--some traveling with their parents and others alone--who have
fled their homes in Central America and arrived at our Southern Border
and why the current enforcement only response to their arrival is the
wrong approach.\19\ As described in the Guide, unaccompanied children
and families are still fleeing Central American violence in large
numbers. Organized crime, gangs, and violence are driving children,
families, women, and men out of their home towns and countries, a
situation detailed in the report, Understanding the Central American
Refugee Crisis: Why They are Fleeing,\20\ and the paper, No Childhood
Here: Why Central American Children Are Fleeing Their Homes.\21\ These
arriving children, families, and others from the region have been
apprehended, detained in poor conditions, and rushed through removal
proceedings with little due process.\22\ As noted in our report,
Detained Deceived and Deported: Experiences of Recently Deported
Central American Families many have been deported back to the dangerous
circumstances from which they originally fled.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ``A Guide to Children Arriving At the Border: Laws, Policies
and Responses,'' American Immigration Council, June 2015, available at,
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/guide-children-
arriving-border-laws-policies-and-responses.
\20\ Jonathan T. Hiskey, Ph.D., Abby Cordova, Ph.D., Diana Orces,
Ph.D. and Mary Fran Malone, Ph.D., ``Understanding the Central American
Refugee Crisis: Why They are Fleeing and How U.S. Policies are Failing
to Deter Them, American Immigration Council, February 2016, available
at, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/understanding-
central-american-refugee-crisis.
\21\ Elizabeth Kennedy, ``No Childhood Here: Why Central American
Children are Fleeing Their Homes,'' American Immigration Council, July
2014, available at, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/
research/no-childhood-here-why-central-american-children-are-fleeing-
their-homes.
\22\ Deplorable Medical Treatment at Family Detention Centers,
American Immigration Council, July 20, 2016, available at, https://
www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/deplorable-medical-treatment-
family-detention-centers.
\23\ Guillermo Cantor, Ph.D. and Tory Johnson, ``Detained Deceived,
and Deported: Experiences of Recently Deported Central American
Families, American Immigration Council, May 2016, available at, https:/
/www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/special-reports/deported-central-
american-families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, CBP and ICE have a serious and long-standing problem with
handling the personal belongings of detained migrants in their custody.
Too often, some or all of a detainee's belongings are lost, destroyed,
or stolen by the immigration-enforcement agents entrusted with their
care. DHS has attempted to correct this problem through two policy
changes, however, these policy shifts have yet to bear fruit. As our
report, Deported with No Possessions: The Mishandling of Migrants'
Personal Belongings by CBP and ICE, shows detainees from Mexico are
still just as likely to have their property retained and not returned
as they were before DHS implemented the new policies.\24\ CBP has also
been in the spotlight for its questionable practices regarding the
treatment of migrants in its holding facilities near the U.S.' Southern
Border. Each year, hundreds of thousands of individuals are held in
these facilities, which are meant to hold individuals for a short time
and are not designed for overnight custody, and yet they are routinely
used in this way. Government records analyzed in the report, Detained
Beyond the Limit: Prolonged Confinement by U.S. Customs and Border
Protection Along the Southwest Border, contain information on length of
detention for all Border Patrol sectors along the U.S.' Southwest
Border, reveal that individuals are frequently held for days and
sometimes even months in such facilities.\25\ The American Immigration
Council hopes that the committee will not just look at enforcement
along our Southern Border but look to address these issues as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Walter Ewing, Ph.D. and Guillermo Cantor, Ph.D., ``Deported
with No Possessions: The Mishandling of Migrants Personal Belongings by
CBP and ICE,'' American Immigration Council, December 2016, available
at, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/deported-no-
possessions.
\25\ Guillermo Cantor, Ph.D., ``Detained Beyond the Limit:
Prolonged Confinement by U.S. Customs and Border Protection along the
Southwest Border,'' August 2016, available at, https://
www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/prolonged-detention-us-
customs-border-protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Border security depends on the smart and efficient use of available
resources. At the same time, border enforcement cannot and should not
be done in isolation. Instead, it must be examined in the larger
context of reforms needed for the entire immigration system.
ATTACHMENT A
the cost of immigration enforcement and border security
Since the last major overhaul of the U.S. immigration system in
1986, the Federal Government has spent an estimated $263 billion on
immigration enforcement.\26\ As discussions with a new President and
Congress start to focus on what immigration enforcement and border
security should look like it is important to review how much money has
already been spent on these initiatives and what outcomes have been
produced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See American Immigration Council, Giving the Facts a Fighting
Chance: Addressing Common Questions on Immigration (Washington, DC:
December 2015), 16, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/
research/addressing-common-questions-immigration; U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Budget-in-Brief, Fiscal Year 2017, 17, https://
www.dhs.gov/publication/fy-2017-budget-brief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigration enforcement spending largely falls into two issue
areas: Border security and interior enforcement. Border spending
includes staffing and resources needed for U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), an agency of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) working at and between United States ports of entry. Interior
enforcement is primarily focused on staffing and resources for U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), also part of DHS, to
apprehend noncitizens in the interior of the country, detention for
those undergoing removal proceedings, and the deportation of those
ordered removed.
Currently, the number of border and interior enforcement personnel
stands at more than 49,000.\27\ The number of U.S. Border Patrol agents
nearly doubled from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2016.\28\
Additionally, the number of ICE agents devoted to its office of
Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) nearly tripled from fiscal
year 2003 to fiscal year 2016.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See American Immigration Council, Giving the Facts a Fighting
Chance: Addressing Common Questions on Immigration (Washington, DC:
December 2015), 18, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/
research/addressing-common-questions-immigration.
\28\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, ``U.S. Customs and
Border Protection: Review of the Staffing Analysis Report under the
Border Patrol Agent Reform Act of 2014,'' May 2016, http://www.gao.gov/
assets/680/677475.pdf.
\29\ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ``Congressional Budget
Justification'', Fiscal Year 2016, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/
files/publications/FY%202017%20Congressional%20-
Budget%20Justification%20%20Volume%202_1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What has this spending bought? The United States currently has over
650 miles of fencing along the Southern Border, record levels of staff
for ICE and CBP, as well as a fleet of drones--among other resources.
