[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                       ON THE FRONT LINES OF THE
                        BORDER CRISIS: A HEARING
                        WITH CHIEF PATROL AGENTS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            FEBRUARY 7, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-2

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                              __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
50-897 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                
                            
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota        Jimmy Gomez, California
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina      Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Becca Balint, Vermont
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Greg Casar, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Dan Goldman, New York
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina        Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri

                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                James Rust, Chief Counsel for Oversight
                        Sloan McDonagh, Counsel
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                               
                               ------                                
                        
                        C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on February 7, 2023.................................     1

                               Witnesses

Mr. John Modlin, Chief Patrol Agent, U.S. Border Patrol Tucson 
  Sector
    Oral Statement...............................................     7
Ms. Gloria Chavez, Chief Patrol Agent, U.S. Border Patrol Rio 
  Grande Valley Sector
    Oral Statement...............................................     8

 Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses 
  are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository 
  at: docs.house.gov.

                           INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

                              ----------                              


  * Article, Cato Institute, ``Fentanyl is Smuggled for U.S. 
  Citizens by U.S. Citizens, Not Asylum Seekers;'' submitted by 
  Rep. Frost.

  * Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services Stories of Welcome; 
  submitted by Rep. Brown.

  * Graphic, Trafficking Stats; ``America's Sex Trade Business;'' 
  submitted by Rep. Luna.

  * Graphic, Storage Units; submitted by Rep. Luna.

  * Graphic, Most Wanted; ``Most Wanted for Human Trafficking;'' 
  submitted by Rep. Luna.

  * Letter, Feb. 6, 2023, from Project on Government Oversight to 
  Chairman Comer; submitted by Rep. Raskin.

  * Statement for the Record, National Immigrant Justice Center 
  (NIJC); submitted by Rep. Raskin.

  * Article, NBC News, ``The GOP's Myth of an `Open Border';'' 
  submitted by Rep. Raskin.

  * Statement for the Record, Kids In Need of Defense (KIND); 
  submitted by Rep. Raskin.

  * Statement for the Record, Human Rights First (HRF); submitted 
  by Rep. Raskin.

  * Statement for the Record, Church World Service (CWS); 
  submitted by Rep. Raskin.

  * Statement for the Record, Coalition for Humane Immigrant 
  Rights (CHIRLA); submitted by Rep. Raskin.

  * Statement for the Record, American Immigration Lawyers 
  Association (AILA); submitted by Rep. Raskin.

  * Policy Brief, AILA, ``What Does A Secure Border Look Like;'' 
  submitted by Rep. Raskin.

  * Graphic, Analyzing Republican Attacks on Biden for Increase 
  in Fentanyl Seized, FactCheck.org; submitted by Rep. Porter.

  * Article, Maine Beacon, ``Maine border chief member of secret 
  Facebook group notorious for racist posts;'' submitted by Rep. 
  Ocasio-Cortez.

  * Statement for the Record, Rep. Gerald Connolly.

The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                       ON THE FRONT LINES OF THE
                        BORDER CRISIS: A HEARING
                        WITH CHIEF PATROL AGENTS

                              ----------                              


                       Tuesday, February 7, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
         Committee on Oversight and Accountability,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer 
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Comer, Gosar, Grothman, Palmer, 
Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Mace, Fallon, Donalds, Armstrong, 
Perry, Timmons, Burchett, Greene of Georgia, McClain, Boebert, 
Fry, Luna, Edwards, Langworthy, Burlison, Raskin, Norton, 
Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, Ocasio-Cortez, Porter, Brown, 
Gomez, Stansbury, Garcia, Frost, Balint, Lee of Pennsylvania, 
Casar, Crockett, Goldman, and Moskowitz.
    Also present: Representative Tony Gonzales of Texas.
    Chairman Comer. The Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability will come to order. I want welcome everyone to 
the hearing today. Without objection, the chair may declare a 
recess at any time. I recognize myself for the purpose of 
making an opening statement.
    Today's hearing is an opportunity to gather facts about the 
border crisis from career law enforcement officials from the 
U.S. Border Patrol. Make no mistake, the state of our border is 
in crisis. Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
under President Obama, once said that 1,000 apprehensions per 
day overwhelms the system. In 2019, he said, and I quote: I 
cannot begin to imagine what 4,000 a day looks like. So, we are 
truly in a crisis. Unfortunately, we're witnessing that now. 
And it's truly a crisis.
    In Fiscal Year 2022, over 6,000 migrants per day on average 
were apprehended after illegally crossing the border. That's 
over 2.2 million apprehensions in just a 12-month period. In 
just the first three months of Fiscal Year 2023, over 7,000 
migrants per day on average were apprehended after illegally 
crossing the border. Those numbers don't include hundreds of 
thousands of aliens who evade apprehension entirely, estimated 
at almost 600,000 just in Fiscal Year 2022. And reports 
indicate nearly 300,000 illegal immigrants have evaded 
apprehension just four months into Fiscal Year 2023.
    President Biden and his administration have created the 
worst border crisis in American history. Cartels are leveraging 
chaos at the border. They are using their human smuggling 
operations to overwhelm U.S. border patrol agents with large, 
migrant groups, often placing migrants in peril. They create 
these diversions at the expense of human life to traffic 
dangerous narcotics like fentanyl across our Southern border. 
These deadly drugs then make their way into communities across 
the United States and poison our neighbors and our children. 
Why? Why is this happening?
    Starting on his first day in office, President Biden 
signaled to the world, our borders were open, open to 
criminals, human traffickers, and drug traffickers. His 
administration's policies have eroded deterrence and stripped 
away enforcement tools. President Biden immediately ended 
enrollments in the migrant protection protocols which required 
inadmissible aliens to remain in Mexico while their immigration 
case was adjudicated. He haunted construction of border 
barriers, even though Congress had appropriated nearly $1.4 
billion for wall construction just a month before. He issued a 
press release announcing a new immigration bill proposal that 
would give amnesty, which is legal status and a path to 
citizenship, to millions of illegal immigrants in the United 
States, signaling to the world that breaking our laws would not 
lead to detention and removal.
    President Biden's Department of Homeland Security issued a 
memorandum instituting a 100-day moratorium on deportations for 
most illegal aliens, and limiting ICE's ability to enforce the 
law. ICE arrests plummeted almost immediately by more than 60 
percent. All of these actions Biden and his administration took 
on his first day of office.
    Secretary Mayorkas doubled down on these policies by 
issuing a memorandum restricting law enforcement's ability to 
enforce the law against illegal immigrants.
    Even though a Federal court had said that the executive 
branch cannot override clear congressional commands in the law 
through these memos, President Biden's administration is still 
fighting in the courts on the side of illegal immigrants, not 
the American people.
    Administration officials continue to say they're creating 
a, quote, ``safe and orderly humane, immigration system.'' But 
reality contradicts this propaganda. Conditions at the border 
are dangerous, chaotic, and inhumane. Fiscal Year 2022 set 
records for the number of arrests of illegal border crossers, 
the number of migrants who died making the journey, the number 
of dangerous narcotics seized, and even the number of suspected 
terrorists arrested trying to illegally cross the Southern 
border. And given over half a million people have evaded 
apprehension entirely, the National Security risks are 
extremely high.
    This administration must do more to protect our southern 
border. They must do more to protect the American people. I 
look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about their 
efforts to secure our southern border against illegal 
immigration, drug and human trafficking, and prevention of 
terrorist entries, as well as how the border crisis is making 
those efforts more difficult for the men and women under their 
command. Thank you all so much for being here to testify. And I 
yield now to Ranking Member Raskin for his opening statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks 
to the witnesses for appearing today. The purpose of oversight 
is to collect facts that will allow us to legislate effectively 
to promote the common good and solve the Nation's problems. 
Today we're looking at the border, but the majority has offered 
no clarity as to what their solutions are to address what they 
believe to be the problems with immigration and the border.
    Existence of a border is not in itself problematic and 
never has been. Neither is immigration a problem, for we are an 
immigrant society. Except for the descendants of slaves brought 
here involuntarily, or Native Americans who have been here for 
millennia, we are all descendants of immigrants. People have 
wanted to come to America as long as the Nation or the idea of 
Nation has existed. For we are a land premised on opportunity 
and freedom and dedicated to the proposition that all of us are 
created equal.
    When Tom Paine got over here two years before the 
Revolution, he fell in love with the promise of America. He 
said, it will become an asylum to humanity, not an insane 
asylum, mind you, but a place of refuge for people fleeing 
religious, political, and economic persecution.
    The traditional interest in coming to America has spread, 
deepened, and intensified recently as political democracy, 
civil freedom, basic public safety, and meaningful economic 
opportunity have come under ferocious attack and pressure in 
nations in our hemisphere like Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, Mexico, 
and Nicaragua.
    Our basic problem is a political one. Legal channels of 
immigration have been choked off in the wake of congressional 
failure to act in bipartisan fashion on immigration policy. 
That's despite the fact that we badly need workers in many 
sectors, in many parts of the country to fill the jobs that 
drive our economy. Under President Biden's economic boom, we 
are seeing record employment growth and the lowest unemployment 
rate in more than a half century. Since Biden's came into 
office, America's created millions and millions of new jobs. 
Multiple reports suggest that creating new legal pathways to 
citizenship would only enhance our current economic progress by 
increasing the GDP by up to $1.7 trillion over the next 10 
years, raising wages for all and creating hundreds of thousands 
more new jobs. But this won't be possible without comprehensive 
immigration reform, embodying the kind of progress that the 
administration and congressional Democrats have been fighting 
for. The political problem is that when it comes to working out 
commonsense immigration policy solutions, Republicans driven by 
the extreme MAGA wing of their party have been systematically 
thwarting and derailing comprehensive efforts to improve our 
immigration system and strengthen border enforcement.
    In 2007, Republicans blocked bipartisan legislation which 
would have significantly increased border enforcement, 
capacity, and provided legal status, and a pathway to 
citizenship for approximately 12 million undocumented 
immigrants living in the United States.
    In 2013, when Senate Democrats and Republicans again came 
together to pass a strong comprehensive immigration reform plan 
that would have provided unprecedented resources for border 
security, including 40,000 additional Border Patrol agents, and 
created a pathway to citizenship for millions of workers, the 
Republican-controlled House threw a monkey wrench into the 
bipartisan collaboration and refused to hold a vote.
    Since then, Democrats have repeatedly developed, proposed, 
and sometimes passed pragmatic legislative solutions to address 
border security while providing practical pathways to 
citizenship for people like the Dreamers; hundreds of thousands 
of young people brought to America in childhood who are now 
productively engaged in school or work or military service. 
Such proposals include the parole program that President Biden 
implemented last month, which has reduced the unlawful entries 
and cut border apprehensions of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, 
and Venezuelans by 97 percent.
    We have proposed aggressive coordination with our allies 
abroad to block the flow into our country of fentanyl carried 
by criminals, most of whom are, alas, American citizens. We 
have advanced policies to promote sustained economic growth and 
stability throughout Latin America so that desperate people and 
families do not need to migrate to the southern border in 
search of a future safe from violent gangs, authoritarian 
governments, and grinding poverty.
    The facts show that President Biden in the Democratic 
Congress surged $7.3 billion in funding and resources to the 
southern border at the end of last year.
    In December, Democrats bolstered border security by sending 
billions to CBP and Border Patrol, including money to hire 300 
additional Border Patrol agents. Millions of dollars to provide 
more personnel to our ports of entry, and over $200 million for 
between-the-ports technology to detect drug smugglers and human 
traffickers. And overwhelmingly, House Republicans did not 
support us. Yet rather than work with Democrats on these 
efforts, the MAGA forces and the GOP have chosen to abandon the 
strong pro-immigration stance of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald 
Reagan, and, instead, spread fear about a foreign invasion, 
dangerous paranoia about the racist and anti-Semitic great 
replacement mythology, and disinformation about fentanyl--the 
vast majority which is brought into our country by American 
smugglers working for the international drug cartels and 
traveling through lawful ports of entry. In 2021, American 
citizens accounted for more than 86 percent of fentanyl 
trafficking convictions.
    The radical distortions about immigration, great 
replacement, and who is bringing fentanyl into America may work 
to rev up the MAGA base, but they do absolutely nothing to 
solve our real-world problems. The flagship MAGA-driven 
Republican proposal, H.R. 29, the so-called Border Safety and 
Security Act, would effectively end the asylum program in 
America. That's not consistent with the founding values of our 
Nation or the law today, which rejects the idea of returning 
people who have a well-founded fear of persecution back into 
the jaws of their oppressors. H.R. 29 is so extreme, some of 
our Republican colleagues are refusing to support it. One 
recently called it anti-American and un-Christian.
    Mr. Chairman, there are many things we can do to improve 
our immigration laws and border enforcement if we set aside the 
myths and the disinformation. My colleagues and I ardently hope 
today's hearing will become a chance to search for bipartisan 
agreement rather than another missed opportunity by committee 
Republicans to join with us in conducting meaningful oversight 
toward comprehensive reform. Turning this into more bad 
political theater will just extend the long pattern of failure 
on this question. For years, Republicans on this committee 
refused to conduct oversight of President Trump's disastrous 
and cruel border policies. They were silent in 2019 when the 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection declared a humanitarian 
crisis at the border. They refused to join with Democrats in 
opposing Orwellian policies that ripped thousands of little 
children from the arms of their parents and sent them away to 
vanish into a Kafkaesque bureaucracy.
    Some may wish we would forget one of the grimmest chapters 
of any American Presidency. But people will not be fooled when 
MAGA Republicans pretend to cry foul over Secretary Mayorkas' 
and President Biden's strong actions today to impose order at 
the border while defending America's deepest values. It doesn't 
have to be this way. Let's act together in good faith now to 
pass comprehensive reforms to improve our immigration system. 
We are a Nation of immigrants, and we are a Nation of laws, and 
we can live up to all of our values in this challenge.
    I look forward to the testimony of our witness and the 
thoughts of our colleagues. And I thank you very much, Mr. 
Chairman, and yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The ranking member yields back. Before I 
introduce the witnesses, I feel compelled to respond to a 
couple of things, my friend, the distinguished ranking member 
said. First of all, the Republicans lack of oversight--I want 
to remind everyone, this is the first time since Joe Biden has 
been President that anyone, representing the border has been 
asked to come before this committee the first time. This crisis 
has gotten worse every day over two years. This is the first 
time.
    So, the other thing I want to remind members of the member 
decorum, because two things have just been brought to my 
attention in the last few minutes. First of all, the White 
House's oversight spokesman just released a memo criticizing 
Republicans for having the nerve to have this hearing. He said, 
why do House Republicans want to make things worse at the 
border? I don't understand how two frontline Border Patrol 
agents coming before this committee would make things worse. I 
mean, that's what the Oversight Committee is about. That's what 
Mr. Raskin has complained that Republicans weren't serious 
about oversight. This is our first--we've just been in power a 
week, and we've had a COVID pandemic hearing, and now we have 
frontline workers just to get facts.
    And the other thing--very disturbing--is the tweet that the 
Oversight Committee Democrats just tweeted out. It says: Good 
morning, and good luck to everyone except GOP Oversight members 
who are using today's hearing to amplify White nationalist 
conspiracy theories, instead of comprehensive solutions to 
protect our borders and strengthen our immigration system. I 
mean, really? I don't even know what to say about that. But 
just to remind everyone, the member decorum. The issues we're 
debating are important ones that members feel deeply about. 
While vigorous disagreement is part of the legislative process, 
members are reminded that we must adhere to establish standards 
of decorum and debate. It's a violation of House rules and the 
rules of this committee to engage in personality, regarding 
other members or to question the motives of a colleague.
    So, remarks of the type that we just saw in the tweet are 
not permitted by the rules and are not in keeping with the best 
traditions of our committee. So, the chair will enforce these 
rules of decorum at all times, and I urge all members to be 
mindful of their remarks.
    Now, I am very pleased to introduce our two witnesses today 
who are both long-term veterans of the U.S. Border Patrol, 
bringing a combined five decades of experience.
    John Modlin, I hope I pronounced that right----
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Comer [continuing]. Has served in the U.S. Border 
Patrol for 26 years. He is currently the chief patrol agent for 
the Tucson Sector, but has extensive experience serving on the 
northern and southern border as well as both U.S. coasts during 
his career.
    Gloria Chavez has also served in the U.S. Border Patrol for 
26 years. She is the Chief Patrol Agent for the Rio Grande 
Valley Sector, and also recently served as Chief Patrol Agent 
in the El Paso Sector. She also brings a variety of experiences 
with the northern and southern borders of United States.
    Chairman Comer. I look forward to hearing from Chief Modlin 
and Chief Chavez about their experiences with the U.S. Border 
Patrol, as well as their efforts to work to secure the border 
during an unprecedented time.
    Prior to you-all's opening statements, pursuant to Rule 
9(g), the witnesses will please stand and raise their right 
hand.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you 
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Let the record show that the witnesses all answered in the 
affirmative. And we will begin with you, Chief Modlin.
    Mr. Donalds. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, real quick. And I 
apologize--I know the proceedings of the committee room. I'm 
just going to cut to the chase from my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle who want to state that we're using this 
hearing for White nationalism. I'm not doing that. So, if you 
feel that strongly, come walk up to this side of the room, and 
let's talk about it face to face. But leave that kind of silly 
stuff for somebody else. Don't bring that here today. This 
stuff is serious. I apologize, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chairman, could I have a question down 
here? Just in response to--well, it's OK for him to talk, but 
not me.
    Chairman Comer. Go ahead and talk.
    Mr. Goldman. As a new Member, I have a question just in 
terms of the rules and personalities. I didn't see that--my 
understanding is that the prohibition against personalities 
relates to individuals calling on individual members. Is 
there--am I wrong about that? Is there something about the 
tweet that actually engaged in personalities, just so we know 
going forward?
    Chairman Comer. This is just a reminder to all members 
about the rules of decorum. That is very important. This is 
our--we're just starting in this committee. We had a good, 
productive, substantive hearing last week. This, hopefully, 
will be a good productive information, fact-gathering hearing 
today. And every member needs to understand the rules of 
decorum.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. Now, Chief Modlin, please begin your 
opening statement.

 STATEMENT OF JOHN MODLIN, CHIEF PATROL AGENT, TUCSON SECTOR, 
               U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

    Mr. Modlin. Good morning, Chairman Comer, Ranking Member 
Raskin, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for 
the opportunity to appear today on behalf of the United States 
Border Patrol, and to provide you with a status and 
understanding of the unique operational picture of border 
security efforts in Tucson Sector.
    I started my career with the Border Patrol in 1995 in the 
San Diego sector. In the 27 years since, I have led border 
security efforts on our northern border in the Detroit sector, 
at Border Patrol headquarters here in Washington, DC, on our 
coastal border as the chief of the Miami sector, and now as the 
chief patrol agent of the Tucson Sector.
    A few moments ago, I characterized this area as unique. As 
the current migration flow and challenges in the Tucson Sector 
are vastly different to many other sectors across the Nation, 
and as was widely reported in the media. The Tucson area of 
responsibility covers 262 linear miles of border, roughly, 
18,000 square miles of mostly desert wilderness and mountain 
ranges that extend immediately north of the border. Putting 
this figure into perspective, the area's more than twice the 
size of the country of El Salvador. In summer, temperatures can 
exceed 120 degrees Fahrenheit, and in winter, it can fall below 
freezing. The environment is arduous and inhospitable, 
presenting significant challenges for our agents and 
potentially life-threatening conditions for migrants.
    Last year, Tucson Sector agents responded to over 3,500 
lost or distressed migrants who needed to be rescued or 
required emergency medical care. Many of these were difficult 
and dangerous mountain rescues, putting agents' lives in 
danger.
    The most notable factor that sets Tucson apart from the 
rest of the Southwest border--excuse me, is the migrant 
demographic. It is not what you see on the news. Tucson Sector 
is not encountering large family groups with small children 
waiting for Border Patrol agents to pick them up and process 
them. In Tucson, the vast majority of encounters are single 
adult males attempting to avoid detection.
    The smuggling organizations to our south are very well 
organized and resourceful. Each and every person crossing 
through the Tucson Sector must pay these criminal 
organizations. These criminal organization employ various 
tactics to move thousands of migrants illegally across the 
border. Nearly all migrants we encounter are completely 
outfitted in camouflage by the smuggling organizations before 
they cross. Most run from and may fight our agents to avoid 
apprehension. Many are previously deported felons who know they 
are inadmissible to the United States, and many pose a serious 
threat to our communities.
    For example, task saturation is a term we use to describe a 
tactic where smuggling organizations split large groups of 
migrants into many smaller groups. These small groups are then 
directed to illegally cross the border all at once and at 
different locations, effectively saturating the area with 
migrants and exhausting our response capability. This tactic, 
coupled with the remoteness of the area, has a compounding 
effect and results in large areas of the border being left 
vulnerable while our agents are responding, rescuing, 
apprehending, and transporting hundreds of migrants.
    Smuggling organizations also leverage technology. For a 
fee, migrants are provided with a smartphone with routes and 
updates to guide themselves over the mountains and across the 
desert. More concerning is the smuggling's organizations use of 
social media to recruit inexperienced smuggling low-drivers; in 
many cases, American teenagers who race down to the border to 
overload their parents' vehicles with migrants for what they 
are misled to believe is a quick and inconsequential payday. 
However, they are wrong. Tucson Sector prosecutes more 
smuggling cases than any other sector on the Southwest border.
    Migrant encounters in the Tucson Sector have increased 
significantly over the past several years. In 2020, our total 
encounters were 66,000. That figure nearly tripled in 2021, and 
then quadrupled last year. We closed last year, 2022, with over 
250,000 encounters in Tucson, 216,000 of those were single 
adults. That is 257 percent increase in just two years. At 
present, Tucson Sector is experiencing a 20 percent increase in 
encounters compared to last year.
    In closing, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge this 
service, dedication, and sacrifice of the men and women of the 
U.S. Border Patrol's Tucson Sector. In these challenging times, 
I continue to be amazed by their daily efforts to keep our 
country safe. Both our uniformed and professional staff have 
demonstrated great commitment and resiliency in this ever-
changing environment. It is both humbling and an honor to lead 
this truly professional group of people. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you, Chief. The chair recognizes 
Chief Chavez.