Some of these resources have been spent on ill-conceived projects, such
as the $1 billion attempt to construct a ``virtual fence'' along the
Southwest Border, a project initiated in 2005 that was later scrapped
for being ineffective and too costly.\30\ Even with record level
spending on enforcement, enforcement alone is not sufficient to address
the challenges of undocumented migration.\31\ It also has significant
unintended consequences, according to United States.\32\ All of these
efforts that have accumulated in the name of security, however, do not
necessarily measure border security.\33\ It is past time for the United
States to focus on metrics that actually assess achievements and
progress on security.\34\ DHS lacks transparent, consistent, and stable
metrics for evaluating border enforcement. Before deciding how to
address border security, Congress should require clear reporting on
metrics from DHS.\35\ Such metrics would better allow Congress and the
public to hold the immigration agencies accountable and assess whether
and what additional resources are needed (or not needed) to secure our
border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Julia Preston, ``Homeland Security Cancels `Virtual Fence'
After $1 Billion is Spent,'' New York Times, January 2011, http://
www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/us/politics/15fence.html.
\31\ Doris Meissner, Donald M. Kerwin, Muzaffar Chishti, and Claire
Bergeron, Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of
Formiddable Machinery, Migration Policy Institute, January 2013, http:/
/www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigration-enforcement-united-
states-rise-formidable-machinery.
\32\ United States Border Patrol, Southwest Border Sectors, https:/
/www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2016-Oct/
BP%20Southwest%20Border%20Sector%20Deaths%-20FY1998%20%20FY2016.pdf.
\33\ Bipartisan Policy Center, ``Measuring the Metrics: Grading the
Government on Immigration Enforcement,'' February 2015, http://
bipartisanpolicy.org/library/measuring-the-metrics-grading-the-
government-on-immigration-enforcement/.
\34\ Ibid.
\35\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cost in Dollars
The immigration enforcement budget has increased massively since
the early 1990s, but Congress continues to call for more taxpayer
dollars to be spent at the border.
Since 1993, when the current strategy of concentrated border
enforcement was first rolled out along the U.S.-Mexico border,
the annual budget of the U.S. Border Patrol has increased more
than ten-fold, from $363 million to more than $3.8 billion
(Figure 1).\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ``Department Management
and Operations, Analysis and Operations, Office of the Inspector
General, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,'' Congressional Budget
Justification Fiscal Year 2017-Volume I, 880, https://www.dhs.gov/
sites/default/files/publications/
FY2017CongressionalBudgetJustification-Volume_1.pdf.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Since the creation of DHS in 2003, the budget of CBP has
more than doubled from $5.9 billion to $13.2 billion per year
(Figure 2).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Budget-in-Brief, Fiscal
Year 2005-2017, https://www.dhs.gov/dhs-budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On top of that, ICE spending has grown 85 percent, from $3.3
billion since its inception to $6.1 billion today (Figure
2).\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Ibid.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Increases in Personnel
Since 1993, the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents nearly
doubled from 10,717 to a Congressionally-mandated 21,370 in
fiscal year 2016 (Figure 3).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, ``U.S. Customs and
Border Protection: Review of the Staffing Analysis Report under the
Border Patrol Agent Reform Act of 2014,'' May 2016, http://www.gao.gov/
assets/680/677475.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of CBP officers staffing ports of entry (POEs)
grew from 17,279 in fiscal year 2003 to 21,423 in fiscal year
2012 (Figure 3).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget
Justification, fiscal year 2003 and 2012, https://www.dhs.gov/dhs-
budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of ICE agents devoted to Enforcement and Removal
Operations increased from 2,710 in fiscal year 2003 to 7,995 in
fiscal year 2016 (Figure 3).\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget
Justification, fiscal year 2003-2016, https://www.dhs.gov/dhs-budget.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Federal Government has already met the border security
benchmarks laid down in earlier Senate immigration reform bills.
As the American Immigration Lawyers Association pointed out
in a January 2013 analysis, the ``benchmarks'' for border
security specified in the bipartisan 2006, 2007, and 2010
immigration-reform legislative packages in the Senate have been
largely met.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Greg Chen and Su Kim, Border Security: Moving Beyond Past
Benchmarks (Washington, DC: American Immigration Lawyers Association,
January 2013), http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?bc=25667 43061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirements in those Senate bills for more border
enforcement personnel, border fencing, surveillance technology,
unmanned aerial vehicles, and detention beds have been
fulfilled and in many ways surpassed--an all-time high.\43\ As
the Homeland Security Advisory Panel noted in 2016, ICE
detention rose from the normal 34,000 beds to 41,000 an all-
time high.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Ibid.
\44\ Homeland Security Advisory Council, ``Report of the
Subcommittee on Privatized Immigration Detention Facilities,''
Department of Homeland Security, December 1, 2016, https://www.dhs.gov/
sites/default/files/publications/
DHS%20HSAC%20PIDF%20Final%20Report.pdf; National Immigrant Justice
Center, ``Immigration Detention Bed Quota Timeline,'' January 2017,
https://immigrantjustice.org/sites/default/files/content-type/
commentary-item/docu- ments/2017-01/
Immigration%20Detention%20Bed%20Quota%20Timeline%202017_01_05.- pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Border security depends on the smart and efficient use of available
resources. At the same, border enforcement cannot and should not be
done in isolation. Instead, it must be examined in the larger context
of reforms needed for the entire immigration system.
ATTACHMENT B
the high cost and diminishing returns of a border wall
For generations, politicians have talked about constructing a
border wall. The fact is that building a fortified and impenetrable
wall between the United States and Mexico might make for pithy sound
bites, but in reality it is unnecessary, complicated, ineffective,
expensive, and would create a host of additional problems.
Extensive physical barriers already exist along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The U.S.-Mexico border is 1,954 miles long. Border security
involves managing the flow of people and goods across the
border and preventing the illegal entry of people and goods.
The existing border security infrastructure includes physical
barriers, aerial surveillance, and technology. More than 21,000
Border Patrol agents--as well as other Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) personnel--staff
ports of entry, Border Patrol stations, forward operating
bases, and checkpoints.
Current physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border
include those intended to prevent illegal border crossings by
foot (pedestrian fencing) and impede vehicles from smuggling
persons or contraband (vehicle fencing). Secondary and tertiary
layers of fencing further impede illegal crossings.