  STATEMENT OF GLORIA CHAVEZ, CHIEF PATROL AGENT, RIO GRANDE 
       VALLEY SECTOR, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

    Ms. Chavez. Good morning, Chairman Comer, Ranking Member 
Raskin, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you 
for the opportunity to be here today on behalf of the U.S. 
Border Patrol. I am Gloria Chavez, the Chief Patrol Agent of 
the Rio Grande Valley Sector, known as RGV. This is my 27th 
year of service to our country and to the men and women of the 
U.S. Border Patrol. I have led in four sectors on the northern 
and southern borders, and I completed two tours of duty at the 
U.S. Border Patrol Headquarters here in Washington, DC.
    The RGV area covers 34,000 square miles of rural and urban 
landscape; 34,000 counties--34 counties, I'm sorry, 277 border 
miles with Mexico, and 317 coastal miles along the Gulf. Due to 
its proximity to the border of southern Mexico and Central 
America, RGV is identified as a major corridor by cartels and 
transnational criminal organizations. And it is exploited daily 
for human smuggling, narcotics trafficking, and other illicit 
activities. Our RGV community has been at the forefront of 
irregular migration for several years now. In 2014, the trend 
was unaccompanied children. In 2016 and 2019, family units. 
Today, the migrant population in RGV consist of mainly single 
adults from Central America and Mexico. Although this fiscal 
year, to date, RGV has decreased in migrant encounters by 41 
percent. Border Patrol agents and RGV continue to face the most 
egregious of illicit trends such as criminal migrants, gang 
members, hard narcotics, firearms, both currency outbound, and 
illicit drones used for counter surveillance.
    [Slide.]
    Ms. Chavez. If you can bring up the slide, please. For 
example, in one year's time, RGV had over 10,000 drone 
incursions, and 25,000 at-the-border drone detections, 
demonstrating the drone capability of transnational criminal 
organizations, pinpointing law enforcement locations to 
increase the success of smuggling attempts. We have made great 
progress in countering the threat of small, unmanned platforms. 
However, the adversaries have 17 times the number of drones, 
twice the amount of flight hours, and unlimited funding to grow 
their operations. As border dynamics and entry locations shift, 
so does our security strategy. Our priorities in Fiscal Year 
2022 and 2023 have been to gain resources and foster 
partnerships to assist with border security taskings. Our 
resources, priorities continue to be to augment our civilian 
and contracted personnel at central processing centers and 
allow our agents to return to frontline operations.
    At present, RGV sector has more than 250 processing 
coordinators, 140 contracted processors, 120 childcare givers, 
80 security personnel, and 100 volunteers, all made possible by 
the supplemental funding provided by Congress. These men and 
women provide feeding, care, and security of migrants at 
custody; duties that would otherwise fall to Border Patrol 
agents. Next side, please.
    [Slide.]
    Ms. Chavez. Every badge back to the border equals seized 
bulk currency from cartels, hard narcotics, guns, and keeping 
criminals off the streets, and allows to allocate resources and 
manpower to address areas experiencing a high number of got-
aways.
    I would also like to highlight my great appreciation for 
the Department of Defense partners. RGV deploys over 200 
National Guardsmen who assist with camera operations and mobile 
surveillance, increasing our situational awareness daily. As 
for partnerships, we collaborate daily with our Federal, state, 
county, and local city partners to include local, 
nongovernmental, and faith-based organizations who provide an 
avenue for placement for amenable migrants. The Texas 
Department of Public Safety and our county sheriffs render 
support to my Border Patrol agents on a daily basis and vice 
versa.
    Last, RGV shares a strong partnership with Mexico, in the 
state of Tamaulipas, that is invaluable as threats to the 
security of our border are always evolving.
    In closing, I will emphasize my most valued priority and 
who I strive to serve my very best every day: my civilian work 
force and my Border Patrol agents, our Border Patrol agents who 
every day and who right now are out there on patrol, protecting 
you, protecting me, and every American watching today, because 
to them, what matters is who and what enters between those 
ports of entry, and that they have the available resources to 
make that detection and that arrest.
    Regardless of the fluctuating migration flows, lack of 
resources, border threats and physical assaults against them, 
Border Patrol agents are always ready to respond. It is their 
grit and hard work that has enhanced and maintained the level 
of security we have on our border today. I will always honor 
them for their duty and their sacrifice. I thank you for your 
time today, and I look forward to answering your questions. 
Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you, both. We'll begin the 
questioning. I will go first. Chief Modlin, would you agree 
that the cartels currently exercise significant control over 
who is allowed to illegally cross in between the ports of 
entry?
    Mr. Modlin. Chairman, thank you. What I see in Tucson 
Sector, in my experience is, is that no one crosses the border 
in Tucson Sector without going through the cartels. It's--you 
know, in the past, if you don't mind me expounding just a 
little bit, you know, my career started in San Diego. It was 
not uncommon for migrants to make it to the border, and then 
just cross, and then try to do the best they could. In Tucson 
Sector, everything south of the border is controlled by the 
cartels.
    Chairman Comer. So, do the cartels try to overwhelm Border 
Patrol agents by illegally crossing large groups of individuals 
at a single time?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir. So, what we see--although that is 
very rare in Tucson Sector. In Tucson Sector, maybe once or 
twice a week we'll see a group of about 100 people sort of what 
we refer to as a give-up group. It gives up in a very remote 
area. And, of course, when that happens, our first priority is 
to get to that group, sort of triage that group, determine if 
there's vulnerable populations in that group. But these 
locations could potentially be hours from the nearest paved 
road. So, to get that group out of there takes a tremendous 
amount of personnel, which leaves other areas vulnerable.
    Chairman Comer. Right. As you mentioned, it takes a 
significant law enforcement to respond to those large groups. 
Have these crossings of large groups gotten more frequent over 
the last couple of years?
    Mr. Modlin. Sir, in my experience in the Tucson Sector, it 
has gone up a little bit. However, the biggest change that 
we've seen in the Tucson Sector, as I mentioned in my opening 
statement, is really the task saturation. What they're doing to 
us out there is a newer tactic, which is to break what used to 
be traditionally groups of maybe 10 to 20, which Border Patrol 
agents are trained to be able to apprehend a group of 10 to 20 
people. However, it also takes a single Border Patrol agent to 
apprehend a single person coming across the border.
    And so, the predominant tactic in the Tucson Sector is to 
allow people to cross by themselves, or in groups of two or 
three, which then saturates our ability to respond.
    Chairman Comer. OK. Chief Chavez, do the cartels 
intentionally put migrants in peril so that U.S. patrol agents 
respond to conduct rescue operations?
    Ms. Chavez. That is correct, Chairman. I think that for the 
Rio Grande Valley, for example, as Chief Modlin was saying, you 
know, we have experienced a large group situation as well. For 
us, I think we've had this Fiscal Year 55--or 22, I'm sorry, 
different types of groups in the most Western portion of the 
RGV. And a lot of times, because we have so much brush land out 
there with a big, hilly ranch area up in the Rio Grande Valley 
area, many times, especially during the summer months, there's 
a lot of migrants out there that are out there requiring 
rescue. So, a lot of times, our agents are out there rescuing 
people being task saturated in rescues, abandoning frontline 
operations. So, therefore, cartels have taken advantage of that 
area.
    Chairman Comer. Have rescue operations by Border Patrol 
increased by the last couple of years?
    Ms. Chavez. Yes, they have, Chairman. For us, I think last 
year we had over 100--1,100 rescues just in the RGV area. And 
we are expecting that number to supersede last year.
    Chairman Comer. Chief Modlin, we know that the majority of 
fentanyl seized was seized in the controlled environment of 
ports of entry. Does that mean that we shouldn't worry about 
the cartels trafficking illicit narcotics, including deadly 
fentanyl in between the ports of entry?
    Mr. Modlin. Chairman, what I can tell you from my 
experience in Tucson Sector is last year we seized about 700 
pounds of fentanyl. To give you an idea based on the lethality 
of a dose of fentanyl, that's enough to kill everyone in 
Arizona 21 times or basically half the population of the United 
States. And that was encountered 52 percent of that, so the 
majority of that, was encountered in the field. So, that is 
predominantly being backpacked across the border. The other 48 
percent was caught at our immigration checkpoint, sir.
    Chairman Comer. There have been hundreds of thousands of 
got-aways just in the last few months. Almost 600,000 estimated 
last year. Chief Modlin, are you concerned that the cartels are 
leveraging a chaotic situation to bring in criminals or 
suspected terrorists to evade apprehension entirely?
    Mr. Modlin. Sir, got-aways are incredibly important. Tucson 
Sector has seen a lot of them. As I described earlier, that 
process of task saturating does leave areas vulnerable, and 
then allows people to cross that--that we're aware of in the 
case of a got-away. But we just literally can't get there to 
apprehend them.
    I think the other concern is the sort of unknown amount of 
got-aways; the people that we don't see. I do know that Tucson 
Sector years ago, about 10 or 15 years ago, had a significant 
laydown of the technology. So, Tucson Sector does have an 
incredible amount of situational awareness. And so, we are 
aware of the folks that are getting away.
    Chairman Comer. So, it sounds like the cartels are taking 
advantage of a historically high flow of illegal immigration, 
to overwhelm Border Patrol agent resources, place migrants in 
peril, and undermine border security by introducing deadly 
narcotics, criminals, and terrorists into our country. It's 
unfortunate then that President Biden's administration removed 
many of the deterrent policies that were working to reduce the 
flow of illegal border crossings and keep cartels in check. For 
two years, we've watched the crisis unfold with little 
oversight. No longer. With that, I yield to the ranking member.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Chief 
Chavez and Chief Modlin for being with us today and for your 
service and your testimony. We've got to stop the flow of 
fentanyl into our country. It's a matter of life and death.
    Chief Chavez, the vast majority of fentanyl coming into the 
country is seized at ports of entry, not from migrants 
traveling across the border on foot in between ports of entry. 
Am I right about that?
    Ms. Chavez. Thank you, sir, for the question. We have seen 
the large amounts of narcotics that have been seized at the 
ports of entry. However, for us between the ports of entry, the 
fentanyl specific, we have also documented cases for Border 
Patrol where we have seen some at our checkpoints.
    For example, here in December of just this past year, we 
seized the largest fentanyl, liquid fentanyl seizure in 
coordination with a task force of Nueces County, which was--I 
don't know if you saw it on the news. It came out. It was 
about--largest fentanyl seizure, it was 25 pounds, 3 gallons of 
liquid fentanyl that was seized in coordination with our task 
forces under the license plate reader program with Stolgarten 
(ph) partners. Now, fentanyl, again, is a very dangerous drug 
just as Chief Modlin has mentioned. So, for us, it's something 
that is of high concern. These efforts----
    Mr. Raskin. Actually, can I follow up on that? And 
congratulations on that seizure.
    Ms. Chavez. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Raskin. That's a big deal. And, you know, we thank you 
for your service. The statistics I'm looking at say that over 
90 percent of fentanyl seizures occur at the point--at the 
ports of entry where vehicle checkpoints, and not between. 
Although, there is significant cases, as you point out, that 
are taking place between.
    Who would best be able to speak to us about what's taking 
place at the ports of entry? Because I understand both of you 
are sort of in the intermediate points. Is that right.
    Ms. Chavez. Yes, sir. So, I think what I would probably 
refer you to our director of field operations. They work under 
CBP, but they are the ones that have command and control of our 
ports of entry at CBP.
    Mr. Raskin. And they're the central force interdicting 
fentanyl today across the border.
    Ms. Chavez. They're the ones that have oversight of all 
ports of entry who would be the ones to be the proper witness 
for that.
    Mr. Raskin. Got you. And they're not here today?
    Ms. Chavez. They are not, sir. Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. What's even more puzzling to me, in terms 
of the political rhetoric, is that 86 percent of the people 
convicted of fentanyl smuggling in 2021 were American citizens, 
not foreign nationals, or unauthorized immigrants, right, but 
U.S. citizens who are on the payroll of the smuggling 
operations of the cartels. Is that the same as your 
understanding, Chief Chavez?
    Ms. Chavez. I know that in some cases where we have 
arrested or interdicted and arrested folks for smuggling--drug 
smuggling--it has been American citizens, but I don't have the 
statistics, to my knowledge, at this time whether the majority 
have been American citizens.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. Well, then, I'll share with you the 
statistics that we got from the CBP about that. Let me ask you 
this: Will the operational security of our border be 
strengthened by the 300 additional Border Patrol agents and 500 
support staff that will be added as a result of the latest 
funding bill that we passed in December? Is that going to help?
    Ms. Chavez. Sir, any type of funding, any type of support 
that we can get from our congressional Representatives to 
assist us with the type of support to enforce this type of--or 
to try and prosecute any type of drug smugglers at the border 
is going to assist us.
    Mr. Raskin. Got you. Chief Modlin, let me come to you for a 
second. As a Border Patrol chief, is it part of your 
responsibility to try and determine and assess the underlying 
causes of migration in the Western Hemisphere, or are you just 
on the operational side?
    Mr. Modlin. Thanks for the question, sir. So, I think it's 
a complicated question. So, the nature of the work I do, yes, 
that is part of it. However, what we focus on, what my primary 
responsibility is to execute on policy and law and just to 
secure the border, regardless of who comes across it. Whoever 
is trafficking, be it a foreign national, or a U.S. national, 
it is just to interdict whatever crosses and then place it in 
the proper pathway, sir.
    Mr. Raskin. Got you. So, you're not really interested in 
the why of how they got there, you're just interested in 
stopping the people who are showing up at the border?
    Mr. Modlin. So, sir, I would not say, though, I'm not 
interested in the why, I'm sorry, the beginning of my statement 
about the complexities of it. So, we have incredibly robust 
intelligence shops that look at this. Because the why will 
generally tell us where the traffic is likely to come next, and 
then where we can best deploy our resources to mitigate that.
    Mr. Raskin. Great. All right. Well, maybe we'll get to hear 
from some of those people that are involved on the intelligence 
side to try to analyze what's going on. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The chair recognizes Mr. Higgins for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we're 
going to be moving very fast today just because of the sheer 
volume of evidence that must be investigated by Congress. It's 
quite extensive. And America should understand that today's 
hearing marks the beginning of this committee's obligation to 
judiciously reveal, over the course of many months, exactly 
what has happened at our southern border over the last two 
years. We will investigate, we will reveal the truth, and we 
will force accountability.
    I would like to comment before my questions begin that the 
talking points regarding fentanyl for my colleagues across the 
aisle, they had 500,000 got-aways in 2021, and 600,000 in 2022. 
These are known got-aways is by--this does not count the 
unknown got-aways. But let's just say that's a number. That's 
over 1 million got-aways. That's stout young men running, as 
the chief testified, wearing camouflage. They're rolling hard. 
They've got mil spec radios. They're carrying backpacks. They 
work for the drug cartels. What do you think is in the 
backpack?
    Every American watching this understands there's a 
tremendous amount of illicit fentanyl and meth crossing between 
the ports of entry.
    Chief Modlin and Chief Chavez, I'm going to ask you to keep 
your answer to yes or no as much as possible. You can expound 
upon your answers in writing, of course, afterwards, but we'll 
be moving fast.
    Chief Modlin, would you agree that part of your job as a 
career enforcement professional of law enforcement is to 
execute policies communicated to you from people above you in 
your chain of command?
    Mr. Modlin. Sir, my job is absolutely to execute policy.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you. And, Chief Chavez, you also agree 
that you're given policies to carry out by those above you in 
your chain of command?
    Ms. Chavez. Yes, sir. My job is to execute on the policies 
administered by my chain of command.
    Mr. Higgins. Chief Modlin, do you participate in telephone 
calls with your upchain discussing how to carry out policies 
that are directed by Department of Homeland Security 
leadership?
    Mr. Modlin. Thank you, sir. It is rare to have detailed 
discussions about how to execute. That is really the job of the 
chief patrol agent to determine how to execute the policies.
    Mr. Higgins. And do you have conversations on the telephone 
with your upchain regarding policy and the execution of policy?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you. Chief Chavez, do you also 
participate in telephone calls of that nature?
    Ms. Chavez. The same response as Chief Modlin, sir. We as 
chiefs determine the execution of the policy, we interpret the 
policy, discuss it with my subordinate personnel, and then we 
execute on the policy.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Chief. I'd like to hear from you 
each of you. The policies that are communicated through verbal 
commands, either from your upchain through your office and 
downchain, are the policies that are communicated through 
verbal commands that are not documented in written 
communication like emails, texts, official letters, official 
policy statements, et cetera.
    Mr. Modlin. Thanks again, sir. Most policies are either 
written or in policy.
    Mr. Higgins. Are there some policies that are not written.
    Mr. Modlin. Well, sometimes we are informed of a policy, 
verbally, before it becomes written.
    Mr. Higgins. And who would inform you? You are the chief. 
Would that be your upchain chief.
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir. That would be the chief of 
operations.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you. So, are you clarifying for this 
committee--Chief, I ask respectfully, are there some policies 
that are directed to be carried out by you and your chain of 
command below that is not documented in writing, email, 
memorandum, et cetera, verbal commands?
    Mr. Modlin. Sir, I'm going through my head trying to 
remember the last time that happened. I would say it's 
exceptionally rare. And if it is, it's usually just to----
    Mr. Higgins. Exceptionally rare. I would accept that as an 
answer, but you would acknowledge that that does happen?
    Mr. Modlin. I will acknowledge that it could. I would not 
say it never has. I just can't remember when it----
    Mr. Higgins. Chief Chavez?
    Ms. Chavez. I would say in clarified policy versus 
procedures and direction. Because we do get phone calls on a 
certain procedure or direction as it relates to instructions on 
a certain type of--for example, demographic of a certain 
population of migrant. We're going to change the course of this 
demographic because we are now going to process certain 
individual Nicaragua persons coming this way. Now, we're going 
to process them in this direction. That's not a policy, that's 
a procedure. That's a different type of instruction that is 
given to us verbally or via email. But policies is normally 
written. Policies, that we get a heads-up, new policy is coming 
down the pike. It requires this and wait for the policy to hit 
the signature coming down from the ports of entry.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Chief, for that clarification. Mr. 
Chairman, my time has expired. If anyone has time to yield, 
I'll receive it later.
    Chairman Comer. I thank the gentleman. The chair recognizes 
Ms. Porter for five minutes.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you. I want to start by thanking Chief 
Modlin and Chief Chavez for sharing your stories today. And one 
of the things I particularly wanted to acknowledge and 
appreciate about your testimony, Chief Modlin, is you 
acknowledged that our borders are not monoliths. You have 
served, both of you, in many different parts and pockets of our 
border, and the challenges that we face are different. And I 
appreciate you taking the time to acknowledge that. And I hope 
that my colleagues will recognize that the challenges we face 
in rural areas, like RGV and Tucson are different than what we 
face in coastal borders in areas like San Diego sector.
    I wanted to focus on fentanyl and continue the line of 
questioning of the chairman. I want to introduce, with 
permission, Mr. Chair, I would like to introduce into evidence 
this chart, which is based on Customs and Border Patrol data. 
And I know it's hard to see, but I think you can probably see 
if you look at the screen.
    This big jump. This is fentanyl seized at the border. 
There's a big jump here, and that big jump occurred around June 
2020, August 2020.
    Mr. Modlin, did anything happen then that caused any policy 
procedure change, that caused that big jump in fentanyl 
seizures?
    Mr. Modlin. Ma'am, thank you for the question. And what I 
will say is that I very much appreciate the beginning of your 
statement about the variety of the border. And what I would say 
is we're always grateful when any Members come down and see the 
border. And what I would certainly emphasize is that if you've 
seen one Border Patrol sector, you have only seen one Border 
Patrol sector. And what's going on in Tucson is vastly 
different than what's going on in RGV. As to that jump, I'm 
unaware of what that jump is, ma'am.
    Ms. Porter. Have you seen data like this suggesting that 
there's a bit of increase in fentanyl seizures?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes.
    Ms. Porter. Ms. Chavez, are you aware of this jump in 
seizures? And do you have any explanation for why in about 
June, August--June, July, August 2020, we saw this big 
increase?
    Ms. Chavez. I do not have the knowledge of that chart, in 
particular. But we are aware that fentanyl seizures have gone 
up. I just don't have specific information related to that 
chart.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you. I'm going to follow up in writing to 
ask about this. Because I think what's interesting about this 
is, of course, we had a change in President in 2020, and some 
changes in border policy. And what we can see here is that the 
facts show we are seizing a lot more fentanyl. And for me, as a 
mom, that is a sign of success. I don't want that fentanyl in 
this country. It is dangerous, and it kills people, and it 
makes our communities dangerous. And to me, this is a sign that 
our Border Patrol and our agents at our ports of entry, which 
is, of course, where the vast majority of the fentanyl is 
seized, as you've acknowledged, are doing their jobs.
    What I find interesting is despite success here, what we're 
hearing is an effort to characterize seizures as failures, and 
that is a change. So, what we've seen from my colleagues is 
tweets that say, you know, over 800 pounds of fentanyl seized. 
This is Biden's border crisis. That's a tweet from Rep. 
Stefanik. To me, the fact that you're seizing these drugs is a 
success. So, I think that there's a need here to acknowledge 
the successful work that you're doing. And I appreciate that.
    I wanted to ask, as Border Patrol agents, distinguished 
from those who work at ports of entry doing inspection, what 
do--are we focusing enough energy and resources on detection in 
staffing at ports of entry? Because I have been to San Ysidro. 
I have seen the volume of cars, pedestrians that they are 
trying to process in a day. The more we do at ports of entry to 
halt smuggling of fentanyl, does that push it into more 
dangerous sectors and out into the border areas where you are? 
In other words, we're squeezing one part of it down doing more 