As of early 2017, approximately 650 miles of border fence
already exists: 350 miles of primary pedestrian fencing, 300
miles of vehicle fencing, 36 miles of secondary fencing behind
the primary fencing, and 14 miles of tertiary pedestrian
fencing behind the secondary fence.
The existing barriers include tall metal or concrete posts,
solid corrugated steel walls, metal fencing, and combinations
of these designs.
In addition to physical barriers, surveillance tools,
towers, cameras, motion detectors, thermal imaging sensors,
stadium lighting, ground sensors, and drones are part of the
vast existing infrastructure aimed at stopping the unauthorized
entry of people, drugs, arms, and other illicit items.
Congress acknowledged that additional physical barriers are not
necessary.
The Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-367), a law that
passed with bipartisan support in both the House and Senate,
required the construction of about 850 miles of double-layer
fencing along five segments of the border.
A few years after passage, Congress recognized that 850
miles of additional border fencing was not feasible or
necessary. In 2008, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008
amended the 2006 law to reduce the required mileage of
reinforced fencing to ``not less than 700 miles of the
Southwest Border where fencing would be most practical and
effective . . . ''. In addition, DHS is not required to install
fencing ``in a particular location along the international
border of the United States if the Secretary determines that
the use or placement of such resources is not the most
appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control
over the international border at such location.''
Even Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), a long-time opponent of
immigration reform, said in early January 2017, ``We've already
appropriated money for walls. We've got walls right now.''
The wall is expensive.
The Government Accountability Office found that single-layer
pedestrian fencing could cost approximately $6.5 million per
mile. In addition, millions would have to be spent on roads and
maintenance.
The easiest parts of the border fence have been built,
according to Marc Rosenblum, formerly of the Migration Policy
Institute and the current DHS Deputy Secretary of the Office of
Immigration Statistics. The estimated cost of the remaining
border wall segments are between $15 and $25 billion, with each
mile of fencing costing $16 million.
According to the fiscal year 2017 DHS budget, $274 million
was spent on border fence maintenance. Based on that expense,
one can extrapolate that if fencing is built on the final two-
thirds of the Southern Border, the maintenance costs will
triple to more than $750 million annually.
In fiscal year 2006, appropriations for building and
maintaining border infrastructure was $298 million, and then
jumped to $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2007 to pay for the
fencing mandated in the Secure Fence Act. Fiscal Year 2016
appropriations were $447 million.
The Federal border agencies have not asked for a wall.
Outgoing Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) Gil Kerlikowske said in January 2017, ``I think that
anyone who's been familiar with the Southwest Border and the
terrain . . . kind-of recognizes that building a wall along the
entire Southwest Border is probably not going to work,'' adding
that he does not ``think it is feasible'' or the ``smartest way
to use taxpayer money on infrastructure.''
The head of the National Border Patrol Council, a union
representing 16,000 Border Patrol agents which endorsed
President Trump during his campaign, said, ``We do not need a
wall along the entire 2,000 miles of border.'' He went on to
say, ``If I were to quantify an actual number, I would say that
we need about 30 percent. Thirty percent of our border has to
have an actual fence [or] wall.'' The existing 650 miles make
up more than 30 percent of the 2,000-mile border.
According to an internal U.S. Government study obtained by
Reuters in April 2016, CBP believes that more technology is
needed along the border to create a ``virtual wall.'' The
agency requested better radios and more aerial drones, but only
23 more miles of fences.
There are complications to building a wall.
Natural barriers. The Rio Grande River runs along 1,254
miles of the border between Mexico and the United States and
does not flow in a straight line--instead twisting, turning,
and flooding regularly. Under the International Boundary and
Water Commission, created in 1889 between the United States and
Mexico, border barriers may not disrupt the flow of the Rio
Grande. As a result, the current border fencing in Texas is
located miles away from the border on private landowner's
property. In addition, the mountain range at Otay Mesa in
California makes it extremely impractical to construct a wall
or fencing.
Private land ownership. After the passage of the Secure
Fence Act, the Government attempted to seize private property
for purposes of constructing border barriers through eminent
domain. These efforts led to protracted legal battles that in
some cases lasted 7 years. The Federal Government had to
provide monetary compensation to the landowners and agreed to
construct several access points along the fence on that
property. Some of the existing gaps in the fence are in
affluent areas where residents fought construction. It would
likely cost the Federal Government considerable amounts of
money to purchase land and build in those areas.
Native American land. The Tohono O'odam Nation runs along 75
miles of the Southwest Border, and members of the Tribe have
already stated they will not allow a border wall to be built on
their reservation. A wall would effectively cut the reservation
in half and make movement across the border, but within the
reservation, difficult. It would separate families and make it
difficult for tribe members to care for burial sites located in
Mexico. Additionally, Federal law requires the Federal
Government to consult with Tribal governments before
constructing on the land. Without the Tribe's support, the
Federal Government could resort to condemning the land and
removing it from the trust of the Tohono O'odam Nation.
The wall would create a host of additional problems.
Border deaths. History has shown that when barriers are
erected along the border, people attempt to cross at more
remote and dangerous locations. According to U.S. Border Patrol
statistics, the Southwest Border witnesses approximately one
death per day. Over the past 18 years, nearly 7,000 people have
died of hypothermia, drowning, heat exhaustion, or dehydration.
Harm to wildlife. The border region is home to many species
and some of the most endangered species, including the Sonoran
Pronghorn, the Mexican gray wolf, and the jaguar. If their
natural habitat is divided by a large barrier, animals are left
with a smaller habitat and may venture outside their usual
ranges, causing potential harm to the animals and people.
Damage to the environment. A wall could impede the natural
flow of floodwaters, resulting in damage and erosion, as it did
in 2008.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
I want to follow up on some of what was asked. There have
been a number of comments about the wall being an obstacle, not
a barrier. Then in our packet I see these photos of what
appears to be people smuggling drugs just climbing over a fence
that appears to be easy for them to hop over.
Who is the wall most effective against? Is it most
effective against the drug cartels, people smuggling drugs, or
the families that are coming over because they are escaping
violence? Who is it most effective against?