with the detection, with technology, X-ray. Has that then 
pushing people into these more dangerous different tactics? Mr. 
Modlin, do you have thoughts on this? Chief Modlin?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, ma'am. Thanks, again. So, first, if you 
don't mind, I'm just going to circle back real quick to the 
spike in fentanyl, because sometimes answers come to me a 
little later than they probably should. But I would say that 
perhaps that is because of the recognition of fentanyl getting 
the K-9s trained to detect fentanyl. I mean, I would look at 
certainly when we started to see fentanyl, and then, of course, 
the technology to detect it as well.
    In terms of the ports, what I will tell you is that I doubt 
there's anybody working in CBP's office of field operations 
that would say they don't need more people and technology as 
well as the Border Patrol, but certainly I would defer that to 
our headquarters. But what I will say is that your point is 
exactly right. What happens at the ports affects outside the 
ports. So, you know, criminals are always going to go to the 
path of least resistance. And if the ports are the path of 
least resistance, they will go there. If between the ports are 
there, they'll go there. And, ultimately, it's not our concern 
who's trafficking the fentanyl, just that we keep it out of the 
country so that all of us parents feel safe and know that it's 
not going to be in our kids' schools.
    Ms. Porter. I appreciate that, Chief. And I would just the 
big jump here is coming from the ports of entry. The Border 
Patrol has been relatively consistent in the amount of 
fentanyl. So, we're clearly doing something much more 
effectively at our ports of entry to seize fentanyl. And I 
would just urge the chairman in the spirit of bipartisanship to 
suggest that we bring in some of our ports of entry officers so 
we can hear about the technologies and the things that they are 
doing that are resulting in these kinds of successes. Thank you 
very much, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The chair recognizes Mr. Biggs for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Good to see you, Chief Chavez and 
Chief Modlin, again. I think I met you, Chief Chavez, first in 
El Paso, and so it's good to see both of you here. And I first 
wanted to say thanks to your line agents and your team who do 
such an incredible job fighting this fight. And it is a real 
fight.
    My first question is this: What does CBP Intelligence 
Division tell you that the percentage of drugs that are being 
interdicted crossing the southern border? In other words, I 
know what they've told me, I'm not sure I can say it publicly, 
but you can. But have they told you what's the percentage 
that's being interdicted? Chief Modlin?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir. Thanks for the question. I can tell 
you, I don't know that I've ever seen a--you know, or heard a 
briefing that said what they thought the percentage of 
effectiveness was in terms of narcotics. I can tell you that, 
you know, we do have a measurement to measure the effectiveness 
of the border security efforts. And, unfortunately, currently 
in Tucson Sector, we tend to be at about 60 percent 
effectiveness, and that's due to all of the points I made in 
the opening statements and one of my earlier responses about 
the cartels saturating our agents and, of course, all the 
rescues that take place and everything else going on.
    Mr. Biggs. You get diverted. And both your sectors are 
vastly different. In fact, in Arizona, the Tucson Sector is 
very different than the Yuma Sector. Totally different. But the 
question that we're hearing is that most fentanyl is 
interdicted at the ports. Of course, OFO is going to interdict 
most is because that's where they have extra machines, dogs, 
all of the personnel and equipment there. And when you have 
over a million people coming in between the border, many of 
them, as you said, I think you guys stopped 216,000, Chief 
Modlin. Young single adult males in camo carrying backpacks. 
So, it's a very different thing. So, you can ignore that, but 
you only catch about 15 percent roughly at the ports of entry. 
You've got a major problem.
    Chief Modlin, I want to talk briefly about the manpower in 
the Tucson Sector. I've been told by agents on the ground that 
some of Tucson's agents are being allowed to--farmed out or 
being allowed to go to other sectors. Is that accurate?
    Mr. Modlin. Thanks, again, for the question, sir. So, there 
are some agents from the Tucson Sector that are outside the 
Tucson Sector. It's a small number. I believe it might be about 
20 or 30 now that are going to other sectors. Tucson Sector in 
terms of personnel is the largest sector. We have more agents 
than any other sector. So often, Tucson Sector is utilized for 
things like that. And then Tucson Sector also has the largest 
special operations detachment as well, which, you know, is 
comprised of BORSTAR and BORTAC. So, they are often used in 
places where we see an increase in migrant rescues, water 
rescues. Then the teams will be deployed as well.
    Mr. Biggs. And you also have the largest number of known 
got-aways along the southwest border?
    Mr. Modlin. Sir, I believe that's Del Rio Sector just 
barely, barely ahead of us.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes, you----
    Mr. Modlin. Ours is a very significant number, yes, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. So, when I look at that, I guess the question is 
because I've been down there many times. How many of your line 
agents get diverted to detention and processing?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir. Again, thanks for the question. So, 
this is constantly a challenge. As you know, border security 
operations are incredibly complex. Currently, about 20 percent 
of our uniformed personnel are in process. And, thankfully, as 
Chief Chavez noted earlier, the Border Patrol is starting to 
utilize Border Patrol processing coordinators. They are not law 
enforcement. They can do a lot of the work that Border Patrol 
agents have traditionally been doing that's outside the 
interdiction work and the work where someone needs to be sworn 
law enforcement.
    Mr. Biggs. So, let's consider this. If you have an agent 
that tracks someone, and maybe it's a group of 20 people in the 
Tucson Sector, they can be literally four hours before you are 
going to see anybody able to even come, pick them up, and 
transport them?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir. So, the very difficult thing about 
the Tucson Sector, multiple mountain ranges eight, 9,000 feet 
up--and many times these migrants get up into those mountains--
it can take an entire shift to track a group, as you describe. 
And even then, they can be apprehended hours from the nearest 
paved road.
    Mr. Biggs. And that will also keep agents off the line and 
leave a wide-open sector?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir. It all adds to what our agents have 
to do out in the field. Whether it's a rescue, whether it's an 
apprehension.
    Mr. Biggs. Thanks. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The chair recognizes Mr. Connolly for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 
Chief Modlin and Chief Chavez for being here. It's thoughtful 
testimony. I really appreciate your approach. I just want to 
point out, though, that part of what we're doing here in this 
hearing and in lots of other discussions about this subject is, 
you know, the narrative being woven that is a false narrative. 
We need more capacity and personnel at the border, at ports.
    Well, we had that opportunity in the omnibus. And on this 
side of the aisle, we all supported it. But on the other side, 
that isn't the case. So, you can talk a good game about we need 
to beef up, you know, our capacity here and there, but you had 
an opportunity to vote for $7.2 billion for Border Patrol 
operations, $65 million for 300 new Border Patrol agents; $60 
million for CBP personnel at the ports of entry we're talking 
about, and $230 million for between the ports technology that 
you referenced, Chief Modlin.
    So, if we're going to be consistent and talk about the need 
to beef up the border, you got to vote for it. Otherwise, it's 
just hot air. Another part of the narrative is, you know, we 
have all these people crossing the border, and they violate the 
law multiple times and never show up, of course, for court 
hearings. And that's really interesting because in the 
alternatives to detention program, I guess, last year, there 
was 16,482 undocumented individuals. And, I don't know, Chief 
Modlin, do you know what percentage of those people showed up 
at their court hearing?
    Mr. Modlin. Thank you for the question, sir. What I can say 
is that I don't have an answer for that. So, Border Patrol's 
role in interdiction ends once we serve somebody with an NTA. 
Once they leave our custody, then we have no means of tracking 
that. If you don't mind me just circling back to what you said 
in the beginning about funding the Border Patrol. As I would 
say to everyone is that, you know, obviously the Border Patrol 
would like as much as funding as we could get. You know, we 
definitely need more personnel. We need more technology. 
However, we are a very small piece of this border security 
issue. And groups like ICE ERO, when they don't have bed space, 
that's when we see all the other----
    Mr. Connolly. And I'm going to get to that. Thank you for 
that intervention. By the way, the answer is 99.4 percent. So, 
of those individuals, 99.4 percent showed up for their court 
hearing. And that's not an anomaly. American Immigration 
Council looked at the record over the last 11 years, and they 
looked at over 2-1/2 million people who crossed the border in 
that time period; 83 percent showed up for their court 
hearings. So, it's not, you know, exactly the Wild West in 
terms of people complying with their court proceedings.
    And, by the way, you were talking about new capacity and 
not just personnel. So, the President announced putting new 
scanners at land points of entry on the southern border, 123 of 
them. And that's going to increase inspection of passenger 
vehicles from, I think, 2 percent to 40 percent, and for cargo 
vehicles from 17 percent to 70 percent. Chief Modlin, would 
that add to your capacity? Would that, do you think, be a 
material contribution to helping us secure the border better 
and in the fight against fentanyl?
    Mr. Modlin. Thank you, sir. So, if I understood correctly, 
you're talking about some scanners that are going to be 
deployed to the ports of entry?
    Mr. Connolly. That's right.
    Mr. Modlin. Yes. So, that is not where the Border Patrol is 
at. Obviously, the border is holistic, you know, and so any 
security of the border is good security of the border.
    What I would say, though, is that, again, as the ports get 
strengthened, then it will push more to in between the ports of 
entry----
    Mr. Connolly. Right.
    Mr. Modlin [continuing]. Because, again, the criminal 
organizations just want to move whatever commodity it is, 
whether it's people or narcotics.
    Mr. Connolly. We understand, but right now, most of that 
fentanyl is coming through legal ports of entry. So, beefing 
that up, adding that capacity obviously makes some sense.
    But you're right; we've got to be concerned that an 
unintended effect is to push it down or in between. We've got 
to beef up capacity, and that's what we're trying to do with 
respect to that.
    Mr. Donalds. Will the gentleman yield to a question?
    Mr. Connolly. Well, I'm almost out of time.
    Chief Chavez, would you like to comment on what I've been 
discussing with Chief Modlin?
    Ms. Chavez. Yes, sir. The scanners going to the port of 
entry, that's really for the Director of Field Operations to 
provide some input on. I'm sure they're going to be very useful 
for them because it's technology, and just like for the Border 
Patrol, technology is critical between the ports of entry, and 
they've been very useful, especially automated technology.
    Mr. Connolly. But I think you would agree--and my time is 
almost up--to go from 17 percent of inspection of cargoes to 70 
percent is quite a significant jump and hopefully becomes a 
very useful tool for depressing the introduction of illegal 
fentanyl into the United States.
    Ms. Chavez. For our partners in blue, I'm sure my partners 
in blue would very much appreciate that increase in efficiency.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you. Thank you both for being here. My 
time is up.
    Chairman Comer. The chair recognizes Mr. Grothman for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. First question, kind of a follow-up on 
what we had in the past. I've been at the border many times. 
The Border Patrol always seems to believe that the vast amount 
of--the guys that I talk to, gals down there--they feel that 
most of the fentanyl is coming across not at the points of 
entry but other places for the obvious--but it is not caught as 
much because you don't have got-aways at the points of entry.
    In other words, there's, even now, I believe you told me 
over half the fentanyl was coming in between the points of 
entry. But, if you were going to sneak fentanyl across, you 
would not want to contact the Border Patrol first. Am I 
accurate in that?
    Mr. Modlin. Thank you, sir. So, the question gets to, I 
believe, what we were talking about earlier, which was the got-
aways and then, of course, the unknowns, the stuff that we 
don't know. So, yes, potentially there is no way to know what 
is inside that group, both of those groups together.
    Mr. Grothman. Right, right. They felt that actually, the 
last time I was down there, there was a decrease of fentanyl 
caught and people sneaking across the border because you had 
less people to monitor that area because they were spending all 
day doing paperwork on the people who were coming in the points 
of entry. Am I right in that?
    Mr. Modlin. So, what I can tell you, sir, is that there is, 
I think as I stated earlier, about 20 percent of the agents 
currently are doing processing, you know, sort of the care of 
migrants that are in our custody and are not actively--
actively--securing the border.
    What I would say too, and I think it's one of the things we 
missed when we were talking about hard narcotics, I know the 
focus has been on fentanyl however, but also in terms of the 
amount of meth that we've seized in the Tucson Sector, which is 
still an incredibly dangerous, hard narcotic, 93 percent of 
that is caught outside of our checkpoint. So, that is 
absolutely trafficked on people that are crossing the border.
    Mr. Grothman. Right, right. All people you encounter deal 
with the Border Patrol. The Border Patrol does not deal with 
the approximately 60,000 people a month who are got-aways. 
That's the point I'm trying to make.
    Now, I want to give you some overall numbers because 
they're just so unbelievable; I want to confirm that they're 
accurate.
    Two years ago, in December, there were about 24,000--or 
21,000 people who came across the border, both released family 
units and single adults as well as got-aways. We have, in two 
years, gone from about 21,000 to 238,000, most recent December.
    Are those numbers accurate, in two years, we've gone from 
21,000 to 238,000?
    Mr. Modlin. Sir, one, I don't know why, but I'm having a 
little bit of trouble hearing you, but I hear you asking about 
the numbers over years----
    Mr. Grothman. Well, I'll say again.
    Mr. Modlin. Much better, sir.
    Mr. Grothman. Two years ago, in December, there were 
approximately 20,000 people coming across the border, both 
encounters and got-aways combined. We've now gone from 21,000 
to 238,000. That's almost unbelievable. Do you believe those 
numbers are accurate?
    Mr. Modlin. I don't have December's numbers, sir. But what 
I can tell you is, so Fiscal Year 2018, 2019, and 2020, Tucson 
Sector had about 60,000 apprehensions. 2021, 190,000 
apprehensions. So, we tripled the previous year or had all 
three of those years combined.
    Last year, it quadrupled. Last year was 250,000. We are 
20,000 ahead right now. So, we went from what I would describe 
as unprecedented to a point where I don't have the correct 
adjective to describe what's going on.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Something in the past was said about 
children being separated from their families, or children being 
separated from both parents. Are there unaccompanied minors 
coming across the border, and are there children coming across 
the border with one parent, which inevitably means--or not 
always--but frequently means that we're separating families or 
families are being separated at the border?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir. So, in Tucson Sector, we do see 
unaccompanied children. It's not an enormous part of our 
population. It's probably about seven percent of the population 
we deal with, maybe less, are unaccompanied children. I do 
believe it's a much bigger issue in Rio Grande Valley, sir.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. I think seven percent of--well, 
unaccompanied children in the most recent month were about 
8,000 of the 238,000 people who came across. I still think 
8,000 unaccompanied children coming across the border every 
month is significant to those children. Right? 8,000 is a lot, 
wouldn't you think?
    Mr. Modlin. Sir, again, monthly, that's high, at least in 
Tucson Sector. In 2022, in Fiscal Year 2022, we apprehended 
19,000 unaccompanied children in Tucson Sector, which, again, 
is still a very significant number and a great drain on our 
resources.
    Mr. Grothman. I don't consider 19,000 insignificant. I 
think that's a tragedy for just one area. One final comment 
before I let go of the microphone.
    This comment today that we're having this hearing to 
amplify White conspiracy theories is one of the most offensive 
things I've seen since I've been here. And I would invite any 
of the Democrats, other than the ranking minority member, to 
maybe put out a press release or something if you disagree with 
this because this is such an inflammatory thing to put out 
there to the American public: We're having a hearing on the 
border, and it's for White conspiracy.
    And it's just awful what you people put. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The chair recognizes Mr. Stansbury for five 
minutes--or Ms. Stansbury, I'm sorry.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 
for convening this panel today, and I do mean that sincerely 
because, as a New Mexican, I am one of only a few members on 
this committee who actually represents a border state in 
actuality.
    And it is a crisis; what we are seeing on the southern 
border is a crisis. But it is not a crisis as our friends 
across the aisle would have us believe.
    It is truly a humanitarian crisis, and it is a crisis that 
has been manufactured, reproduced over and over again, decade 
after decade by inaction by this body, by individuals who 
refuse to engage in bipartisan immigration reform, by 
individuals who refuse to understand that there are millions of 
lives being held in the balance, people who traveled thousands 
of miles, across continents, across the ocean, to come to this 
country, to seek refuge, safety, and opportunity.
    Just like many of our forefathers and foremothers who came 
to this country, we are a Nation of immigrants, alongside our 
brothers and sisters of our indigenous communities.
    My own ancestors who came here for opportunity, seeking 
refuge in this country, that is why people are coming here to 
our southern border. And the inaction of this body in passing 
bipartisan immigration reform, in supporting those who proudly 
serve our country and are working on our southern border, the 
inability for this body to act and actually fund programs so 
that we can have a just, humane, and equitable immigration 
system in this country is the moral failing and stain on this 
body.
    So, we can talk about a crisis at the border, but let's 
talk about what it actually is, and that's a humanitarian 
crisis.
    I also want to say, as somebody on this committee who is 
not only representing a border state, I am someone who has 
actually lost loved ones to the fentanyl crisis.
    It is an absolute crisis. To know the pain of what it feels 
like to lose someone to fentanyl is something that I think many 
people in this room do not understand.
    But American people all across the country understand. We 
should not be playing politics with people's lives. This is 
serious. People's lives are in the balance. There are deaths 
happening all across our country because of these issues.
    So, let's talk about the humanitarian crisis, let's talk 
about these issues in reality and not try to score political 
brownie points and get cable TV moments. This is about our 
communities and about our families.
    Now, let's be clear. The system is terribly broken, and 
that is why we need bipartisan reform. It's why we need action 
in this body. And the cost of inaction is falling on our 
communities.
    In fact, thousands of people who have come to this country 
to seek refuge end up in my home state. And because we are not 
properly funding these programs, it is the people of New Mexico 
who, time and time again, have had to stand up and help people, 
by helping to house them, feed them.
    Our government is failing. The system is failing. We need 
action. And it is the humane--inhumane policies of the previous 
administration that have contributed to this crisis.
    In fact, under the Trump administration, thousands of 
children were separated from their parents, and to this day, 
because it was so haphazardly implemented, over a thousand 
children are still separated from their parents to this day.
    I know, Chief Chavez, you work in the Rio Grande district. 
I want to ask you, in the course of your work and your agents' 
work--and thank you for your service--have you met some of the 
families and children who have come across the border?
    Ms. Chavez. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question, and 
thank you for acknowledging the vulnerable population of 
children. For every Border Patrol agent that works that border, 
I assure you that our heart goes out to those children that 
show up unaccompanied, on their own.
    Ms. Stansbury. And, Agent Chavez, you have actually met 
these children and families. These are vulnerable populations, 
they are families, oftentimes children who have traveled 
hundreds and thousands of miles by themselves.
    In addition to that, the Trump administration massively 
expanded the use of private, for-profit prisons, which are 
lining the pockets of private corporations right now, charging 
communities like mine millions of dollars a month to detain 
immigrants in prisons. These are folks who have already been 
screened to be safe.
    And I want to ask our witness----
    Chairman Comer. The lady's time has expired.
    Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Have you actually been to these 
private detention centers. A ``yes'' answer is----
    Chairman Comer. Feel free to answer the question.
    Ms. Chavez. I've been--the children that we hold at our 
facilities, temporary holding facilities?
    Ms. Stansbury. The for-profit private prisons where asylum 
seekers are being held.
    Ms. Chavez. I'm not aware. I have not attended those 
locations.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Gosar for five minutes.
    Mr. Gosar. I thank the chairman. And I don't know about 
geography, I know the young--the gentlelady is from New Mexico, 
but you go down and look to your left, and you got two Members 
from Arizona here, and you have Members from Texas.
    So, I represent much of Yuma County, and where my 
constituents are hit hard by this Biden open border crisis. I 
hear from them every day. In fact, the CEO of the hospital 
there showed that they had $20 million of uncompensated care in 
just one year.
    Joe Biden does have a plan. His plan was to deliberately 
open our border and cede power to the cartels. Here's some 
headlines.
    Fox News from January 18, 2023: ``Border under control of 
the cartels, not the U.S., Yuma residents say as gangs rake in 
billions off of human smuggling.''
    Yahoo News, from September 22, 2022: ``Majority of 
Americans think cartels have more control over the border than 
the U.S. Government: Poll.''
    And why would Biden do this? To create chaos? To sew 
discord? What is the answer to this mess for Biden and the 
Democrats? More Big Brother, more control, even changing our 
culture?
    Instead of empowering these two brave individuals and the 
rest of the Border Patrol seated here in front of us with the 
tools they need to stem the invasion of illegal aliens, Biden 
sends billions upon billions to Ukraine to protect the border 
of another country.
    Under Biden, government is in a continual state of a 
massive expansion, except we refuse to use money where we 
really need it, at the border, protecting our own people.
    Now, let me make this--get something straight. My 
understanding is that the omnibus was signed under the 
declaration of the COVID national emergency, where the 
President has 120 additional powers. So, technically, my 
understanding is, that any of those dollars could be changed 
away from where we sent it.
    And let's talk about those--that money going to Border 
Patrol. Is it more of the clerical? Because all I hear is that 
they want to speed up the number of people coming into this 
country.
    Remember when $5 billion for a wall was just too much to 
stomach for the Democrats? Unless we fix policies at the bird's 
eye level, ending generous parole and asylum, finishing the 
wall and kicking people out immediately, not giving them a 