Mr. McCraw. I think it is equally effective to either,
frankly. But again, as I have testified and I believe some of
the other--the sheriffs have testified, is that unless you
are--have technology on that fence, unless someone is
observing, unless you have coverage on that fence, unless you
have someone to do the interdiction when someone comes over
that fence or under that fence or through that fence, it is a
obstacle and not a barrier.
Ms. Barragan. Does anybody have any information on how
often or how frequently the border agents will catch somebody
hopping the fence or, you know, shortly after they have?
Sheriff Martinez. I guess in hopping the fence I don't
think they have that many apprehensions where I am located, but
for the week of January 27 through February 3 they apprehended
461 individuals in the Del Rio sector. Del Rio has a 2-mile
fence. I think Maverick County, Eagle Pass, Texas has a 3-mile
fence, so all those individuals that were--my belief, all those
individuals that were apprehended were apprehended outside of
that boundary.
Ms. Barragan. Were those that were apprehended people that
turned themselves in, or people that were--didn't voluntarily
turn themselves in?
Sheriff Martinez. I would believe that they didn't
voluntarily turn themselves in.
Ms. Barragan. Sheriff Wilmot, do you want to add to any of
that?
Sheriff Wilmot. Congresswoman, I would have to defer to
Border Patrol for those numbers. I do not have that available
to me.
Ms. Barragan. OK.
Sheriff Wilmot. I could only comment on the facts that I
know for sure.
Ms. Barragan. Great.
Judge Trevino. The only comment I would add, Congresswoman,
is the fact that in speaking with the local border sector
chiefs I do know that the apprehensions are--have decreased
considerably over the last several years. That is the only
statistic that I am aware of, but I don't have the specific
numbers.
Ms. Barragan. OK.
Sheriff Wilmot, you--I know some people have asked about
this--you have advocated for removing funding for FEMA and
moving it into DHS. Who would suffer--who is being serviced by
the FEMA funding that you are advocating that we move those
funds over?
Sheriff Wilmot. I don't believe anybody would suffer any
financial loss from moving those funds from FEMA to DHS. They
started out in DHS to begin with, as I understand it. So nobody
would lose any funding.
Ms. Barragan. Do you know what their funds are currently
used from--for that we would be pulling from FEMA?
Sheriff Wilmot. Those funds were specifically designated
from the very beginning for Operation Stonegarden overtime and
equipment to help partner with our Border Patrol and Federal
counterparts. There was no funding removed, that I am aware of,
from any other budget for that to happen.
Mr. McCraw. Congresswoman, it was just administratively
changed. It used to be in DHS--administered the homeland
security grants. It was moved to FEMA. So the funding stream
didn't change, just who administrates it.
Ms. Barragan. OK.
Then the last question: Sheriff Wilmot, you mentioned--and
I didn't catch it all, which is why I wanted just to follow
up--you mentioned that there has been prevention of a number of
deaths in the desert. Can you just elaborate on what you said
and how that prevention occurred? What was it that caused the
prevention?
Sheriff Wilmot. As I stated in the beginning of my
testimony, in 2005, 2006 Yuma County was the worst in the
Nation in regards to cross-border traffic as well as the
criminal element that so much accompanies it. We were
experiencing, unfortunately, having to go out into the desert,
sometimes on a weekly or monthly basis, to recover those
victims that were abandoned by those smugglers out in the
desert.
We, as sheriffs, we are the ones that have to respond out
there, whether it is Federal land, State land. We have to
process those crime scenes, and our officers were going out
there, as I stated, if not weekly or monthly to recover those
victims that were left out there abandoned to die.
Ms. Barragan. But what prevented that? That what my
question part----
Sheriff Wilmot. The deterrent factor between the
partnerships with our Federal officers, is the combination of
fencing, law enforcement presence on the border, and the
technology with the cameras and sensors to be able to detect
individuals crossing the desert was all a contributing factor
in reducing that criminal element and those individuals being
victimized coming across--rapes, robberies, and the homicides.
Ms. Barragan. Great.
Sheriff Martinez. If I can just add, in Brooks County since
2006 I think that they have worked 563 deaths in that county,
and they are 100 miles from the border. That is people that
have come across. So I don't know what the makeup of the--if
there is a fence there on the border in that area, but that is
what Brooks County has suffered since 2006. All that, I think--
a lot of that is at the taxpayers' expense.
Ms. Barragan. Great.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul [presiding]. Thank you.
I want to ask one last question. I know you have got
flights to catch. I will make it fast.
We hear a lot, you know, bricks and mortar versus fencing.
I hear a lot of different--you know, I mean, there are a lot of
people with the wall being talked about that they want a brick
and mortar wall like Israel has, you know, and they say that
will be most effective.
Then I talk to people that actually--like yourselves--who
actually live down there, and the fencing you can actually see
through it, which provides an advantage if it is done
correctly--if the fencing is.
Does anybody on the panel have any comments on that
comparison?
Mr. McCraw. No, but I think Secretary Kelly made a good
point about seeing through it. I mean, you would like to see
what is on the other side of it. To the extent that it can add
the same obstacle type of capability and you can see through
it, there is value in that.
Chairman McCaul. I tend to agree.
Sheriff Martinez.
Sheriff Martinez. Yes. I have been to Israel and I have
seen the fence there, and I see what--I have seen what they go
through. But, you know, just here in the District of Columbia
how many fence-jumpers have you had here on this property here?
It took an armed Federal agent, you know, on the other side of
that fence to neutralize the situation.
So, back home is going to need the same kind of attention.
Chairman McCaul. Yes.
Sheriff Wilmot.
Sheriff Wilmot. I would agree that it helps to be able to
see through. We have that type of fencing and it is a plus, as
far as our Border Patrol agents are concerned. You know what is
on the other side so you are not encountering that threat
without even knowing it is 5 foot away from you.
Chairman McCaul. Exactly.
Judge.
Judge Trevino. Mr. Chairman, from my meetings and
conversations with the Border Patrol agents they certainly
appreciate the fact that they are able to see and not
necessarily always be seen. The concern behind a more concrete
or less visible barrier would give the advantage to the other
side. As the sheriffs have alluded to, I think our agents have
to be able to know what is on the other side in order to
properly defend themselves and protect whatever it is----
Chairman McCaul. It is very helpful because, you know,
again, a lot of these Members that tout, you know, the bricks
and mortar have never been down there. You guys are really the
experts, so thank you for being here today.