court date they will never show up to, these two brave 
individuals and everyone who works for them will continue to be 
overwhelmed.
    Chief Modlin, do barriers work?
    Mr. Modlin. I'm sorry, sir. Could you repeat that?
    Mr. Gosar. Do barriers work?
    Mr. Modlin. Sir, so thanks for the question. What I will 
tell you is that there's no one solution to solving the border, 
as you know, or securing the border. There is a combination of 
personnel, technology, infrastructure.
    In terms of the border wall system, you know, certainly we 
have a significant amount of it in Tucson Sector. I think an 
effective example of this is on the Tohono O'odham Nation, 
there is no border wall south of that, no border wall system, 
just simply a, what we call, vehicle barrier that basically 
prevents vehicles from driving through.
    And, in the years before it existed, about 20 percent of 
our traffic came through the Tohono O'odham Nation. In recent 
years, after the border wall system, about 50 percent of the 
traffic comes through the Tohono O'odham Nation.
    Mr. Gosar. But there's different reasons for that, though, 
right?
    Mr. Modlin. Well, yes, sir, because there is border wall 
system and improved infrastructure east and west of the Nation.
    Mr. Gosar. So, it's like funneling people through that?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Gosar. So, I'll go somewhere else.
    Under the current situation, would it be possible for 
foreign intelligence assets to penetrate the United States' 
interior?
    Mr. Modlin. Thanks again for the question, sir. So, to 
speculate who could possibly be in the got-aways or the 
unknowns that we know would just simply be speculation. All I 
can tell you is that it is a tremendous concern that anyone--
anyone--goes through the border undetected. But the reality is 
we know there are people that are getting by.
    Mr. Gosar. Would you agree, Chief Chavez?
    Ms. Chavez. Yes, sir, thank you for the question. And just 
to add on the barrier question and the value of those barriers, 
I would have to agree as well with Chief Modlin because it is a 
tool in the toolbox for Border Patrol agents to have barriers 
in very strategic locations, not all locations because it will 
help us manage the flow of migrants coming into certain 
locations, especially vehicle traffic because there are roads 
that connect to Mexico and the U.S. currently.
    So, those are effective tools in the toolbox, just like 
technology is, just like roads and lights and other types of 
things that we use so that we are more effective in managing 
flow.
    Mr. Gosar. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Chavez. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The chair 
recognizes Ms. Norton for five minutes.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My friends on the other side often demonize migrants who 
are attempting to cross the southern border. They call it an 
invasion. I don't think such rhetoric is worthy of Members of 
Congress.
    But, as a result of this extreme rhetoric, faith-based 
organizations that support asylees and refugees fleeing 
violence and persecution have reported receiving heightened 
threats and attacks. All this rhetoric does is fan the flames. 
Migrants are increasingly dehumanized as a direct result of 
Republicans' xenophobic rhetoric.
    In 2019, a far-right anti-immigrant extremist murdered 23 
people, most of them Latino, at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas. 
Perhaps we all remember that.
    According to his so-called manifesto, his murderous spree 
was motivated by his belief that there was what he called a 
Hispanic invasion of people coming to the United States 
illegally.
    Chief Modlin, does hateful rhetoric, xenophobia, or racism 
have any place in the Border Patrol?
    Mr. Modlin. Ma'am, thank you for the question. I would say 
absolutely not. I think, you know, hearings like this are a 
great way to get the facts out there, you know, and certainly 
there is no place for hate within the Border Patrol. Thank you 
for the question.
    Ms. Norton. Well, I thank you for that answer.
    Chief Chavez, how does extreme rhetoric, including the 
rhetoric used by lawmakers, make your work and that of agents 
more challenging?
    Ms. Chavez. Thank you, ma'am, for the question. You know, I 
think when I'm out there with our agents and we focus on the 
mission and we do the job that we do every day, encountering 
the migrants on the ground, the relationship that exists 
between those agents encountering those migrants, it's one of 
those relationships that no one will ever understand.
    Because those migrants, they see that agent for the first 
time, many of them, on their journey, this is the first time 
they get the assistance and the help that they need from a law 
enforcement officer, from days and weeks, maybe even months, on 
a long journey.
    So, they're very helpful; they're very happy to have seen 
that agent for the first time. So, a lot of times for us, I 
always talk to the agents about not worrying about the rhetoric 
or the things that they hear out there about--anything that 
they may see that's negative, just focus on your mission, focus 
on treating people with dignity and respect that they deserve, 
like any other human being, and always be professional and keep 
that standard, right?
    One of the things that we always strive on, especially in 
the RGV, where we have these large central processing centers, 
is that we do our very best to keep migrants healthy, keep them 
safe, keep them fed, and keep them clean.
    That's our No. 1 priority because they're only with us for 
a few hours. We are only a CBP temporary holding facility. We 
are not long-term detention. So, that is our No. 1 priority 
always.
    Ms. Norton. Well, I certainly appreciate what you are doing 
to assure these migrants, but, Chief Chavez, what can we in 
Congress do to ensure that we are working toward real and 
meaningful solutions to strengthen our immigration system?
    Ms. Chavez. Ma'am, thank you so much for the question. You 
know, I have served now 27 years in this outfit, and I 
remember, when I started, it was the 104th Session with 
Congress. We are now at the 118th Session. And here still 
talking--we're talking about immigration; we're still talking 
about border security.
    I think that we need to really just embrace change, and 
good change, so that we reform our immigration laws. We really 
need to have that balance between immigration and border 
security and get serious about that.
    And we seriously need to find a solution because we are 
Border Patrol agents; we are the ones that enforce policy, your 
policy that Congress puts out. We are there to secure that 
border. We care about the American people. We care about our 
country, and our Border Patrol agents work very hard every day 
between those ports of entry to secure this country, and I'm 
just so very proud.
    I think that, as we continue to move forward, I always ask, 
whenever Congress is ready to put that team together, look at 
Border Patrol agents that come in and advise you because I 
think there's many of them out there already with experience 
that know how to help out in building that path forward because 
I think it's time.
    If not, otherwise, if we don't have the right policies or 
consequences, the world is watching us, and we're going to 
continue to see these large migration flows from around the 
world entering here at our southern border. Thank you, ma'am, 
for the question.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady's time is expired. I feel 
compelled to state the fact that I believe my Democrat friends 
are confusing real oversight with fanning flames. Conducting 
oversight allows us to gather facts, to solve problems, not fan 
flames.
    The chair recognizes Ms. Mace for five minutes.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Chairman Comer. I want to thank 
Ranking Member Raskin for this hearing today.
    In Charleston, South Carolina, we have the Border Patrol 
Training Academy, so I appreciate your efforts to be here 
today.
    I've been to the border, and to say it's eye-opening would 
be an understatement. I think, if most Americans could see 
what's going on there, they would be shocked and stunned.
    I want to express my disappointment today with the actions 
of the Department of Homeland Security. The administration 
initially tried to block our Border Patrol chiefs from 
appearing before our Oversight Committee hearing today.
    DHS was literally trying to obstruct oversight, Mr. 
Chairman, and that's wrong.
    So, I'm grateful for your leadership today, but also begs 
the question why the administration would not want you both to 
testify. As we all know, our Border Patrol chiefs, you guys are 
on the front lines of the border crisis, and we need to hear 
from you, the American people need to hear from you.
    Unfortunately, this isn't the first time the 
administration, or DHS, has tried to undermine the truth of 
what's really happening at the border.
    Secretary Mayorkas used the now debunked border agent 
whipping incident to label our Border Patrol agents as racists. 
I can only imagine how that further tanked morale. Secretary 
Mayorkas' response to the question of whether or not there was 
a crisis at the border, just last year, November, he said we're 
seeing a significant challenge.
    When you see over 5 million illegal immigrants come across 
our border, that's not a challenge; that is a crisis. And we're 
unwilling, it seems like, to admit that crisis is happening.
    So, after two years of gaslighting, obstruction, 
stonewalling, and lies, we're finally able to hear straight 
from the source. So, I want to thank Chief Modlin and Chief 
Chavez for being here this morning.
    I have three questions really that I want to get to, and I 
have about three minutes left so not a lot of time if you'll 
bear with me.
    I'm kind of curious about your testimony, your joint 
testimony today. The funding, you mentioned a couple of 
different ways that the Border Patrol could be supported, but 
the funding to construct a border wall was missing from your 
testimony. Why is that? Either of you can answer.
    Mr. Modlin. Congresswoman, thank you for the question. As I 
said, the Border Patrol would certainly appreciate any 
increases in funding----
    Ms. Mace. But it was missing from your testimony. And so, 
you both have said today that barriers, walls, whatever you 
want to call it, or nuance it is needed. So, why was it missing 
from your testimony?
    Mr. Modlin. Ma'am, I believe what I testified to was that 
we would appreciate any increase in personnel, technology, and 
infrastructure.
    Ms. Mace. Did someone from DHS tell y'all to remove it from 
your written testimony that was submitted to Oversight? Was 
there discussion about the wall? Was it going to be in there, 
and then it was taken out? Why was it missing?
    If it's so needed and you're saying it in your oral 
arguments today--and I appreciate it. This is not a gotcha, but 
it is important. I've been down to the border. I've seen it, 
agents, you know, have--I believe there's a great need to have 
certain barriers, but why was it missing?
    Mr. Modlin. Ma'am, earlier I testified to the effectiveness 
of it. I was not asked to remove anything about border wall 
system from my testimony.
    Ms. Mace. OK. And I do appreciate your comments because I 
know that Chief Chavez, you said back in 2019, your testimony, 
and to the former President, that we need a border barrier. 
Both of you in your testimony today, Tohono O'odham Nation, you 
said, Chief Modlin, that barriers in certain locations are 
certainly helpful.
    I would just appreciate in testimony in the future that we 
have a real conversation, that it's in the written testimony 
because it is so important, and many of us know that.
    Chief Modlin, you mentioned both personnel and technology 
being needed for the Border Patrol. The hiring process for 
Border Patrol agents can last over a year, almost a year and a 
half sometimes. So, what are some of the bureaucratic barriers 
to getting more agents into the Border Patrol?
    Mr. Modlin. Thanks again, ma'am. So, I would say, one, that 
is certainly not my area of expertise, but I do know we have 
worked very hard to narrow that down. When I came in, it was 
probably closer to two years to get into the Border Patrol.
    Ms. Mace. Wow.
    Mr. Modlin. I do think there are some things that can be 
worked on, such as the ability to pass people that already have 
a background check, say they're in DOD and they've already had 
a clearance, to have that slide over into the Border Patrol and 
then not eat up time doing things like that.
    I also know our academy has narrowed down significantly, 
and I believe our attrition at the academy is down from 35 
percent to about 10 percent. So, agencywide we've recognized we 
need more people.
    Ms. Mace. How many agents roughly do you think--do you guys 
think the Border Patrol needs right now, across?
    Mr. Modlin. So, the Border Patrol is about 19,300 or so.
    Ms. Mace. How many more do you need? I mean--or what's the 
staffing shortage number roughly?
    Mr. Modlin. So, I think a reasonable amount of agents for 
the Border Patrol would be about 22,000, but, again, that would 
be a headquarters determination, not mine. I certainly know I 
don't have enough agents within Tucson Sector to deal with the 
flow that we're dealing with now.
    Ms. Mace. All right. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The chair 
recognizes Mr. Garcia for five minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 
want to just thank you both for being here as well. I'm proud 
to be part of a small group of immigrants in the Congress and, 
I believe, the only immigrant today that's asking questions and 
certainly that is here.
    I immigrated as a young kid from South America to the 
United States with my family--my mom, my dad, grandmother. And 
like most immigrants, we came to the United States in search of 
the American Dream and trying to improve what was a very 
difficult life back home.
    I always tell people that my proudest day was the day I 
became a United States citizen. I was in my early 20's. I was 
just wrapping up college. I think, like, most immigrants that 
we meet, immigrants are actually incredibly patriotic, we love 
this country. I'm so grateful to be an American and to be here 
with you today.
    Immigrants, I think we recognize, have worked really hard 
to build this country. This is a country of immigrants, and a 
huge part of our success is due to immigrant labor and 
immigrants investing back into communities.
    I think also we understand--and I certainly attest to 
this--that immigrants are also some of the most patriotic 
people that you'll ever meet. They love this country, and 
they're very grateful to be here.
    We know that being anti-immigrant is really being anti-
American, and we should be clear today at this hearing that no 
human is illegal. I think unfortunately we have heard from 
former leaders, even the former President, President Trump, 
calling immigrants, and particularly those from Mexico, rapists 
and drug dealers and other very derogatory terms. That is not a 
way to solve this problem.
    I've heard today a lot of conversation about fentanyl and 
drugs coming over the border, and one argument I've heard is 
this false connection between asylum seekers and immigrants and 
the very serious fentanyl crisis that we actually--is serious 
in our country and in our community.
    Now, Chief Modlin, you've made aware, in some of your 
comments earlier, but I want to note that the nonpartisan 
Government Accountability Office has found that over 90 percent 
of fentanyl border seizures actually occur at legal border 
crossings and that 91 percent of drug seizures are actually 
from U.S. citizens.
    Now, this same study found that only four percent was from 
potentially removable immigrants.
    The percentage of all those arrested by the Border Patrol 
who possess any fentanyl, according to the Conservative 
institute--the Cato Institute, is actually 0.02 percent.
    So, the truth is, that a vast majority of fentanyl is being 
smuggled by U.S. citizens at legal ports of entry, and I think 
many of my colleagues have brought this up and have alluded to 
this data earlier today.
    I just think it's clear, and it's clear to me from both of 
you, that you also understand that there is suffering that is 
happening from people that are desperate along our border.
    And, when asylum seekers are fleeing these oppressive 
regimes, whether it's in Venezuela, whether it's in my home 
country of Peru, whether it's from Cuba, they are presenting 
themselves to the Border Patrol to make legal claim for asylum. 
These are mostly not traffickers.
    So, I think it's important to think about the people that 
we're talking about today as human beings, as people, as 
generally folks that are suffering and are coming to our 
country for assistance and for help.
    It's also been interesting to me that many of our 
colleagues today who claim to be concerned about this issue 
voted against a bill which included $430 million for Customs 
and Border Protection to modernize and improve screening at our 
ports of entry. This, of course, was the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act.
    So, this hearing is leaving me with a feeling that, like 
much in our immigration debate, we don't really have any 
interest, particularly with my friends on the other side, in 
actually solving this problem and making our country safer.
    I want to remind us that the last President to sign real 
comprehensive immigration reform was President Reagan, a 
Republican. His leadership back in the 1980's is what put my 
family and myself on a pathway to citizenship.
    And so I hope that today's Republican Party and today's 
leaders within the party are willing to come to the table and 
actually pass comprehensive and important immigration reform 
that not only continues to invest in our border and ensure that 
the asylum process is fair, but that also provides pathways and 
looks and goes to the root problem as to why folks are actually 
crossing the border.
    Because as we are clear from this hearing, it's not a drug 
issue or solely an issue about fentanyl. It's about 
desperation, and it's about access to the American Dream.
    So, I just want to thank you both for being here today, 
and, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Palmer for five minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chief Modlin, I want to run through some things quickly. 
I'd appreciate a yes-or-no answer. When we talk about 
processing people who illegally cross the border, would you 
agree that a significant portion of those people are ultimately 
processed for release from DHS custody?
    Mr. Modlin. Thanks for the question, sir. I would say----
    Mr. Palmer. It's a yes or no.
    Mr. Modlin [continuing]. Yes, that a significant amount of 
the people are released from our custody.
    Mr. Palmer. The fact is, there's over a million, were 
released in the United States from DHS custody just in Fiscal 
Year 2022. These individuals are released with a notice to 
appear in immigration court at a later date. Is that correct?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir. So, many people are released with a 
notice to appear.
    Mr. Palmer. Are you aware that the Immigration Court 
backlog nationwide is now over 2 million cases?
    Mr. Modlin. Sir, that is not within our purview. I am 
unaware of----
    Mr. Palmer. Just for informational purposes, as of the end 
of December 2022, it was 2,056,328 cases pending in Immigration 
Courts nationwide. The average number of days--and this is the 
average--for a hearing is 771. That's over two years.
    So, people who are coming in here illegally are released 
from custody to appear in an immigration court, and even 
assuming they actually show up for the court hearing, make any 
case that they have and finalize all appeals and other 
processes available to them, we're talking about years living 
in the United States before there's ever even a possibility of 
a removal order. And that's just if they follow the rules.
    Chief Modlin, would you agree, at a very basic level, that 
a higher likelihood of release from custody increases the 
incentive for people who have come here illegally, compared to 
a scenario where someone would be detained and removed if they 
were illegally crossing the border? Would that increase the 
number of people who would remain here?
    Mr. Modlin. Sir, thanks again for the question. What I 
would say is exactly what I was getting to earlier, is that, I 
think, when we talk about the border and border security, we 
have to recognize it's much bigger than the Border Patrol. We 
are the first 24 to 72 hours that someone experiences.
    Everything that you are talking about is much further down. 
So, when we look at, you know, how to solve border security 
issues, we really have to look at more immigration judges, more 
CIS personnel, more ERO bed space, so that we don't have the 
releases into the communities and then we don't have these two-
year waits, sir.
    Mr. Palmer. Well----
    Mr. Modlin. But that's all far beyond my purview.
    Mr. Palmer [continuing]. Just increasing the speed and 
efficiency and the volume for release from custody, that's just 
a stopgap measure. That doesn't really stop the flow.
    I mean, until you're actually removing people, there's no 
incentive for--there's really no incentive for anybody to even 
show up.
    I just--I find it interesting that my colleagues are just--
sold out completely for an open border. I understand the need 
for families to find a better quality of life, but there needs 
to be a process, an orderly, organized process, and that's not 
what's happening.
    When my colleagues, they want to avoid the issue of the 
danger to national security. They want to avoid the issue of 
the fact that there are over 107,000 people who died from drug 
overdoses--and that's probably underreported by 15 to 20 
percent based on what some of the coroners have said, the 
number of people who don't want it on the death certificate 
that their loved one died from a drug overdose.
    fentanyl is a weapon that's coming across our borders 
that's killing young people at a record level. The drug 
overdose death rate for people under age 24 is at an all-time 
high, especially among the African American community.
    So, what I--I have a real hard time understanding why we 
continue to operate the way we operate, and the questions I'm 
asking are about the people that you've picked up, not the ones 
who got away.
    And you don't even know how many got-aways they are because 
those are only the ones that you saw.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I sit here and listen to some of the 
questions from my colleagues, and many of them voted to not 
condemn socialism, and I just wonder what the real agenda is 
here for an open border.
    Crap, we can't even keep a balloon from crossing our 
border, and we don't do anything about it until it's about to 
leave. That kind of sounds like our border policy across the 
board. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair recognizes Representative Frost.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, before I start, earlier I believe I heard Mr. 
Gosar say something about President Biden's immigration 
policies being more Big Brother, more control, and more 
changing our culture. I just want a clarification. Is that what 
Mr. Gosar said?
    OK. Changing our culture. I understand what he's trying to 
say, but I believe that immigrants are American and thus a part 
of American culture.
    You know, it's unfortunate that this hearing started off 
with a ton of hyperbole and posturing, saying that President 
Biden and his administration have created the worst border 
crisis in American history.
    That isn't about oversight; it's about stoking the fears of 
immigrants and those seeking asylum. And it's something I take 
personally as the son of a Cuban refugee.
    Look, for many folks around the country who might only 
watch far right media or just listen to even some of the folks 
on this committee, I'm curious, Chief Chavez, when President 
Biden took office, did your agents stop enforcing the border 
and just allow everybody to come in, thus creating what we hear 
here is an open border? Did that happen when the President took 
office?
    Ms. Chavez. Sir, thank you for your question. The answer is 
no, sir.
    Mr. Frost. OK, thank you.
    Ms. Chavez. We continue to enforce policy and laws.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, I appreciate it.
    Chief Modlin, when President Biden took office, did the 
border just open, and did y'all stop enforcing your policies?
    Mr. Modlin. Also, thank you for your question, sir. I can 
tell you this, this is the fifth administration I've worked 
for, starting with the Clinton Administration, and Border 
Patrol agents do their job every day.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, I appreciate it. Look, as y'all 
probably realize by now, a lot of these hearings are not really 
about solutions. They're about politics. And for me, I believe 
solutions must be rooted in facts. I know y'all probably watch 
the news and are aware of what's going on politically.
    Would you agree that the narrative being peddled right now 
that says that an insane amount of fentanyl is being brought 
into this country by illegal immigrants specifically, would you 
say that is true?
    Ms. Chavez. Sir, again, we're here to report on the facts 
on border security. I'd probably defer from giving an opinion 
on anything in the news right now.
    Mr. Frost. With the data, right?
    Ms. Chavez. Because that's probably doubtful. I can't----
    Mr. Frost. Yes. No, all good. Thank you, Chief. No, I 