Members may have additional questions in writing. I would
ask that you respond in--Sheriff, did you have one last
comment?
Sheriff Wilmot. I would like to throw out there, sir, that
our priority would be also to add in being able to support the
U.S. attorney's office and getting U.S. attorneys that can
actually handle the caseload. They built a brand new Federal
courthouse in Yuma County that only has one Federal magistrate,
so all of our agents, all of our U.S. attorneys have to travel
3 hours to get to court in Phoenix.
They could save a lot of money by hiring a district judge
to be in Yuma to handle the caseload and free those officers
and agents up and those U.S. attorneys to be able to perform
their jobs.
Chairman McCaul. Yes. The Secretary discussed that, and my
conversations with Jeff Sessions, who will be the attorney
general. You know, he agrees. We talked about Operation
Streamline, which was very effective from a deterrent
standpoint with prosecutions. So that is very good.
Also, pursuant to rule 7(d) the hearing will be open for 10
days.
With that, without objection, the committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:21 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Honorable Will Hurd for John Kelly
Question 1. It is my understanding that the Department of State is
in the midst of awarding a new contract for the development and
issuance of the next generation of U.S. passports. As the lead agency
dealing with the security of our borders and inspecting everyone who
enters our country, I am curious about your thoughts on what
requirements should exist for this document throughout its life span
from production to expiration.
Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officers function as the
front line of border control verification and U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement/Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) enforce
Federal statutes related to the use of passports. As such, both
components supported the Department of State (DOS) in the Next
Generation Passport Working Group and provided operational expertise on
areas of interest including book design to make executing the
Department of Homeland Security's mission easier. However, DHS defers
additional requirements to DOS as it maintains lead of all matters
regarding U.S. passports, including the Next Generation Passport
Working Group.
Question 2. Does the Department of State requiring that all
personnel working on the Program have DOD Secret (or higher) clearance?
Do you know if the executives (president, CFO, security officer,
etc.) of the prime contractor AND the major subcontractors have the
appropriate clearances?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security defers to the
Department of State on this question.
Question 3. Was DHS consulted when setting the requirements for the
next generation passport throughout its life span?
Answer. Yes. U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Forensic Labs consulted with the
Department of State.
Question 4. Do you believe that the supply chain for the Next
Generation U.S. Passport is as secure as it could be?
Are there any concerns if the new passport personalization system
is manufactured outside the United States?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security defers to the
Department of State on matters regarding U.S. passports.
Question 5. Are there any cybersecurity concerns if the software
provided by the passport personalization contractor is manufactured and
later updated outside the United States?
Answer. Given that this contract for the development and issuance
of next generation passports is being led by the U.S. State Department,
I respectfully defer to them for a more comprehensive answer to this
question.
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for John Kelly
Question 1. Pursuant to the ban, how many travelers did CBP detain?
How many withdrew their applications for admission?
How many were removed from the country?
How many received waivers to enter the country?
How many were denied boarding?
How many visas were revoked while the Executive Order was actively
implemented by CBP?
Answer. CBP does not detain travelers.\1\ However, when ordered by
the District Court in Darweesh v. Trump, 17-cv-480 (E.D.N.Y.) to
identify individuals affected by Executive Order 13769 (since revoked)
and encountered by CBP between 9:37 PM on January 28 and 11:59 PM on
January 29, CBP identified 765 individuals. With respect to individuals
whose visas may have been physically cancelled at the ports of entry,
including those who withdrew their applications for admission, CBP has
provided the attached declaration in that same matter. Finally, with
respect to those individuals who CBP recommended to a carrier that they
not be permitted to board, as of February 2, 2017 CBP's publicly-
available website indicated 1,222 individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While some may characterize secondary inspection as
``detention,'' CBP would disagree. Rather, a secondary inspection is
merely a continuation of the processing performed on primary. See,
United States v. Galloway, 316 F.3d 624, 629 (6th Cir. 2003) (noting
``secondary inspection is no less a matter of course and no less
routine than the primary inspection'').
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 2. What guidance did DHS and/or CBP headquarters provide
CBP officers regarding implementation of this Executive Order?
When was this guidance drafted?
When was it communicated to the field?
What resources were made available to the field when conflicts or
questions about implementation arose?
What were some of the most common challenges faced by CBP officers?
Answer. Due to the complex nature of this effort, CBP's Office of
Congressional Affairs would like to set up a briefing to address your
questions on this matter. Please contact Ms. Kim Lowry, Acting
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Congressional Affairs, to arrange a
date and time that CBP may come and brief you and your staff on this
important initiative.
Question 3a. The Executive Order on border security signed by
President Trump last month requires you to ``take all appropriate steps
to immediately plan, design, and construct a physical wall along the
Southern Border . . . to most effectively achieve complete operational
control of the Southern Border.'' It provides no further specifics.
What are your plans for deploying the wall?
Answer. In response to Executive Order (EO) 13767: Border Security
and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) is directly soliciting industry input for conceptual
wall design(s) with the intent to construct multiple prototypes. The
primary purpose of this effort is to develop design standards for a
border wall that may be constructed along the Southwest Border with
Mexico in support of U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) operational
requirements. Any and all prototypes will be designed to deter illegal
entry into the United States.
Question 3b. For example, how many miles, what locations, what type
of wall?
Answer. CBP anticipates constructing multiple prototypes. USBP is
in the process of evaluating operational requirements to determine wall
placement.
CBP requested proposals for both solid concrete wall prototypes and
non-concrete prototypes. Through the solicitation process CBP will
partner with industry to determine the best means and methods to
include materials for constructing such prototypes.
Question 3c. What is the estimated cost?
Answer. CBP is aligning funds to support border wall prototype
planning, design, construction, and evaluation. CBP is currently
working to refine its prototype estimate. However, any more specific
estimate information is procurement-sensitive.
Question 3d. How much of the land involved is private property?
Answer. CBP does not anticipate being required to acquire
additional land for the prototype construction. However, until the
solicitation process is complete and the prototypes have been selected,
CBP cannot rule out the need to acquire additional property.