appreciate that. I agree, right, it has to be rooted in the 
data. You know, a Cato Institute report and CBP data shows that 
more than 85 percent of the illicit fentanyl entering the 
United States is brought in by citizens of the United States of 
America.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to enter into 
the record the 2022 Cato Institute report demonstrating that 
illicit fentanyl is primarily trafficked by U.S. citizens at 
lawful ports of entry.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you.
    Look, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would 
have us believe that the solution to the fentanyl problem in 
this country is to discourage both illegal and legal 
immigration.
    In comes the wall, which we've heard a lot about. You know, 
we know that crossings haven't decreased since we spent $15 
billion--once again, $15 billion with a B--of taxpayer money on 
that monument of fear. The wall kind of reminds me of a sad, 
decaying Soviet statue.
    Is the bigger failure that migrants are able to breach the 
wall or find their way around it? Chief Modlin?
    Mr. Modlin. Thank you for the question, sir. One thing I 
would say, I think it's worth pointing out, especially Mr. 
Garcia just came back in the room--I'm glad you did. You talked 
about being an immigrant and being proud of the country.
    I can tell you a week ago I was in San Diego, drove past 
the Scottish Rite Center, and the agent next to me said: I 
smile every time I see that building.
    And I said: Why?
    He said: Because I was born in Tijuana, and that's the 
place where I naturalized and became a U.S. citizen.
    And so I do hope, you know, when you all make it down to 
the border, you talk to the Border Patrol agents and recognize 
that a great number of them are immigrants to the country as 
well, or first generations like yourself, Mr. Frost.
    Mr. Frost. Yes. And, Chief, on that story, so the center he 
was naturalized in was across the border; it's something he saw 
from Mexico? It was like a beacon of hope is what you're 
saying.
    Mr. Modlin. No, this was pretty significantly into San 
Diego, but he grew up on the border, you know, Tijuana. You can 
certainly see across the border----
    Mr. Frost. And he saw it as a beacon of hope----
    Mr. Modlin [continuing]. And his family recognized 
opportunity in the United States, in immigrating.
    Mr. Frost. Being able to see directly in our country, yes.
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir. Yes.
    Mr. Frost. That's amazing. That's a great story to hear. 
You know, for two years of campaigning, we've heard about the 
border, the border, the border, and here we are, and yet we're 
not being solutions-oriented. It's hyperbole and lies.
    And I want to be clear--and we've heard this time and time 
again, and I'll say it again--the situation deserves this 
committee's attention because there is a crisis at the border. 
But the crisis is not a criminal one, it's a humanitarian one, 
and it's an important fact to keep in mind. I appreciate 
y'all's work, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Fallon for five minutes.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was just stated 
that walls don't work, and yet there's one going up right on 
the Capitol right now against our recommendation. So, that's 
interesting.
    Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd also like to thank the 
chiefs for coming and joining us today. We're on a tight time 
schedule, so, Chiefs, if I interrupt you at all, it's only 
because I'm trying to make your time as efficient as possible.
    Now, I fully understand the realities at the border and the 
concerns of retaliation that you may have by some 
administration officials if what you say here angers those in 
power, so--even if it's truthful.
    So, having said that, all I'm going to ask you to do is 
provide factual information and answers. Sound fair? That's all 
I want.
    Chief Chavez, would you describe the current situation and 
present conditions at the southern border as either good or 
bad? Simple.
    Ms. Chavez. I would describe it a bit overwhelming.
    Mr. Fallon. Overwhelming, so a synonym for bad. I would 
actually probably add terrible.
    So, let me ask it another way. How long has Customs and 
Border Patrol been keeping and publishing records of illegal 
crossings on a monthly basis? Roughly? About 20 years?
    Ms. Chavez. On a monthly basis? Well, I've been in 27 
years. I've probably been seeing them for about 25 years.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes, I think it's about that.
    So, what's the worst month in recorded history for illegal 
crossings? And when I say ``worst,'' like the highest number?
    Ms. Chavez. In my 27-year career? I'd have to look, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Fallon. I think it's--actually, it's last month, which 
was December. It was 251,487, was the worst month ever in over 
almost a quarter century. That's the very definition of bad and 
terrible.
    But before December, were you aware of the worst month 
before December? And we're talking about almost a quarter of a 
century. The worst month, do you know, offhand? If you don't, I 
know.
    Ms. Chavez. I can't think right now of the worst----
    Mr. Fallon. It's also 2022.
    Ms. Chavez. OK.
    Mr. Fallon. It was in May, and it was 241,136 crossings. 
And, before May, it was the very previous month of April, which 
was 235,785 illegal crossings.
    So, prior to the Biden administration, Chiefs, either of 
you, are you aware of any month that we ever had that was over 
200,000? Either? No?
    Mr. Modlin. I'm unaware, sir.
    Ms. Chavez. No, sir.
    Mr. Fallon. Because it had never happened before. And yet 
the last 10 months in a row have been over 200,000 illegal 
crossings, so--that's astonishing. And, in fact, it's safe to 
say that what's going on, on the southern border is tough, it's 
trying, and it's terrible. And there's a glaring difference 
between this administration and the past.
    And one of the policies was the ``Wait in Mexico'' policy 
where we said: Your asylum case will be adjudicated while you 
wait in Mexico. Would you not agree, Chief Chavez, that 
effective policy, such as the Migrant Protection Protocols, are 
vital to deterring illegal immigration at the border?
    Ms. Chavez. During my time in El Paso, we had the Migrant 
Protection Protocols, and they were effective during the years 
that I was the chief in El Paso. It helped----
    Mr. Fallon. So, they were effective?
    Ms. Chavez [continuing]. It helped manage capacity at the 
facility.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
    Chief Modlin, do you believe the Mexican drug cartels 
present a clear and present danger to the safety and security 
of the United States?
    Mr. Modlin. Thanks for the question, sir. I would say that 
the drug cartels and their control of the border just south 
of--you know, just south of our border, is a very significant 
problem.
    Mr. Fallon. So, I've seen estimates, and would you agree, 
that's about--or their income is about $25 billion a year just 
with the illegal narcotics trafficking? Does that sound about 
right?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir, I've seen those same figures.
    Mr. Fallon. And then not to mention the $13 billion that 
they're now making with human smuggling because of all the 
folks that are coming in and the tax that they charge those 
people. So, $38 billion when you combine those. That's the size 
of some states' entire--some nation-states' entire GDP in a 
given year.
    So, the cartels are dangerous, and they're deadly, and 
they're murderers. They're absolute worst of the worst.
    Mr. Modlin. Yes. I think----
    Mr. Fallon. And you see it on the frontlines, both of you. 
So, as someone--if someone's committed and they take a 
constitutional oath to preserve, protect, and defend the United 
States and the safety of the citizens, doesn't it stand to 
reason that we should do everything, everything within our 
lawful power, to secure the border?
    Mr. Modlin. Sir, yes. So, I took an oath to protect the 
United States. I take that very seriously. What I can tell you, 
I think it's very important that you brought up about the 
amount of money the cartels have.
    So, these organizations it's almost limitless, the funds 
they have. They don't have to follow policy. They don't have to 
follow law. They don't recognize the international border. They 
don't recognize state borders. So, you know, where we are, of 
course, confined by all those things, or restricted by those 
things, they have absolute freedom in terms of----
    Mr. Fallon. And absolute freedom--and I apologize, cut you 
off, but to smuggle in fentanyl, which I think we'd all agree 
is the most dangerous drug they're currently trafficking in, 
where something smaller than the tip of a pencil, 2 milligrams, 
can kill a human being.
    They smuggled in 24,000 pounds in the last two fiscal 
years, and they have killed 80,000 Americans in just one year. 
That is asymmetrical warfare being waged on the United States. 
And what we don't lack is your will to secure the border, the 
Border Patrol agents' will. We have the resources. We have the 
manpower. We have the technology.
    What we lack, Mr. Chairman, is Alejandro Mayorkas' will and 
Joe Biden's will to do so. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair recognizes Ms. Balint.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to take a moment to acknowledge something that I 
fear might be getting lost in today's conversation, which is 
that asylum is a human right, and it's protected by law in the 
United States.
    And so, I sit here today as a newly elected Member of 
Congress. My grandfather, Leopold Balint, was killed by Nazis 
during the Holocaust. My father and his family sought safety 
and security and a chance for a better life.
    And I'm proud to be the child of an immigrant, an immigrant 
who was so grateful to this country that he served in the U.S. 
Army. I'm proud of him. I'm proud of our country for taking him 
in.
    And I know, and Vermonters know, that immigrants enrich our 
communities. We took to the streets in protest when the Trump 
administration tore children of refugees away from their 
parents.
    We welcome newcomers to our country and know that America 
must remain a safe haven for people seeking refuge and asylum.
    It's also true that well over half of farm workers in my 
home state of Vermont, who live on farm, are migrant workers. 
Migrant workers are an integral, critical part of Vermont's 
agricultural sector.
    And it's not unique to Vermont. Immigrant farm workers make 
up an estimated 73 percent of ag workers in the U.S. So, 
immigrants and migrant farm workers literally put food on our 
tables across this country.
    And, because these issues are also about the economy, 
immigration policy is complex, and it can't be just about 
enforcement policy alone, and which is why President Biden 
understands this and understands that migration, from South and 
Central America also follows deep-rooted political and social 
violence, environmental issues, environmental disasters, and 
economic instability. And he's addressing these issues head on.
    In June, President Biden hosted the Summit of Americas to 
approach immigration with a comprehensive and collaborative 
framework. The result was the Los Angeles Declaration on 
Migration and Protection, an agreement between 21 countries in 
North, Central, and South America to promote stability and 
humane pathways for migration.
    So, asylum is a human right. Immigration and migration are 
critical to our agricultural sector. We must remain a place of 
refuge. We must work to keep migrants and refugees safe.
    So, my question to you, Chief Chavez, you've had a long 
career with Border Patrol. Chief Chavez, has there been a time 
when working well with your Mexican counterparts has helped 
keep migrants safe, and if so, could you please tell us about 
that time?
    Ms. Chavez. Yes, of course. Thank you, Congresswoman, for 
the question. So, in my time in the Border Patrol, I have had 
opportunities to work not only at the local level, sector 
level, but also here at headquarters on different types of 
programs like a repatriation agreement where we sit down and 
identify different steps along the process for repatriation, 
not only at the national level but local repatriation 
agreements where migrants will not be returned to a foreign 
country during the nighttime hours. It will only be during 
daytime under certain conditions with certain regulations.
    And I think that it's important that we, as an enforcement 
agency on the border between the ports of entry, that we're 
able to come to those agreements with foreign governments 
because these are human beings that we treat each and every 
day, and that we ensure as an enforcement agency that, when we 
do encounter these migrants, whether they're children that are 
unaccompanied, whether they're families, whether they're single 
adults, that we treat them with dignity and respect that they 
deserve, and that we keep them safe, that we keep them clean, 
that we keep them healthy, and that we give them an opportunity 
to bathe. Because many of them haven't bathed for days or even 
weeks depending on how long their journey has been.
    Just a couple of weeks ago I was in Panama. I wanted to be 
there. I wanted to see the Colombian and Panamanian border 
because we had seen and heard that there was a lot of different 
types of populations coming through there, coming through the 
Darien jungle up to the southern border of Mexico and into the 
United States, and to understand that journey, and to be able 
to understand the complexity of the journey and the needs of 
these people.
    One of the things that we're very proud of in the Border 
Patrol is the ability to have those partnerships with Mexico 
right now and be able to understand that not only do they 
manage the flow on their side of the border as it relates to 
migrants but also with us on the northern border, on our side, 
because together we're able to have a more better understanding 
on how to better care for the migrants themselves.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Chief. I hear you saying that we 
need dignity, we need compassion, we need to see them as human 
beings first. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Chavez. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The chair recognizes Mr. Donalds for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Chief Modlin, Chief 
Chavez, thank you for being here. We're going to go really 
fast, a lot of stuff to cover.
    Going back for the past 12 years, border encounters, 2010, 
447,000; 2011, 327,000; 2012, 356,000; 2013, 414,000; 2015, 
331,000; 2016, 408,000; 2017, 303,000; 2018, 396,000; 2019, 
851,000; 2020, 400,000; 2021, 1.6 million; 2022, 2.2 million.
    There was somebody who became President of the United 
States in January 2021, and on January 20, 2021, this gentleman 
actually got rid of the Migrant Protection Protocols, the MPP 
program. He stopped border wall funding. He actually gutted the 
interior enforcement against illegal aliens. He put a 100-day 
moratorium to study border security protocols.
    In your opinions, you've done this job, both of you, for 
quite some time, and we thank you for your service, but in your 
opinion, do you believe these policy changes actually led to 
the drastic increases in border encounters at the southern 
border?
    Mr. Modlin. Thank you, sir, for the question, and I will 
try to go fast. What I can tell you in 27 years is that 
migration is very complicated. There are push and pull factors. 
The thing that I can tell you that goes to the spike that 
you're talking about is, in the Tucson Sector, interviewing 
people post-arrest, what became the most common response was 
that they believed that when the administration changed, that 
the law changed, and policy changed and that there was an open 
border.
    Mr. Donalds. Chief, I'm glad you said that because, ladies 
and gentlemen, the law did not change. Joe Biden decided not to 
follow the law. I've actually been--Chief Chavez, I've been in 
your section. I was that Member that went to that bus that's 
run by HHS, that was taking migrant children out of your 
holding facilities, and they were taking them to unmarked 
hotels, somewhere along the southern border, which, by the way, 
is a no-bid contract to some for-profit company from the 
Department of Homeland--of HHS to some for-profit company.
    What we see in the Yuma Section are the drug cartels get 
fake IDs for the migrants that they are trafficking through our 
southern border, and they tell the migrants to drop the fake 
IDs before they meet up with our border agents.
    Chief Chavez, why would the drug cartels tell the migrants 
they are trafficking to drop their IDs before they engage our 
agents?
    Ms. Chavez. Because they do that, so that way there's no 
identification on them, and that we're not able to identify 
them, and they can be who they are, whoever they want to be at 
the time that we identify them at processing.
    Mr. Donalds. Chief Chavez, I got a second question for you. 
When I was not in your section, I was in Yuma Section, one of 
things that we found were empty capsules of Plan B, empty 
capsules of birth control. It's been said in this hearing that 
this is not a criminal process or a criminal issue, this is a 
humanitarian issue. Are there young girls who are being raped 
in the journey to the southern border?
    Ms. Chavez. There are cases where we have debriefed many of 
the young ladies, migrants that have come into our custody at 
our central processing centers that have said that they have 
been abused.
    Mr. Donalds. So, we have young girls who are being raped in 
the journey to our southern border to be trafficked into the 
United States. We know the drug cartels charge anywhere from 
$5,000 to $50,000 per person to come into the southern border. 
And we know that starting January 20, 2021, we had a fourfold 
increase in encounters with border agents.
    Chief Modlin, Chief Chavez, do you think the criteria of 
policy shifts have created a larger humanitarian crisis where 
young girls are now raped by smugglers or by the drug cartel in 
the path to our southern border?
    Mr. Modlin. Sir, thanks for the question. What I can tell 
you is in my experience, there has always been violence against 
migrants as they make these trips. I don't know that I can say 
that a policy has increased the violence against the migrants 
making that trip to the United States.
    Mr. Donalds. Well, I got 20 seconds, so I'm going to 
reclaim. That's not against you. I would argue that if you have 
wholesale policy changes which lead to a fourfold increase in 
encounters, what you also are doing is having a fourfold 
increase in sexual assaults of young girls going to our 
southern border.
    Quick point, Mr. Chairman, it was said earlier about the 
last piece of immigration reform done by Congress was by Ronald 
Reagan and the Congress at that time in 1986. That was the last 
time it was done. Here are the facts of what actually happened. 
Ronald Reagan, in good faith, signed a comprehensive 
immigration reform plan. And part of that plan was enhanced 
border security and border wall funding. And congressional 
Democrats did not continue with the funding apparatuses in 
future budgets. So, they reneged on their side of the deal, 
which is why a lot of Republicans today don't want to do 
comprehensive immigration reform. We want to see the border 
secured consistently, and then at that point, we can do through 
the different pieces of immigration policy so we can have a 
full and complete immigration system to make sure America 
succeeds in the future. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The chair 
recognizes Ms. Lee for five minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for 
your testimony. Customs and Border Patrol plays an important 
role in our National Security, and we appreciate that fentanyl 
and other threats to our country are being addressed. But the 
fentanyl can't be a ubiquitous factor in discussing 
immigration. So, when you say immigrant, different images come 
to mind for different people. So, let's try vulnerable mothers, 
teenage sons, fathers with their daughters. These are people 
who are traveling to our southwest border for a host of 
reasons. Both domestic and international law established the 
right to seek safety from governmental prosecution, protection 
from violence based on gender, ethnicity, or religion, relief 
from economic instability and poverty, and to escape other 
catastrophic events. To be clear, irregular migration is not a 
new phenomenon. We've seen this throughout my lifetime, all of 
our lifetimes quite before. But I will remind that the previous 
administration greatly harmed the lives of migrants while 
complicating the lives of CBP.
    There was a Muslim ban. Legal migration was cut, blocking 
highly skilled migrants from important jobs. Asylum seekers 
were forced to live in encampments to await court hearings, and 
the wall. We all, in every branch of government, have more work 
to do to address our immigration system. But there are some 
clear next steps that we can and must take. We must fund more 
skilled judges to address the backlog. We must end Title 42. 
This Trump-era policy will only exacerbate the chaos at the 
border, and it must be ended. And we can address the root 
causes of migration to help our neighbors. The point is we must 
do more. The lives of those mothers and those sons and those 
daughters and those fathers, future Americans and our global 
citizens and siblings are relying on us.
    So, with that said, Chief Chavez, what did that 
coordination with local officials and NGO's look like, and what 
kind of help was provided to immigrants?
    Ms. Chavez. So, the coordination in El Paso, specifically, 
El Paso and then RGV just quickly was daily. And I think the 
coordination was very important, especially because today I 
think our No. 1 goal in that situation at the border that can 
become very overwhelming very quickly, you need their support. 
You need local officials. You need other partners from other 
agencies at the Federal, state, and local level to assist you 
where they can also participate in providing holding transport, 
and they can assist you--Operational Stone Garden is a 
phenomenal program that's available to provide us support on 
border security, to see--the sheriff's department provide us 
assistance with transport of migrants from one point to the 
other, other than just transport. No type of immigration type 
nexus, just transport support. It's phenomenal for us. But on 
the coordination with NGO's is critical. It is something that 
the Border Patrol has truly evolved over the years. Because now 
we're working with shelters directly with the assistance also 
of ICE enforcement and renewal operations at the table. Because 
they are the long-term detention as well that can also assist 
us in the liaison with NGO's, faith-based organizations, so 
that they also have the opportunity to provide shelters for 
families, and also single adults that are amenable to release.
    In many situations, CBP temporary holding facilities in 
situations where we're with high holding, that we need to 
release some of these people through ICE ERO, a lot of times we 
have to lean on these NGO's because we can't hold them very 
long at our facilities. So, the regular meetings, the regular 
communication, the group texting, the group emails were daily 
communication. Today, in RGV where I sit, we have a daily 
report that now I send to every group stakeholder in that 
region so that they know our activity levels of the flow of 
migration coming into my region. They get to see it just like 
my people see within the organization how many types of Mexican 
nationals crossed yesterday. How many Nicaraguan Mexico--
nationals came across? How many Hondurans? They know the type 
three types of nationalities. So, it's important for me that 
our stakeholders have the same situational awareness that I do 
on the type of populations coming across that border.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Chief. Chief Modlin, I understand that 
many migrants are actually asylum seekers fleeing governmental 
prosecution--persecution, excuse me, protection from violence 
based on gender, ethnicity, or religion. What is your agency 
doing to help distinguish these people from the narrative of an 
invasion at the border?
    Mr. Modlin. Thanks for the question ma'am. So, a few 
things, one, asylum seekers are fairly rare in the Tucson 
Sector. About 87 percent of what we see are not--people that do 
not claim fear. I will tell you that certainly the Border 
Patrol and myself, we recognize the law, and the law states 
that any migrant that's in the United States regardless of 
status has the right to apply for asylum. And I would also say 
it's important to recognize that the Border Patrol doesn't 
grant or deny any sort of relief or benefit to anyone. We 
simply encounter the person. If they do make a claim of fear, 
then they're put in a different pathway than someone that 
doesn't make a claim of fear. But, ultimately, again, as I've 
stated many times, that's far beyond what the Border Patrol 
does.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The chair recognizes Mr. Armstrong for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think some 
of these things are new. When methamphetamine first started 
becoming a problem in the Midwest, it was primarily made 
locally. It was made in fish houses in Minnesota, in abandoned 
cabins in rural North Dakota. And local law enforcement 
actually did an incredibly good job of shutting it down. But in 
the law of unintended consequences, the cartels got 
significantly involved in methamphetamine and began trafficking 
it across the southern border, and it ended up in places like 
North Dakota and Minnesota and Chicago and every community all 
across the country.
    I just have one question because we have a ton of law 
enforcement--well, I have a bunch of more questions, but I have 
one right now--law enforcement experience at that table. In 
your professional judgment, is the percentage of drugs seized 
by law enforcement higher at ports of entry or higher between 
ports of entry? Ms. Chavez? Chief Chavez? Which one is it 
harder to get drugs across?
    Ms. Chavez. I would have to say, in my experience, harder 
to get across?
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
    Ms. Chavez. It would probably be at the ports of entry.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you. Chief Modlin?
    Mr. Modlin. Thank you for your question, sir. Generally 
speaking, I would say that is probably correct when you look at 
how hardened some of the ports are, the technology. However, I 
would say, too, there are some ports that are in very rural 
areas that may be easier to----
    Mr. Armstrong. Oh, we have lots of them in North Dakota.
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Armstrong. But we're going to get to that in a second. 
Who makes the fentanyl? Chief Chavez. Go ahead, Chief Modlin.
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir, as you described, my understanding is 
equal to yours that in the beginning--oh, I'm sorry, fentanyl. 
My head was still on meth.
    Mr. Armstrong. Who's making the----
    Mr. Modlin. So, the fentanyl is being produced, my 
understanding, in Mexico.
    Mr. Armstrong. Chief Chavez?
    Ms. Chavez. The same briefings from our intelligence folks 
that it's a Mexico product.
    Mr. Armstrong. So, if it's being made in Mexico, I'm 
assuming it's being made by the cartels?
    Ms. Chavez. Correct, sir.
    Mr. Armstrong. So, regardless of who's bringing it across 
the border, U.S. citizens, ports of entry, between ports of 
entry, not ports of entry, the drugs that are killing people in 
my communities are being made by the cartels?
    Ms. Chavez. That is correct, sir.
    Mr. Armstrong. Chief Modlin, you testified earlier that 
nobody's crossing the southern border in your district. Correct 
me if I'm wrong, but I think this is what you said: Without 
interacting with the cartels.
    Mr. Modlin. That is 100 percent correct, sir.
    Mr. Armstrong. So, the cartels are involved in the 
manufacture and trafficking of methamphetamine?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Armstrong. And they are involved in trafficking anybody 
who is trying to come across southern border?
    Mr. Modlin. That's correct, sir.
    Mr. Armstrong. So, one of the things I'm having a hard time 
getting my head around is we skip that part. If there's a 12-
year-old girl that's come from southern Mexico, Honduras, 
whatever, hasn't had a drink of water, hasn't had a--you were 
talking about bathing--gets to the southern border, I don't 
think there's anybody that doesn't want to give her a blanket 
and a hug. Like that is part of being a human being, that is 
part of compassion, that is part we want. But what my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are failing to 
recognize is in order to get there, they have to deal with a 
group of people that is not interested in human rights, that 
have no human value--they place no value on humanity. If they 
can make money on it, they will exploit it. I think one of the 
mistakes we make quite often is we talk about them like they're 
drug cartels. They're in the business of making money. And 
whatever the path of the least resistance is-is how they make 
money. So--and I just--and, Chief Chavez, I want to go back to 
you, in your sector, does anybody get to the border at some 
point without dealing with the cartels?
    Ms. Chavez. No, sir, they own the territory south of the 
border.
    Mr. Armstrong. So, the vulnerable mother deals with the 
cartels?
    Ms. Chavez. Correct.
    Mr. Armstrong. The child deals with the cartels.
    Ms. Chavez. Correct.
    Mr. Armstrong. Do they treat them well on these journeys.
    Ms. Chavez. No, sir.
    Mr. Armstrong. Do they treat them well after they get here?
    Ms. Chavez. No, sir.
    Mr. Armstrong. Are some of their family members enslaved--
enslaved, pressured, and do whatever in order to continue to 
pay them until they've worked off their fee.
    Ms. Chavez. They are. They're pretty much confined to 
whatever those cartels require in order to be able to see their 
family member again.
    Mr. Armstrong. If you are a 14-year-old girl and you come 
to one of your stations and the cartels have threatened your 
mom, your dad, your family, your grandmother, or any of those 
people, are they going to tell you the truth about what they 
have to do next?
    Ms. Chavez. Most of the time, they will not because they're 
afraid that their family may get, you know, hurt or that they 
themselves will be injured or hurt.
    Mr. Armstrong. So, when we talk about the humanitarian 
crisis--and my friend Congressman Donalds went through these 
numbers--we are putting these people in the hands of cartels in 
their journey by our policies that we have set in the United 
States?
    Ms. Chavez. Many times, these people from the moment that 
they leave their front door at their point of origin, in the 
middle village of down south somewhere, they're already 
starting their exploitation from that point on.
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes, the Northern Triangle countries have a 
tremendous amount of gang activity that is organized all the 
way through.
    Ms. Chavez. Correct.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. I thank the gentleman. The chair recognizes 
Mr. Casar for five minutes.
    Mr. Casar. Thank you. The Republicans on this committee 
keep trying to link immigrants to the opioid crisis, but the 
facts are clear. Immigrant families fleeing violence and 
poverty are not the source of the fentanyl crisis as they cross 
the border.
    So, Chief Chavez and Chief Modlin, you run sectors of the 
Border Patrol. Do you know what percentage of those arrested by 
Border Patrol for unlawfully crossing the border, how many of 
them are found with fentanyl? Do you know that number? Yes or 
no.
    Mr. Modlin. Sir, thank you for the question. I do not have 
that number.
    Mr. Casar. I have the number from Border Patrol. It is 0.02 
percent. That's less than one half of one half of one percent. 
That's so little you couldn't see it on a typical graph if I 
had one behind me. But we do arrest others who do have 
fentanyl. More than nine out of 10 people caught by Border 
Patrol trafficking it are by--excuse me, by Customs and Border 
Protection trafficking it and Border Patrol are lawful U.S. 
residents. So, I'll say that again. More than nine out of 10 
people caught are lawful U.S. residents.
    I was just in the El Paso sector last week with Border 
Patrol, and they confirmed this number because people driving 
narcotics across the border are citizens with passports who can 
get past the checkpoints. So, the people trafficking fentanyl 
on the border are U.S. citizens. The people suffering and dying 
from overdoses in our communities are U.S. citizens. So, why on 
Earth are we talking about immigrants today? Because 
Republicans in this Congress want to drum up fear about poor 
people who are fleeing to this country and distract from the 
real issues of mental health, overdoses, and poverty. If we 
actually want to take on fentanyl overdoses, then let's call a 
hearing on successful addiction treatment programs. Let's call 
a hearing where we treat the opioid crisis as what it is, a 
public health emergency. We could have our first bipartisan and 
fully functional hearing in Congress here if we did that. But 
instead, we are hearing members on this committee calling 
refugees and asylees, quote, an invasion, and warning that 
immigrants coming here are President Biden trying to, quote, 
change our culture. The failed drug war, plus failed anti-
immigrant policies that close any legal pathway to immigration 
creates the underground market for cartels and criminal groups 
in the first place.
    You're not helping beat the cartels; you're setting up the 
market for them. You're not helping keep migrants safe; we're 
pushing folks to go have to work with criminal organizations to 
get here because there is no other legal pathway. No one should 
have to pay smugglers and brave the jungle and the desert and 
nights on top of a train to save their family. No one should 
have to sleep on the streets or risk violence, including sexual 
assault.
    In San Antonio last summer, I represent San Antonio and 
Austin, Texas, there were 53 people found dead in the back of a 
tractor trailer who were trying to come here for a better life. 
They should have just been able to apply and come here in an 
orderly and legal manner, but instead grandmothers, mothers, 
fathers, kids as young as 13 years old were scorched to death 
in the heat and killed.
    If we want to help those folks, then we need comprehensive 
immigration reform. If we want to address the fentanyl crisis, 
then let's talk about helping our communities deal with 
addiction, mental health, poverty, income and equality, and 
instability. Let's have hearings on that. Let's have oversight 
about that. But let's not participate in this sham that tries 
to blame those problems on the poorest among us. Because we 
have seen that all too often in this building, and we're going 
to push back on that. Thank you. I yield back my time.
    Chairman Comer. The chair recognizes Mr. Perry for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Perry. I thank the chairman and thank Chief Modlin, 
Chief Chavez for your service to our country. I've been 
listening to the dialog today, and it probably seems confusing 
to many Americans who may be watching. Is this about people 
that can't get--by the way, can people come to this country 
legally? Chief, can you just answer that question? Because I 
just heard that they can't. But can they come to this country 
legally?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Perry. Of course, they can, right? They can come 
legally. So, I've heard this. You know, it's about people 
seeking a better life. It's we need more Border Patrol agents. 
We don't have the resources that we need. It's all very 
complicated. Well, it's not very complicated.
    In 2017, 300,000-plus people came across the border 
illegally. This is using CBP's total encounter number. 300,000. 
Border Patrol actually had more agents in 2017 than they have 
right now. But somehow 310,000. Fiscal Year 2018, 404,000. So, 
it's up. But then suddenly in Fiscal Year 2021, 1,660,000. And 
then the next year, Fiscal Year 2022 breaks another record, 
2,200,000. Chief Modlin, what changed? What happened?
    Mr. Modlin. Sir, thank you for the question. As I stated 
earlier, migration is incredibly----
    Mr. Perry. No, I get that, but what happened? What changed? 
Did the law change?
    Mr. Modlin. No, sir. Absolutely nothing changed.
    Mr. Perry. Did Border Patrols resolve to secure a border 
change? What changed?
    Mr. Modlin. No, and I will say, I'm glad you brought that 
up. If there's one thing that is unchanged in my 27 years, it's 
the Border Patrol's resolve----
    Mr. Perry. We agree with that, and we applaud that and 
celebrate that. But what changed? Something dramatically 
changed between Fiscal Year 2020 when 400,000 encounters 
happened, and Fiscal Year 2021, when, 1,660,000 encounters. And 
then a record was broken again in 2022 with 2.2 million. What 
changed?
    Mr. Modlin. So, what I can tell you, sir, again, my 
experience in the Tucson Sector, as that surge started, and we 
did our post-arrest interviews of people that were in our 
custody, what we found was that the vast majority of them were 
saying that they believed when the administration changed, that 
law and policy changed----
    Mr. Perry. Why? Why did they believe that?
    Mr. Modlin. That they were allowed to enter the border. I 
can tell you, sir, again based on my experience, all it takes 
is a few people to start talking about things like asylum. It's 
literally--it spreads all over.
    Mr. Perry. Was there more wall, Chief--I'm sorry to 
interrupt you. But was there more border wall in 2021 than 
there was in 2020? Was there more border wall?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Perry. How much more?
    Mr. Modlin. I don't know sir,
    Mr. Perry. Miniscule or a lot? Hundreds of miles?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, significant amounts.
    Mr. Perry. Significant amount. But yet it still went up. 
So, that didn't fix it. What changed? The law didn't change, 
did it? You didn't change, did you?
    Mr. Modlin. No, sir.
    Mr. Perry. I know you don't want to say it, right? You 
can't say it.
    Mr. Modlin. No, sir, respectfully, I did tell you exactly 
why I'm aware of----
    Mr. Perry. You know why, but you know that the migrants 
said that they thought the border was open.
    Mr. Modlin. Yes.
    Mr. Perry. Right.
    Mr. Perry. Why did they think that?
    Mr. Modlin. They thought, sir--well, I don't know. What 
they told us, you know, was that they had heard it was open. 
So--and again, sir, in my experience, again, it only takes a 
few people to say the right words, and it travels. And 
certainly, in this age where everyone has a smartphone, 
everyone's on social media, the message they get is obviously 
not always the correct message. And then they start migrating. 
And sometimes people migrate for other reasons.
    Mr. Perry. So, just based on rumor, we got five times more 
people coming across the border illegally just based on rumor? 
Nothing else changed. Just a rumor of people talking on their 
cell phones south of the border. Is that what you're telling 
me?
    Mr. Modlin. Sir, my experience was a lot of what they had 
heard they believed had changed. They believed law had changed. 
They believed policy had changed.
    Mr. Perry. Let me just tell you what hadn't changed: The 
Border Patrol's mission, which is to protect the American 
people--I'm sure you know this--protect the American people, 
safeguard our borders, and enhance the Nation's economic 
prosperity. It seems pretty simple to me. You know what I got?
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Perry. I got this poster behind me. You see that? 
That's the exhibit at the DEA museum. Now, I live in 
Pennsylvania. I represent a state far away from the border. But 
there's a bunch of people in this picture from Pennsylvania, 
5,000 people of Pennsylvania died from fentanyl, coming across 
the border illegally. That changed. You know what else changed? 
The number of fentanyl deaths across the United States of 
America has gone up dramatically and incrementally at the same 
rate, proportionately as people coming across the border 
illegally. You can make the correlation.
    Sir, what has changed is this administration's approach. 
Not your fealty to your job and your love for your country, 
that hasn't changed. But what has changed is this 
administration's view and outlook on what should happen on the 
border. I apologize on behalf of the United States of America 
for putting you in a bad situation that you're in every single 
day and your members have to deal with every single day.
    Deal with this. This. Something this size. You know this 
kills 330 Americans. Something this size. And with all the 
rhetoric on the other side saying it's all coming through the 
ports of entry, how many of these can someone--one of the got-
aways carry? Do you know how many a got-away can carry? How 
many of these?
    Mr. Modlin. Sir, generally speaking, when we see a migrant 
that is moving narcotics, it's usually a few kilos. Maybe 3 or 
4 kilos----
    Mr. Perry. A whole bunch of these.
    Mr. Modlin. Absolutely.
    Mr. Perry. And how many of the got-aways do you know that 
were carrying fentanyl? How many do you know.
    Mr. Modlin. There is no way of knowing.
    Mr. Perry. You don't know, right? So, this claim of 90 
percent at the ports of entry is unknown compared to the got-
aways because we don't know what they were carrying, because 
they got away, right.
    Mr. Modlin. One environment--so the port of entry is a 
controlled environment. Obviously, as you know, between the 
ports of entry is uncontrolled.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you for your service. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The chair 
recognizes Ms. Crockett for five minutes.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much for being here. I know it's 
a long day. I'm actually out of Texas, and so, I'm a little 
familiar with border issues. But I first want to begin by 
making it clear, that Democrat or Republican, I think that we 
all can agree that there is an issue in this country as it 
relates to drugs. Period. And I also want to be clear for 
anyone that may not know, but all drugs come across all 
borders, to be perfectly honest. It's not just fentanyl. And 
that has been an issue for quite some time. We also know that 
fentanyl is a synthetic opioid, and we know that the opioid 
epidemic has been on the rise for quite some time. But I do 
want to make sure that I clarify a few things. This is what 
happens when you're at the end, you've got to clarify a few 
things.
    So, No. 1, it's my understanding that the number for 2019 
was 900,000, instead of the claim that, you know, the numbers 
somehow were on the rise seemingly insinuating once President 
Biden was in office. But that 900,000 number that was crossing 
in 2019 was double what we had seen in the past decade. And in 
2019, the President was still Trump. So, I do want to do that. 
As well as I want to acknowledge the fact that in 2020, we know 
that COVID was happening, which was also complicating issues. 
And not every country had the same access to be able to survive 
COVID. We know that the United States was actually leading the 
world as it relates to trying to survive this once-in-a-
lifetime pandemic, and the rest of the world was following us. 
So, for some people, it legitimately was life or death. And, 
honestly, it typically is a life-or-death issue.
    I also want to ask you one quick question about the 
cartels. As someone who has had to deal with cartels in 
courtrooms before, we know that they are quite powerful. We 
know that they are also problematic. And it is my understanding 
that the cartels were continually spreading disinformation so 
that people would cross the border. Because guess what? If 
there are more people crossing the border, does it not make it 
more difficult for y'all to spot the cartels in a big crowd 
versus if it's just a couple of people that are crossing over?
    Mr. Modlin. Thank you for your question, ma'am. So, the 
cartels certainly have a capacity to overwhelm us with these 
groups that are crossing.
    Ms. Crockett. Absolutely.
    Mr. Modlin. I would like to point just for a quick second. 
You know, you mentioned COVID. And, obviously, COVID has hit us 
hard in Tucson Sector. You know, in the two years that I've 
been there, we lost three agents to COVID as well. Because, you 
know, as frontline employees, we can't work from home.
    Ms. Crockett. Correct.
    Mr. Modlin. We can't take a lot of the precautions that 
everyone--that other people did. And dealing with populations 
that have come from all over the world and across some of the 
sort of hottest spots on the globe for COVID. And were housed 
south of the border with no PPE in these terrible conditions, 
and then crossed and contacted our agents caused quite a bit of 
loss of life throughout CBP, but in my sector, three agents in 
the last two years.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you for that. And I am sorry for your 
loss. Let me also point to another issue. I think that Haiti 
may have been mentioned at some point in time. I don't know if 
anyone pointed out that the President was killed July 7th, 
2021, in Haiti, which also caused for a more dangerous 
situation for those that were living there and could have 
prompted people to want to cross the border. And I'm going to 
hit one other point, and then I have got another question to 
ask, and that's around--there was an issue of jailing migrants 
and separating families under the Trump administration. Are you 
aware of that; that children were in cages?
    Mr. Modlin. Ma'am, thanks, again, for the question. One 
thing I can tell you about separation. You know, it's come up 
here a few times.
    Ms. Crockett. But let me just be real clear. Are you aware 
that there were people in cages, including children?
    Mr. Modlin. No, ma'am.
    Ms. Crockett. OK. Well, moving on. The next question that I 
have, then, is are you familiar with an Operation Lone Star out 
of the state of Texas?
    Ms. Chavez. We are familiar with that operation, ma'am.
    Ms. Crockett. OK. So, I sat on the committee in the Texas 
House that dealt with Operation Lone Star where we had a number 
of hearings. Are you aware that the purpose was to make sure 
that we could go after those that were trafficking drugs, go 
after the cartels, those that were trafficking people, and make 
sure that we were keeping the border safe. But the only thing 
that we were finding is that the majority of our moneys were 
being spent on basically asylum seekers, and we were not 
actually getting at the cartels and the bad folk that we were 
trying to keep out. I want to say close to 90 percent of the 
people that were being incarcerated were being incarcerated for 
simple trespass that--and they were just trying to seek asylum. 
Are you aware of that?
    Ms. Chavez. I am not aware of that.
    Ms. Crockett. OK. Also, I don't know how much discussion 
there's been, but I know that this was always an issue, and it 
was about whether or not we were going to build a wall. You 
would agree with me that a wall is not going to keep bad people 
out? Because when drug traffickers and cartels decide they're 
going to do something, the wall ain't going to do nothing.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady's time has expired. Feel 
free to answer the question.
    Ms. Chavez. Well, we spoke earlier about barrier as being 
one of the many tools that Border Patrol agents utilize to get 
the job done on the border. So, I think that barrier is 
effective in certain strategic locations along the border to 
manage whatever may come, whether it's vehicles or people 
attempting to enter through certain locations there.
    Chairman Comer. All right. Thank you. The chair recognizes 
Mr. Burchett for five minutes.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank y'all for 
being here. It's a myth that the border control issues--that 
it's just at the border. In Knox County, in my home state of 
Tennessee, 533 people have died in 2021 due to drug overdose. 
463 of them, 87 percent, had fentanyl in their system.
    Mr. Chairman, I seek unanimous consent to include the 2021 
drug-related death report into the record.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection. So ordered.
    Mr. Burchett. And Agent Modlin, do you know how much 
fentanyl is required to kill an individual?
    Mr. Modlin. Thanks for your question, sir. So, I don't have 
it right in front of me. But what I do have is, you know, last 
year we seized about 700 pounds of fentanyl in my sector 
between the ports of entry when----
    Mr. Burchett. You're giving my speech for me. I'll get to 
that.
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, which is about enough to kill half the 
population of the United States, sir.
    Mr. Burchett. Well, the answer is 2 milligrams. And, Agent 
Modlin, is it true the Department of Homeland Security, you 
just mentioned it, but they seized over 9,400 pounds of 
fentanyl----
    Mr. Modlin. Sir----
    Mr. Burchett [continuing]. So far this year?
    Mr. Modlin.----I'm not sure of the exact number; I can 
speak for Tucson Sector.
    Mr. Burchett. All right. That's you-all's record, it's 
true. And, approximately, 76 percent or 7,200 pounds of that 
was seized coming through our Southwest border. Would you agree 
with that?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir, that sounds correct.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. And, Agent Chavez, ma'am, I'm sure you 
would agree that 7,200 pounds of fentanyl is enough fentanyl to 
kill a lot of people?
    Ms. Chavez. I concur, sir. I agree.
    Mr. Burchett. Yes, ma'am. Do you-all know how many people 
that 7,200 pounds of fentanyl could kill?
    Mr. Modlin. I don't, sir. But if 700 pounds is enough to 
wipe out half the United States, then, obviously, it's much 
more than the population of the United States.
    Mr. Burchett. Well, I'll do the math for you. It's 1.6 
billion people with a B. That's enough fentanyl to kill every 
American almost five times over. The bottom line is, is this 
country was on its way, I feel, to a secure border under 
President Trump, but President Biden put an end to that on his 
first day in office. And I believe Americans are dying as a 
result.
    Now, I would like to change a little bit of direction here, 
if we could, and talk a little bit about the human trafficking 
issue.
    Agent Chavez, have you and your agents seen an increase--
excuse me, Chief Chavez, have you all seen an increase in the 
number of human trafficking cases on the Southwest border over 
the last two years?
    Ms. Chavez. We have, sir. There's been a significant 
increase in tractor load cases where people are being smuggled 
through trailers. And we have seen it mostly at our 
checkpoints.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. How much of an increase have you seen? Do 
you know the percentage-wise, just at the southwest border?
    Ms. Chavez. Sir, I don't have the percentage numbers here 