Question 3e. What other challenges do you see in the Department's
ability to deploy additional wall along the border?
Answer. CBP is not yet in a position to forecast the challenges
that may arise with the deployment of additional wall. CBP will be in a
better position to make this assessment after the prototypes have been
fully considered.
Question 3f. What is the estimated cost for maintenance of that
wall?
Answer. Border wall maintenance costs have not yet been determined.
Once the prototypes have been fully considered by CBP, CBP will be in a
better position to estimate potential maintenance costs.
Question 4a. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and others
have reported on the need for better data and metrics to assess the
effectiveness of various border security investments, including
infrastructure and technology. The Border Patrol has struggled to
replace its ``operational control'' metric with another meaningful
measure of border security.
What goals and measures will you use to assess efforts and
investments to secure U.S. borders?
Answer. Based on an internal study and direction from Congress,
most recently in the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA), DHS is developing a unified outcome-based border security
performance management framework, which will relate the President's
border security outcome, Operational Control,\2\ to the Department's
strategic lines of effort and investments in border security, including
personnel, infrastructure, and technology. Consistent with the
President's definition for Operational Control, Congress's direction in
the Fiscal Year 2017 NDAA, and the border mission described in the most
recent QHSR, DHS's main outcome measures for border security will
include estimates of the total successful entry of illegal aliens and
illicit goods into the United States. DHS is working to develop these
illegal entry estimates across several domains, including at and
between ports on the southern land border as well as the southern
maritime border (Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean). In addition to these
outcome metrics, DHS also tracks input, activity, and output metrics to
inform strategic and operational decision making and is actively
enhancing some of these metrics in response to the NDAA. Investment
measures, sometimes referred to as ``inputs,'' include the number of
Border Patrol agents, technology, and tactical infrastructure employed,
among others. Activities measured include illegal aliens apprehended,
drugs seized, and number of UAS sorties flown, among others. Strategic
output metrics include the probability of apprehending aliens
attempting to cross the border illegally and deterrence rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The President's Executive Order on Border Security and Interior
Enforcement Improvements defines Operational Control as the prevention
of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by
terrorists, other unlawful aliens, and instruments of terrorism,
narcotics, and other contraband.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concurrently, DHS's Management Directorate, supported by CBP, ICE,
USCIS, and USCG, is leading a 180-day Comprehensive Southern Border
Security Study in response to the President's Executive Order on Border
Security and Interior Enforcement Improvements (Section 4.d). This
study will include an assessment of current border security that will
leverage some of the measures being developed for the NDAA.
Additionally, this study will propose an overarching strategy to
achieve ``complete operational control'' of the Southwest Border.
Question 4b. When can we expect to see these metrics in use by the
Department?
Answer. Congress directed the Department, through the Fiscal Year
2017 NDAA, to provide the new outcome-based and other specified
measures initially by June 22, 2017, then as part of annual reporting
commencing on November 30, 2017. Concurrently, the Department is
conducting an assessment of current border security as part of the
Comprehensive Southern Border Security Study due to the President on
July 24, 2017. While DHS continues to maintain and report our current
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance measures for
the border security mission, we will update these measures accordingly,
based on the results of the NDAA and Executive Order reports.
Question 5a. Each year, millions of visitors, foreign students, and
immigrants enter the United States on a legal temporary basis. The
majority of visitors depart on time; however, significant numbers of
visitors overstay their authorized periods of admission. Although DHS
has spent significant resources on exit-related efforts, the Department
has yet to implement a biometric exit capability.
What are your plans to successfully implement a biometric exit
capability so that DHS can accurately count the number of overstays,
identify foreign nationals who overstay or violate the terms of their
visit, and enforce relevant laws?
Answer. CBP encountered significant infrastructure, operational,
and logistical challenges during the initial deployment of the
biometric exit program. However, despite these early challenges, CBP,
in partnership with the DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T),
conducted several biometric exit pilots in the air and land port
environments. CBP used lessons learned from these pilots (e.g.,
technological approaches, passenger dynamics, multi-modal biometric
collection, and process/operational impacts) to successfully design and
implement, beginning in June 2016, a Biometric Air Exit pilot at
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Five key parameters
guided the pilot:
Minimal impact to existing travel processes;
Integrate with existing airport infrastructure;
Leverage existing airline systems, processes, and business
models;
Use current passenger behaviors and expectations without
requiring new or unexpected steps for travelers, and;
Utilize advanced passenger information and, to the greatest
extent possible, existing traveler data and Government systems
to stage biometrics in small batches to facilitate faster
matching.
The Atlanta pilot proved to be a successful, and potentially
feasible, way forward using a simple camera at the airline's boarding
pass checkpoint to take a traveler's photo. This checkpoint biometric
collection is quick, easy, and contactless. Facial recognition
technology would then match the checkpoint photo with the traveler's
previously collected passport/arrival photo(s), associated with travel
documentation or immigration processing information. Biometrically
matching a traveler's departure record to their previous arrival record
strengthens the integrity of the immigration system. Due to the success
of the pilot, CBP believes it has developed an achievable vision and
realistic plan for implementation of a biometric air exit program. This
not only solves a 20-year statutory requirement, but it also provides
an opportunity to re-design the entire travel process for airlines and
passengers, bringing greater convenience and security.
Throughout fiscal years 2017-2018, CBP will use lessons learned
regarding technology, passenger behavior, and multi-modal biometrics,
and further expand the biometric exit program toward meeting the
mandate given by Congress. CBP will ensure that any future concept of
operations for implementing biometric exit (air, land, or sea) adheres
to, as appropriate, the aforementioned key parameters with the ultimate
goal of enhancing security while facilitating legitimate trade and
travel.
Question 5b. How will you ensure that the capability does not
impede legitimate travel and commerce?
Answer. CBP's approach will create an opportunity for CBP to
transform air travel by enabling all stakeholders in the travel system
to match travelers to their data using biometrics, leverage passenger
behaviors and expectations that do not require new or unexpected steps
for travelers, and unlock benefits that continue to enhance CBP's
ability to fulfill its mission to enhance security while facilitating
legitimate travel.
Question 5c. What are your plans to develop and implement a
strategy for addressing overstays once an exit capability is
operational?