in front of me.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. Well, Homeland Security gave us those 
numbers. And it's 109 percent since Fiscal Year 2020. Human 
trafficking arrests have more than doubled. And I can't imagine 
the number of human traffickers and their victims who never get 
stopped as you all do.
    Agent Chavez, do agents--do y'all ever come across children 
being trafficked across our southern border?
    Ms. Chavez. Yes, we do, sir. We see that often.
    Mr. Burchett. Are those victims of child sex trafficking, 
forced labor trafficking, or both?
    Ms. Chavez. Well----
    Mr. Burchett. Do you have any way of even knowing that?
    Ms. Chavez. There's no way we can know that. That usually 
falls within the human--within Homeland Security 
Investigations, our HSI agents under ICE.
    Mr. Burchett. Do the agents ever get an idea of whether 
human traffickers plan to take these victims, especially the 
children?
    Ms. Chavez. I don't have that information, sir.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. You don't--Chief Modlin, do you know 
where they plan to take those folks?
    Mr. Modlin. Thanks for the question, sir. So, in--what I 
will tell you is, again, Tucson is very unique. So, Tucson, the 
vast majority of those unaccompanied children are 17-year-old 
Guatemalan males. They are generally not being trafficked. If 
we're separating the terms, because they are very different, 
between trafficked and being smuggled, most of them are coming 
into the United States to work, sir.
    Mr. Burchett. And they're coming without parents.
    Mr. Modlin. Without parents to move further into the United 
States.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. Agent Chavez, do you think it's easier 
for someone to walk across an open desert without having a wall 
in their way, or is it easier to walk across the same desert 
with a great big wall in their way?
    Ms. Chavez. Well, I think that it would be easier to walk 
in an open desert with no barrier present.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you. Agent Chavez, if fewer human 
traffickers were allowed into our country, don't you think we'd 
see the number of human trafficking victims and crimes 
decrease?
    Ms. Chavez. Well, yes. Of course.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you. Thank y'all very much. And I 
really do appreciate y'all being here. The people of America 
appreciate the great job that you all do for us and your 
patriotism for our country. Thank y'all very much. Mr. 
Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The chair 
recognizes Mr. Moskowitz for five minutes.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And thank you, 
Chiefs, for coming here today. And, you know, I appreciate, and 
I know the committee appreciates your service to the country.
    You know, this country has served as beacon of freedom and 
a place for--where people can escape oppression. As someone 
whose grandparents escaped the Holocaust and came here because 
America was that beacon, it's important that America continue 
to be that beacon in the world for people escaping oppression, 
especially from their government.
    You know, the Congressman that I replaced, nephew died from 
a fentanyl overdose, Ted Deutch. And, you know, one of the 
words that he mentioned--and I'm going to read something that 
he--in an editorial he wrote. It says: You know, we cannot wait 
until it's all personal to us. It's time for us to pass the 
many bipartisan bills introduced this Congress that will 
protect the health and well-being of the American people. In 
state legislatures, it's time to adopt drug laws to support 
rather than stigmatizing Americans in need. It's time to 
broaden access. We need to rise above the polarization, the 
cheap shots, the partisan fights to powerfully face the harsh 
realities of fentanyl.
    You know, those words could not be more true than in this 
hearing. Because all we're doing in this hearing is 
politicizing another issue in this country that doesn't need to 
be politicized. We all agree that fentanyl is a problem.
    You made a statement earlier about fentanyl, and there was 
a question, I think, by Congressman Perry. He said, fentanyl is 
coming in illegally. I have a question. Does any fentanyl--and 
this is for either of you--does any fentanyl come into this 
country legally? It's an easy one.
    Mr. Modlin. Sir, yes, thanks for the question. My 
understanding is, of course, fentanyl is used in medical 
procedures.
    Mr. Moskowitz. OK. But it's not coming whether it's through 
the port or any other place, right? It's not coming through a 
legal process. That's all illegal. It's not a trick question.
    Mr. Modlin. Sir, if I'm understanding correctly, if you're 
talking about fentanyl that's being used medically, then, yes--
--
    Mr. Moskowitz. I'm not talking about medical fentanyl. We 
don't have a problem with things escaping pharmacies. I'm 
talking about stuff that's coming through. When it comes 
through a port, right, that's illegal, correct?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes. Oh--so, yes, I apologize. Now, I do 
understand. And I think that gets to my earlier point is that 
for us, it's not important if it's coming through the port or 
between the ports. When, you know, when my sector----
    Mr. Moskowitz. So, that's good. I just want to stop you 
there. I appreciate that. That it's not important where it 
comes from, because it's about the fentanyl. Right? So then, 
why is the majority only talking about one out of every nine 
pills that are coming into this country, right? If 90 percent 
are coming through ports of entry, that means that nine pills 
they didn't want to talk about. They only wanted to talk about 
one pill, which is the 10 percent, right? Shouldn't we be 
talking about all of it? Shouldn't they be as concerned as they 
are as it coming across the Rio Grande as it comes across the 
port?
    Mr. Modlin. Well, sir, I would say anyone that's lost a 
loved one to fentanyl probably doesn't care if it came through 
the port or between the ports of entry. It's all important, as 
you said. And whoever is transporting it, unimportant to us as 
well. Now, our job is to secure the border.
    Mr. Moskowitz. No, that's exactly right. And look, I 
understand you guys aren't the experts on all things fentanyl. 
You know, the chairman didn't bring those experts here today.
    You know, a lot of the members over there voted against 
funding for you guys, right? Voted against all the things you 
say you need. They voted against all that stuff. So, they say 
they're strong on the border, but when it comes to funding it, 
they didn't want to do it.
    You know, we've heard statistics today about, you know, 
apprehensions and all of that stuff. But, you know, one of the 
things I find fascinating is, you know, we're beefing up the 
border, we're apprehending more people. They want to spin that 
as a bad thing, that apprehending more people means more people 
are trying to get in. Well, news for them, in 2019, 3,707 
pounds of narcotics were seized in 2019. That's more than in 
2022. So, does that mean more narcotics are coming in in 2019? 
It's possible. You know, they're focused on the realm of the 
possible rather than the facts.
    Let me give you another fact. I'm concerned about fentanyl 
getting into children. But you know what I'm also equally 
concerned about that they're not concerned about? The leading 
cause of death among kids between 1 and 19 is not fentanyl, 
it's guns, right? There's not going to be any oversight for the 
children that are buried in a cemetery. They're coming on the 
five-year anniversary of Parkland where parents are going to go 
visit their kids in a cemetery, right? There's no oversight 
hearing on the epidemic that's going on with kids and guns. But 
we should be equally concerned about fentanyl with kids and 
guns with kids. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The chair recognizes Ms. Greene for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Greene. Thank you. And thank you, Chief Modlin. Thank 
you, Chief Chavez, for coming in and speaking with us today. 
I'd like to talk to you a little bit about unaccompanied 
minors. I'm sure this is a very serious situation that you're 
familiar with.
    Under the Trump administration with Title 42, can you tell 
me when you had unaccompanied minors, what would happen to 
those children?
    Mr. Modlin. Thank you for the question, ma'am. So, before 
or after Title 42, Title 42--so my point is Title 42 did not 
affect how we deal with unaccompanied children. We do not expel 
unaccompanied children. So, when unaccompanied children are 
encountered, they're brought into our custody. We make sure 
they get any medical attention they need, you know, showers, 
change of clothes, all of that. And then they're turned over to 
HHS's ORR within 72 hours.
    Ms. Greene. And that's how it's handled right now under the 
Biden administration?
    Mr. Modlin. That's how it's been handled for as long as 
I've been handling unaccompanied children, ma'am.
    Ms. Greene. And were they sent back to their home countries 
before the Biden administration?
    Mr. Modlin. Not to my knowledge. But, again, ma'am, what I 
would say is--again, that's much further down the process than 
where the Border Patrol is. So, once we encounter them, whether 
it was 3 or 4 years ago or yesterday, they're brought into our 
custody, assessed, and then eventually turned over to ORR. 
Where they end up, that's----
    Ms. Greene. Right.
    Mr. Modlin [continuing]. Much longer after we have them.
    Ms. Greene. And many of them were sent back to their home 
countries before under Trump's administration. I want to talk 
to you a minute about--are you familiar with there was a 20-
year-old autistic woman in Maryland who was strangled to death 
by an illegal alien here. A 17-year-old MS-13 gang member. 
Under the program as it is right now, many of the MS-13 gang 
members are being brought in the country as unaccompanied 
minors. They're very young. They're under 18, and then their 
numbers have doubled, maybe tripled in our country. What have 
you seen with that?
    Mr. Modlin. Again, ma'am, thanks for the question. My 
personal experience in the two years I've been in the Tucson 
Sector, I'm unaware of any significant amount of MS-13 gang 
members within the unaccompanied children population.
    Ms. Greene. Well, how are you able to know if they're gang 
members or not? Do you have an MS-13 gang data base that you're 
able to search them up in there and somehow find out if they're 
gang members or not.
    Mr. Modlin. So, ma'am, with our agents that have the 
significant amount of training and experience, there are things 
they look for? There are certainly--as you know, you've 
probably seen photographs of MS-13 gang members with a 
significant amount of tattoos. Sometimes it's simply an 
admission of it. Sometimes it may be other things that trigger 
agents to start questioning.
    Ms. Greene. Right, but Chief Modlin, they may not have had 
all their tattoos yet being that they're young and under 18, 
being a 15-or 16-year-old. As a matter of fact, they are coming 
in the country at a much higher rate. That's why this 20-year-
old autistic woman was killed because of an illegal alien, a 
17-year-old MS-13 gang member. And she'd be alive today if our 
border was secure.
    You know, one of my Democratic colleagues was talking about 
the wall as if it doesn't work. I assure you that the Democrats 
believe in walls because they've erected one around the Capitol 
today because President Joe Biden is delivering his State of 
the Union address to the country. Walls do work, and we want 
you to have a wall as one of the toolkits in your box to stop 
the illegal invasion into our country that's occurring every 
single day. Are you aware of how many fentanyl deaths that the 
percentage increase in my home state of Georgia?
    Mr. Modlin. Ma'am, I'm unaware.
    Ms. Greene. Well, I'll just let you know. Fentanyl deaths 
have increased to 350 percent in Georgia. We're not a border 
state. We're not along the southern border. But fentanyl deaths 
have gone up 350 percent.
    Are you aware of how much money the Mexican cartels make 
selling fentanyl, or what their industry makes?
    Mr. Modlin. Ma'am, again, thank you. So, what I do know is 
that the cartels are making billions. And whether it's 
fentanyl, whether it's moving people across the border, 
everything's a commodity to them. And to your point earlier, 
you not being a border state, it has been said many times, and 
I completely agree that every state is a border state, ma'am. 
Everything that happens on the border affects the entirety of 
the country.
    Ms. Greene. Absolutely. And that's why a young lady in 
Maryland should be alive today because our border should be 
secure. It's a $20 billion industry the cartels have, $20 
billion. And that's because our border is not secure. Now, we 
appreciate the job that you do, both of you, and we're thankful 
for you, but we are completely against the policies of the 
Biden administration that's allowing the murder of over 300 
Americans today from fentanyl, allowing the Mexican cartels to 
illegally make over $20 billion, and allow our country to be 
invaded every single day. And I yield back the remainder of my 
time.
    Chairman Comer. The lady yields back. The chair recognizes 
Mr. Goldman for five minutes.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, you'd think 
that the cartels were created two years ago. The cartels have 
been operating for decades and decades. And as someone who 
actually prosecuted cases relating to drug trafficking by 
international narcotic organizations, let's remember that this 
has been a pervasive problem for a long time.
    But Chief Modlin, I am very happy to hear you say that you 
and your excellent team has dramatically increased fentanyl 
apprehensions over the past couple of years. It means that the 
increased funding and the new policies of the Biden 
administration are working on the ground. And, in fact, isn't 
it true that one of the new policies is to impose sanctions on 
some of these dangerous cartels, which had not been done in the 
Trump administration. Is that right?
    Mr. Modlin. Thanks for the question, sir. So, I am unaware 
of that particular policy. But certainly, we greatly appreciate 
any help that we get on the border.
    Mr. Goldman. You know, my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle clearly would like to go back to the immigration 
policies of the Trump administration. So, I want to take a 
minute just to look at those.
    Chief Chavez, are you familiar with something called the El 
Paso Initiative?
    Ms. Chavez. I am not, sir.
    Mr. Goldman. Well, the El Paso Initiative was conducted 
from March to November 2017. And it was a pilot program that 
operated in your sector, the Rio Grande Valley, that resulted 
in the separation of at least 280 families. Does that sound 
familiar to you?
    Ms. Chavez. Oh, yes, the El Paso Prosecution Initiative.
    Mr. Goldman. Oh, yes. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying. 
Thank you for clarifying. In fact, that's actually where I'm 
going with this because----
    Ms. Chavez. Yes.
    Mr. Goldman [continuing]. What differed is the prosecution 
of immigrants who are coming across the border. This was a 
pilot program that you are intimately familiar with. Isn't that 
right?
    Ms. Chavez. That is correct.
    Mr. Goldman. And, in fact, you didn't notify for quite a 
while your senior leadership of this pilot program. Is that 
correct?
    Ms. Chavez. Congressman, thank you for question. But----
    Mr. Goldman. Well, it's just a simple question. I don't 
have a lot of time.
    Ms. Chavez. Well, it's pending litigation, so I can't 
really answer specific questions about that.
    Mr. Goldman. OK. Fair enough. So, we've heard a lot about 
unaccompanied minors who, by definition of being unaccompanied 
minors, wouldn't you agree, crossed the border without any 
families, right?
    Ms. Chavez. In general, yes. Unaccompanied minors crossed 
the border without families.
    Mr. Goldman. And you're aware that under our immigration 
law, those detained by immigration enforcement must be released 
within 72 hours, right?
    Ms. Chavez. Must be re--yes, sir.
    Mr. Goldman. OK.
    Ms. Chavez. Correct.
    Mr. Goldman. And when individuals are detained or in 
immigration detention, they're kept together with their 
families, right?
    Ms. Chavez. We make every effort for individuals to stay 
together with their families. Unless an adult has a criminal 
history, that adult is processed separately by policy.
    Mr. Goldman. Immigration detention processing separately?
    Ms. Chavez. Correct.
    Mr. Goldman. And it is also true, right, that a violation 
of a criminal statute means that both an individual can be 
detained longer than 72 hours and that they cannot be detained 
with their family. Is that right?
    Ms. Chavez. That is correct.
    Mr. Goldman. OK. So, let's talk about the child separation 
policy. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1325, is a 
misdemeanor for improper entry into this country. And I can 
tell you I spent 10 years as a Federal prosecutor, I had never 
even heard of this statute. But this was what was used, am I 
right, to make sure that parents were separated from their 
children, correct? The parents were charged with Section 1325?
    Ms. Chavez. Again, I can comment because as there is 
pending litigation on the case.
    Mr. Goldman. Well, I think we all know that that is the 
case. You know, there have been--as you say, there's litigation 
going on. This was a cruel and inhumane policy that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like us to 
return to, the old, antiquated immigration policy that 
separated children from their families. And Mr. Palmer earlier 
talked about having an organized process. And I agree, and you 
guys have mentioned this. Let's increase the number of 
immigration judges to process asylum claims so that we can move 
through the system faster. Let's increase the number of visas 
so that there is an organized process to welcome immigrants 
into this country. The Trump administration reduced the number 
of visas by 11 million. So, you know, let's have this organized 
process. And let's remember that for Fiscal Year 23, the Biden 
administration increased funding for you and other law 
enforcement agents at the border security by 17 percent, but 
the Republicans voted against it. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The chair recognizes Mrs. McClain for five 
minutes.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, first, I want 
to start out by saying thank you for being here, but, more 
importantly, thank you for doing what you do to try and protect 
this Nation at the border. I think at times we get a little bit 
lost in our partisan politics. And your job and what you do is 
increasingly important. It has been highlighted, if ever 
before. And the job that you do to try and keep this Nation 
safe should be applauded and not condemned. So, let me applaud 
you for the job you do.
    In the interest of time, I just want to go through some 
questions to make sure I have the facts correct. And I'll start 
with you, Chief Modlin. Do you know how many potential 
terrorists were apprehended last year?
    Mr. Modlin. Thanks for the question, ma'am. And I know 
you're going fast, but I do just want to say thank you for 
applauding us. What I would say is that, honestly, our jobs in 
the big scheme of things are fairly easy. It's the agents on 
the ground every day----
    Mrs. McClain. Sure.
    Mr. Modlin [continuing]. That were hiking in those 
mountains and risking their lives to save the migrants and 
apprehend people that really should be applauded.
    Mrs. McClain. And please extend our thank you to those 
agents as well.
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, ma'am, and in terms of the numbers, so I 
do not know--I do know in the Tucson Sector, which is what I 
represent, there were two or three last year. I believe there 
was two persons that were on the watch list.
    Mrs. McClain. Again, sir, just in the interest of time, we 
are in agreement that CBP has apprehended individuals on the 
terror watch list, correct?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, ma'am.
    Mrs. McClain. OK. The CBP data that I have said reports 98 
suspected terrorists apprehended just last Fiscal Year on the 
southern border. Would you have any reason to doubt that, or do 
you think that's inflated or deflated? Does that sound 
directionally correct?
    Mr. Modlin. I don't have any reason to doubt that ma'am.
    Mrs. McClain. OK. Thank you. Ma'am?
    Ms. Chavez. No, Ma'am, Congresswoman.
    Mrs. McClain. That is a substantial increase from prior 
years. Is that correct as well?
    Ms. Chavez. That sounds about right.
    Mrs. McClain. And would you agree there's a high number of 
got-aways?
    Ms. Chavez. That is correct, ma'am.
    Mrs. McClain. OK. And, again, I'm just trying to get the 
facts, trying to leave the personalization out of it. In fact, 
CBP estimated that there were over a half a million people that 
got away in Fiscal Year 2022. Sound correct?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, ma'am. That sounds correct.
    Mrs. McClain. And given the number of people slipping past 
CBP, are you concerned that terrorists could be exploiting this 
chaotic situation to slip through the cracks?
    Mr. Modlin. Again, ma'am, in terms of the got-aways, I 
think it would be irresponsible to try to assume who they were. 
All I do know is that a lot of people do get away from us.
    Mrs. McClain. Fair assessment. Fair assessment. Also, would 
you agree that given the high number of illegal border 
crossing, the potential for a terrorist slipping through is 
higher than in previous years? I mean, just by sheer means of 
volume.
    Ms. Chavez. I don't want to speculate, ma'am, but as Chief 
Modlin mentioned, we don't want to assume the unknown. We are 
concerned, always, of course, because to us what matters is who 
and what comes between those ports of entry, and that we're 
able to identify every single person that comes through.
    Mrs. McClain. And are you doing that?
    Ms. Chavez. And we're not able to do that at this time.
    Mrs. McClain. I don't mean that any disrespect. You are 
doing----
    Ms. Chavez. That is what the challenge is.
    Mrs. McClain [continuing]. The best you can with what you 
have. Would you agree that this presents a significant National 
Security risk?
    Ms. Chavez. When we don't have the right amount of 
resources, the technology, the infrastructure, the personnel 
where our agents can get to every bit of location across that 
border to ensure that we----
    Mrs. McClain. Sure.
    Ms. Chavez [continuing]. Have the vigilance necessary to 
find every person that's crossing illegally, then we have a 
high probability that----
    Mrs. McClain. So, that would be a yes.
    Ms. Chavez [continuing]. We don't know who's coming across, 
yes.
    Mrs. McClain. OK. In terms of the cartels, have they become 
more active on the border in recent years or less active?
    Ms. Chavez. It is my belief and my experience that they've 
become more active in recent years.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you. So, throughout this hearing, we've 
highlighted several issues that have both arisen because of the 
open border crisis. My final question is, would you agree that 
our catch-and-release policies are actually incentivizing more 
people to try and illegally cross our borders or deter them?
    Ms. Chavez. I think that with the current situation that 
we've been faced with here in the last year where we are 
working now with trying to--we only have four dispositions to 
work with which, is return, remove, transfer to another agency, 
or release. I think that everyone nowadays has a cell phone. 
So, when migrants are released into a community, they 
immediately contact the relatives. They contact others, so then 
that start of incentivizes to come across.
    Mrs. McClain. So, you would agree with me that this 
actually incentivizes more----
    Ms. Chavez. Correct.
    Mrs. McClain [continuing]. It is like with our children, if 
we tell them that our curfew is 11 o'clock, but they come home 
at 11:30, and there's no consequences to their action, that 
only incentivizes them to come home at 11:30, even though their 
curfew is at 11. So, I appreciate that.
    I think it's clear that these policies put in place by this 
administration has opened the door for dangerous individuals, 
including, but not limited to terrorists to cross into our 
Nation undetected. These policies are harming our citizens in a 
myriad of ways. And every day that goes by, our National 
Security is more and more at risk.
    Again, I do thank you for the job you do and extend that 
gratitude to the people and men and women that are actually on 
the ground trying to secure our borders. And thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, I've gone over my time.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The chair 
recognizes Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. You know, 
much of the work of this committee is done alongside the work 
of the Government Accountability Office, which provides 
reporting to the Oversight Committee as well as the whole of 
government and the public about vulnerabilities in overall 
Federal operations.
    In 2020 the GAO said office reported that Border Patrol 
does not currently have reliable information on deaths, serious 
injuries, and suicide attempts, and has not consistently 
reported deaths of individuals to Congress. And in 2022, the 
GAO, again, found that Border Patrol has not collected and 
recorded or reported to Congress complete data on migrant 
deaths or disclosed associated data limitations. Chiefs Chavez 
and Modlin, why is that?