Answer. The completion of a full exit capability will improve CBP's
ability to accurately identify overstays, as more complete arrival and
departure information will then be available for all travelers. Today,
CBP uses travel manifests received from commercial and private aircraft
and commercial sea carriers; manifest data voluntarily provided by bus
and rail carriers; data collected by CBP officers during border
crossings; cooperative information-sharing agreements; and data
received from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or U.S.
Department of State to determine how long a visitor is eligible to
remain in country or, conversely, how long they have overstayed if that
authorized period of admission has expired. CBP uses this information
to take actions against individuals who are confirmed overstays either
directly or in coordination with U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) and others. The consequence for overstaying can range
from losing the ability to participate in programs such as the Visa
Waiver Program to deportation and removal proceedings.
In terms of enforcement, ICE actively identifies and initiates
action on priority overstay violators. ICE's overstay mission is
accomplished in close coordination with CBP. ICE's primary objective is
to vet system-generated leads in order to identify true overstay
violators, match any criminal conviction history or other priority
basis, and take appropriate enforcement actions. Within ICE, Homeland
Security Investigations (HSI) has dedicated units, special agents,
analysts, and systems in place to address nonimmigrant overstays.
Through investigative efforts, HSI is responsible for analyzing and
determining which overstay leads may be suitable for further National
security investigation.
From a DHS processing standpoint, ICE analyzes system-generated
leads initially created by, or matched against, the data feed for
biographical entry and exit records stored in CBP's Arrival and
Departure Information System (ADIS). ADIS supports the Department's
ability to identify nonimmigrants who have remained in the United
States beyond their authorized periods of admission or have violated
the terms and conditions of their visas. Once the leads are received,
ICE conducts both batch and manual vetting against Government
databases, social media, and public indices. This vetting helps
determine if an individual who overstayed has departed the United
States, adjusted to a lawful status, or would be appropriate for an
enforcement action.
As part of a tiered review, HSI prioritizes nonimmigrant overstay
cases through risk-based analysis. HSI's Counterterrorism and Criminal
Exploitation Unit (CTCEU) oversees the National program dedicated to
the investigation of nonimmigrant visa violators who may pose a
National security risk. Each year, the CTCEU analyzes records of
hundreds of thousands of potential status violators after preliminary
analysis of data from the Student and Exchange Visitor Information
System (SEVIS) and ADIS, along with other information. After this
analysis, CTCEU establishes compliance or departure dates from the
United States and/or determines potential violations that warrant field
investigations.
The CTCEU proactively develops cases for investigation in
furtherance of the overstay mission and monitors the latest threat
reports and proactively address emergent issues. This practice, which
is designed to detect and identify individuals exhibiting specific risk
factors based on intelligence reporting, travel patterns, and in-depth
criminal research and analysis, has contributed to DHS's
counterterrorism mission by initiating and supporting high-priority
National security initiatives based on specific intelligence.
Additionally, DHS has made substantial improvements over the last 5
years to identify, prioritize, and address confirmed overstays. DHS
system enhancements that have strengthened our immigration enforcement
efforts include:
Improved ADIS and Automated Targeting System--Passenger
(ATS-P) data flow and processing quality and efficiency,
increasing protection of privacy through secure electronic data
transfer.
Extended leverage of existing ATS-P matching algorithms,
improving the accuracy of the overstay list. Additional ADIS
matching improvements are underway to further improve match
confidence.
Developed an operational dashboard for ICE agents that
automatically updates and prioritizes overstay ``Hot Lists,''
increasing the efficiency of data flow between the DHS Office
of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM) and ICE.
Implemented an ADIS-to-IDENT interface reducing the number
of records on the overstay list by providing additional and
better quality data to ADIS, closing information gaps between
the two systems. IDENT refers to the Automated Biometric
Identification System, which is the current DHS biometric
repository for storage and matching.
Improved ability of ADIS to match U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services' (USCIS') Computer Linked Adjudication
Information Management System (CLAIMS 3) data for aliens who
have extended or changed their status lawfully, and therefore
have not overstayed even though their initial period of
authorized admission has expired.
Created a Unified Overstay Case Management process
establishing a data exchange interface between ADIS, ATS-P, and
ICE's LeadTrac system, creating one analyst platform for DHS.
Enhanced ADIS and Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) Alien Flight Student Program (AFSP) data exchange to
increase identification, efficiency, and prioritization of TSA
AFSP overstays within the ADIS overstay population.
Enhanced Overstay Hot List, consolidating immigration data
from multiple systems to enable ICE employees to more quickly
and easily identify current and relevant information related to
the overstay subject.
Established User-Defined Rules enabling ICE agents to create
new or update existing rule sets within ATS-P as threats
evolve, so that overstays are prioritized for review and action
based on the most up-to-date threat criteria.
The DHS steps described above have strengthened data requirements
through computer enhancements, identified National security overstays
through increased collaboration with the intelligence community, and
automated manual efforts through additional data exchange interfaces.
Question 6. On January 23, 2017, President Trump signed a
memorandum ordering a freeze on the hiring of Federal civilian
employees to be applied across the board in the Executive branch. The
memorandum provided that the head of any Executive department or agency
may exempt from the hiring freeze any positions necessary to meet
National security or public safety responsibilities.
Presumably the hiring of Border Patrol agents, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) officers, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) special agents is exempt, correct?
But what about other non-law enforcement, but mission-critical
positions, such as CBP agricultural specialists, seized property
specialists, and support personnel?
If these positions go unfilled, law enforcement officers will
likely be pulled from their field to compensate. Please explain how the
hiring freeze is being implemented with respect to these critical, non-
law enforcement positions and at the Department of Homeland Security
generally.
Answer. Department leadership is committed to ensuring the
successful accomplishment of its National security and public safety
missions. During the hiring freeze, the DHS hiring freeze exemption
process, approved by the Office of Management and Budget and the Office
of Personnel Management, enabled DHS to quickly exempt front-line and
support positions such as CBP agriculture specialists. Now that the
hiring freeze is over, DHS continues to fill critical positions to
accomplish its mission in accordance with OMB memo M-17-22
``Comprehensive Plan for Reforming the Federal Government and Reducing
the Federal Civilian Workforce.''
Question 7. Recent cyber hacks and attacks have compromised
business operations, critical infrastructure, and even campaign
activity. There is no sign that the cyber threats we face will become
less frequent or less severe.
How do you expect the President's Federal hiring freeze to affect
the Department's ability to carry out its cybersecurity mission?
Will you be able to hire the talent you need to protect our
networks?
Answer. On January 23, 2017, the President issued a Memorandum
directing agencies to implement an across-the-board hiring freeze of
Federal civilian employees. The President authorized the heads of
departments and agencies to exempt positions he or she deemed necessary
to meet National security or public safety responsibilities. Given the
Department of Homeland Security's critical mission to secure the Nation
and ensure the public safety, a number of positions within the
Department were exempted from the hiring freeze. Positions necessary to
carry out the Department's mission to safeguard and secure cyber space
were among those exempted from the hiring freeze.
Due to the exemption of cybersecurity positions from the hiring
freeze, and other hiring and retention authorities provided by
Congress, we have been able to hire the talent we need without
interruption.
Question 8a. President Trump's Executive Order on border security
directs the hiring of an additional 5,000 Border Patrol agents, but
gives no other specifics.
What is the time frame for hiring these additional agents?
Answer. CBP will to comply with the President's Executive Order on
Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements. Projecting a
time frame for hiring 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents (BPA) is a
work in progress as we map out screening, vetting, hiring, and training
executables that ensure there is no degradation in the quality of our
BPA while reaching the President's goals. We will work diligently with
the Department of Homeland Security, the Congress, and other Federal
Government and private partners to meet the Executive Order mandate.
Staffing the front line with well-qualified individuals of the highest
integrity and operational quality remains a top mission support
priority for CBP. CBP will maintain the hiring surge that has been in
effect since fiscal year 2014.
To this end, CBP has intensified all aspects of our hiring
strategy, including initiatives designed to attract qualified
applicants, expedite the pre-employment time line, refine the hiring
process to address all potential bottlenecks, and reduce the attrition
rate of our existing workforce. We continue to build on the momentum of
our process improvement efforts, which in the last 2 years, have led to
a significant reduction in the time-to-hire and an increased applicant-
to-entrance-on-duty rate. We've incorporated lessons learned from our
2015 hiring hub program into a new expedited hiring process that, as of
April 2017, is being used for all front-line applicants. The average
time-to-hire dropped from 469 days in January 2016 to fewer than 300
days in March 2017. We anticipate this number will continue to
decrease, as the hiring hub model has shown the ability to hire
applicants in an average time of as low as 160 days.
CBP is working to further refine its hiring process and eliminate
redundancies, improving the applicant experience and further reducing
the time-to-hire. This is a key aspect of our larger strategy, as
shorter hiring times can prevent otherwise qualified candidates from
dropping out of the process due to fatigue or accepting immediate job
offers elsewhere. We are also reviewing modifications to the
administration of the polygraph exam, entrance exam, and physical
fitness tests, with each modification carefully assessed for all risks
and mitigation measures. Our process is meant to ensure only
individuals with the highest integrity serve as agents and officers
safeguarding our borders and ports of entry--and we remain committed to
upholding these standards amid the increasing urgency to hire more
personnel.
Parallel efforts include intensified recruitment and marketing
activities designed to increase the number of qualified applicants
entering the hiring pipeline. This includes a large-scale rebranding
effort that incorporates data-driven marketing campaigns across
multiple platforms and recruitment events in many strategic regions of
the country. CBP has also worked with the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) to obtain direct-hire authority to help fill the
additional BPA positions, as well as other positions involved in
protecting our borders. OPM also approved a revision for qualifying
BPAs to enable us to change our methods for filling BPA positions and
thus improving our ability to meet certain mission-critical hiring
needs. Additionally, CBP through the DHS Office of the Chief Human
Capital Officer, has submitted a consolidated DHS request to OPM on May
2, 2017 for approval of dual compensation waiver positions. Approval of
this authority would enable CBP to rehire annuitants who can help build
an adequately-staffed mission support infrastructure and provide all
necessary support. This will strengthen the performance of CBP's
various law enforcement, National security, and trade operations that
protect our borders.
These and other efforts will not only ensure CBP compliance with
the Executive Order but also further establish our long-term ability to
staff the front line in accordance with the expanding complexity and
demands of our mission.
Question 8b. Are you aware that Border Patrol is already more than
1,800 agents short of its existing staffing target and has struggled to
hire enough agents just to keep pace with attrition?
Answer. Yes, CBP's challenges in recruitment predate the
President's Executive Order, and we have worked aggressively over the
past several years to implement a multifaceted recruitment strategy and
execute large-scale improvements to our front-line hiring process and
capability. While these efforts have led to considerable progress in
many areas--including declines in the overall time-to-hire and BPA
attrition rates--CBP intends to further strengthen all aspects of its
recruitment strategy in order to meet the Executive Order hiring
mandate. As part of this strategy, CBP has worked with OPM in order to
obtain necessary recruitment and hiring flexibilities.
Question 8c. CBP's Office of Field Operations is having similar
problems. How are you going to address hiring challenges at CBP while
ensuring that new hires are suited for the job?
Answer. CBP will continue the aggressive implementation of its
recruitment strategy across all three of its front-line components:
U.S. Border Patrol, Office of Field Operations, and Air and Marine
Operations. Our efforts focus primarily on attracting more applicants
who are better-suited to the unique demands of our mission. To this
end, CBP will look to further improve brand awareness and convey the
importance and scope of our mission within the public sphere. We will
continue to focus on increasing our digital and social media presence
to reach the millennial generation, expanding our outreach at high
schools and colleges, and collaborating with the Department of Defense
to help transitioning service members find rewarding and suitable
careers with CBP.
CBP is also in the process of examining every aspect of its pre-
employment process to identify areas in which further improvements can
be made. While modifications to our process are being considered--many
of which were proposed prior to the release of the Executive Order--CBP
will not implement any change without carefully weighing risks and
mitigation measures. To be clear, CBP is not lowering its standards for
any of its front-line personnel. The changes under consideration may
result in more applicants passing the pre-employment process, but all
successful applicants must still successfully complete basic training
at our Academies, whose core function is to uphold our front-line
standards and ensure mission-readiness.