    Mr. Modlin. Ma'am, thank you for the question. What I can 
tell you is that anytime a migrant dies in the desert, you 
know, in the mountains, it's horrific. And as discussed 
earlier, the cartels are putting these people in grave danger.
    And the area I work, it's 4 or 5 days for most people to 
get to the border, up to a place where they can be picked up by 
a smuggler. So, those are incredibly treacherous things.
    What I'll tell you too is often, you know, when someone is 
found in the desert that has perished, that person could've 
been there for 2 or 3 years. You know, the area that I work is 
very different than others. So, I think our numbers probably 
tend to be a little harder to lock down, but I do know that 
certainly the numbers have increased this year, I believe, 
nationwide.
    I don't think it's commensurate to the amount of people 
that are crossing because one of the things----
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Understood.
    Mr. Modlin [continuing]. That we've done is put a 
tremendous amount of focus, I've got close to 300 EMTs----
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And I'm sorry, I just have to--I have 
to----
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I don't have much time. What about in 
custody--deaths in custody or suicide attempts in custody?
    Ms. Chavez. Congresswoman, thank you for the question. So, 
information like that of migrants that attempt suicide or 
migrants that die in custody, we actually have evolved and have 
some really good recordkeeping. Maybe it's as a result of the 
GAO reporting; I'm not sure. But I know as a fact that when it 
comes to our central processing centers, we have now ramped up 
camera systems that are very robust, so now we're recording 
everything.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Understood.
    Ms. Chavez. So, the tracking is impeccable now, where the 
reporting is constant for us.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Understood. Thank you. And we'll be sure 
to follow up on that information.
    And, Chief Modlin, Pima County falls under your sector, 
correct?
    Mr. Modlin. Did you say Pima County, ma'am? Yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. And are you aware of the 
militia group known as Veterans on Patrol?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And are you aware that this organization 
is a designated hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, ma'am, I'm aware.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And are you aware that agents in Pima 
County, CBP agents in Pima County, have had regular contact 
and, according to this report, seems to have received 
assistance from this organization?
    Mr. Modlin. Ma'am, I think it's important to define what 
assistance is. What I will tell you is whether it's Pima County 
or any the other three border counties, if someone calls and 
says there is illegal activity on the border, then we do 
respond. And obviously some of those calls will come from 
militia groups, whether it's that or others, or sometimes 
there's other groups out there, humanitarian groups as well 
that will call us and tell us that someone's in need of medical 
response----
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yes.
    Mr. Modlin [continuing]. Or something.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. I ask because Veterans on 
Patrol, again a designated hate group, does publish quite a bit 
of their own media which includes agents in some of these 
videos that they post. And in one, over the course of the 
conversation, an agent greets militia members with a high-five.
    This is an organization that spreads anti-Semitic 
conspiracies and beyond, and I was wondering if your sector has 
a policy regarding agents interfacing with known members of 
designated hate organizations?
    Mr. Modlin. Thanks again for the question, ma'am. So, what 
I can tell you is that I don't know that it's possible to 
separate all interaction with any group that's down on the 
border. Certainly, we do not encourage militia groups or anyone 
else to be in the border environment.
    But we do respond, again, if someone calls and says there's 
someone in distress that needs us or that they've witnessed 
some illegal action on the border.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. If you were to discover agents actively 
working with hate groups and militias, would their employment 
be terminated?
    Mr. Modlin. So, our agents, ma'am, are all part of a 
bargaining unit so that there is--CBP has a table of penalties, 
and then, of course, they're afforded right to representation 
and stuff. So, I don't know that I could say that, you know, 
what would and wouldn't trigger an automatic termination, but 
there would certainly be a disciplinary process.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back.
    The chair recognizes Mrs. Boebert for five minutes.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so 
much to our witnesses. Thank you for our sector chiefs for 
being here present with us today. This is the first time in the 
Biden administration that we have had the privilege to have our 
Customs and Border Patrol agents here present with us in 
Washington, DC. So, I appreciate you being here.
    I would like to ask you both, do you think that you were 
brought here today to promote White nationalism? Mr. Modlin?
    Mr. Modlin. Thanks for the question, ma'am. I can tell you, 
I absolutely was not brought here for that reason.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you.
    Chief Chavez?
    Ms. Chavez. No, ma'am, I was not.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you.
    Chief Modlin, compared to two years ago, is Border Patrol 
finding more or less dead bodies of people trying to cross the 
border?
    Mr. Modlin. So, within the Tucson Sector, because that is 
my purview, I can tell you that we are encountering more 
migrants that have died in the crossing.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you. Thank you, Chief Modlin. That is 
correct, and, in fact, nearly 1,400 dead bodies have been found 
along the southern border since Biden took office. Each year 
has been a record high and a 300-percent increase since the 
Trump administration.
    Chief Modlin, do you know border counties that have had to 
procure mobile morgues just to try to keep up with the 
increased volume of dead bodies Border Patrol is finding?
    Mr. Modlin. Ma'am, I'm unaware of that within the Tucson 
Sector. What I can tell you, though, is that we work very hard 
to try to prevent any migrant deaths out there. So, as I was 
starting to say earlier, close to 300 EMTs and paramedics, a 
great ability to lift agents on Blackhawks, get them to people 
very quickly to prevent that.
    Mrs. Boebert. With all due respect, thank you, Chief 
Modlin.
    Just last year, Culberson County Sheriff Oscar Carrillo was 
forced to deploy a corpse trolley after finding so many bodies, 
so many more bodies than in years past. These counties are 
using their limited resources to clean up Joe Biden's mess.
    This sheriff stated, quote: I used to request regular stuff 
like bullet-proof vests. Now I'm asking for more body quotes--
end--bag.
    Chief Modlin, compared to two years ago, is Border Patrol 
arresting more illegal aliens found to have criminal 
convictions or fewer?
    Mr. Modlin. Ma'am, so in terms of----
    Mrs. Boebert. More or fewer, please, Chief.
    Mr. Modlin. Ma'am?
    Mrs. Boebert. More or fewer?
    Mr. Modlin. More.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you. In fact, Border Patrol arrested 
more than 12,000 last year, up from 2,500 in Fiscal Year 2020. 
That's almost a 400-percent increase.
    Now, what about terrorists? Is Border Patrol encountering 
more or less people with records in terrorist screening data 
bases? Chief Modlin?
    Mr. Modlin. Ma'am, my understanding, more commensurate with 
the increased flow.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Chief.
    In fact, CBP encountered 98 potential terrorists last 
fiscal year. That's compared to just 6 during President Trump's 
entire time in office.
    Now, Chief Chavez, I've visited your sector. What about 
known got-aways, have those increased over the last couple of 
years, known got-aways.
    Ms. Chavez. They have, ma'am.
    Mrs. Boebert. Yes. I have that information as well. On 
Biden's watch, there have been over 1.2 million known got-
aways, and of course we don't know the unknown got-aways.
    Now, Chief Modlin, would you agree that got-aways included 
convicted criminals, terrorists, drug traffickers, or even gang 
members?
    Mr. Modlin. Ma'am, as I've stated, I don't think I can 
suppose any--anything.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Chief.
    Chief Chavez, are you aware prosecuting and imprisoning any 
drug trafficking criminals caught by state and local law 
enforcement comes out of their local budgets?
    Ms. Chavez. I am aware that the county and local law 
enforcement bear the costs----
    Mrs. Boebert. Yes.
    Ms. Chavez [continuing]. Of detention for criminal----
    Mrs. Boebert. And our local communities are being forced to 
foot the bill for Joe Biden's border crisis.
    What about CBP officers committing suicide? Now, I have 
seen the despair in Border Patrol agents' faces. Their morale 
is certainly decreased. They are unable to do the job that they 
swore to do. Would you say that that has increased in the past 
two years? I'll let both of you answer yes or no.
    Ms. Chavez. It has, ma'am. In the last two years, Border 
Patrol has had 13 suicides, 5 in RGV, and it's a terrible thing 
that we experience.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Chief. My time is almost up.
    Chief Modlin, yes or no, are suicides up?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, ma'am. Agree with Chief Chavez.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you. Unfortunate and disgraceful and I 
have one final question.
    Chief Modlin, you were asked if there was a policy change, 
if there was laws changing, and it was possibly--you answered 
that it was possibly rumors that people were coming here to our 
country illegally because of something they had heard.
    But wouldn't you agree the policy did change? Under 
President Trump, it was catch and deport, and under Biden, it 
is catch and release into the interior of our country.
    They are no longer waiting outside of our country for 
asylum. They are being released into our country on the honor 
system. And so, with that, we are seeing an increase of 
terrorists, 1,500 percent, gang members coming across that have 
doubled, illegal crossings with criminal convictions up 400 
percent, dead bodies being found, up 300 percent, and CBP 
suicides at a decade high.
    So, would you agree that the policy did change, and the 
truth is that there's an invasion happening at our southern 
border because of this policy change, and it's happening 
because Joe Biden invoked amnesty and changed the secure border 
policies that were working for our country, and he won't change 
it back because Democrats--and this is intentional. In fact, 
their policy is a success; it's not a failure because this is 
their intent.
    Chairman Comer. The lady's time has expired, but please 
feel free to answer the question.
    Mr. Modlin. Thank you, ma'am. So, I stand by my response. 
All I know is what we're being told by people that have 
crossed, and they absolutely unequivocally said they crossed 
because they felt like law and policy had changed.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The chair recognizes Mr. Gomez for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just before I move on 
to my comment, I just want to point out to the Representative 
from Colorado that we mourn with the CBP on the loss of their 
officers who died by suicide, but we also passed $23 million 
for suicide prevention for Border Patrol officers which the 
majority ended up voting against in the omnibus bill.
    I'm about solving problems but solving problems based on 
facts and having the right individuals here to answer 
questions. The majority likes to conflate a lot of facts or 
lack of facts or even made-up facts.
    And here's a fact. This is what we do know; it's true. 
Despite what you have heard on the other side, 90 percent of 
fentanyl seizures happen at ports of entry, with the majority 
trafficked by U.S. citizens, not migrants, and not asylum 
seekers.
    So, why isn't the Office of Field Operations here to talk 
about our efforts to stop drugs trafficking at ports of entry? 
And it's because this hearing isn't about border security or 
solving our opioid crisis. It isn't even about facts.
    What it's about is painting immigrants as villains in order 
for my colleagues to further their anti-immigrant agenda. 
Republicans are trying to rewrite history to hide their 
extremist agenda from the American people.
    This extreme wing is trying to say that immigrants are 
trafficking fentanyl across an unchecked border, but we know 
that that's not true. Why? Because it happens at the ports of 
entry by U.S. citizens, not mainly by asylum seekers.
    And if you're wondering just how extreme, one bill they're 
trying to pass would end asylum as we know it, completely 
stopping asylum seekers trying to find safety in our country.
    And here's what one person said about the bill, quote: The 
reality is that this is a backdoor way of ending all asylum 
claims. The asylum process is broken and needs major reform, 
but abolishment is un-American.
    And who said that? It wasn't a Democrat. It was Tony 
Gonzales, a Republican from Texas.
    But the party isn't controlled by reason. It's controlled 
by the extreme QAnon caucus who spew hate and xenophobia and 
try to mislead the American people. In fact, nine members of 
this committee of the majority are cosponsors of the extreme 
bill.
    So, let's be clear. The extreme MAGA plan will not secure 
our borders because they're not asking the right questions to 
the right individuals about the right facts. And it won't stop 
the flow of drugs. But it will harm real people.
    You know, we have saw a man with a documented history of 
abuse and racist behavior go out and shoot two migrants, 
killing one. In 2019, a man went to a Walmart in El Paso, 
Texas, and killed 22 people. He told police he wanted to kill 
Mexicans.
    Their hatred of foreign-born people and their blatant lies 
have consequences, and it's time that they own up to it. We 
know some House Republicans are already speaking out against 
this extreme anti-immigrant, and I quote, anti-American plan 
for the border.
    So, if we really want to solve problems, we should bring 
not only these witnesses but other witness-----
    Mrs. Luna. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Gomez. No, I won't. And one of the things----
    Mrs. Luna. Can he stop pushing rhetoric, please? Thank you.
    Mr. Gomez [continuing]. I want to make sure--I want to make 
sure is that we've solved the problem with facts. Right? If 
it's basically--if we want to talk about what happens between 
the ports of entry and what you're dealing with, let's talk 
about those facts, but--and what you need to solve it.
    But if we want to talk about the fentanyl crisis and how 
it's coming in and what's being needed, we should talk about 
those facts, instead of conflating all the different issues.
    That's what happens here in the U.S. House of 
Representatives. We cherry-pick the facts that we want to see 
in order to make the points. But this is--like, it is a 
difficult situation on the border, we get it. But usually in 
these hearings, what we try to do is use the five minutes to 
get the viral moment, to get the tweets, to get the likes, to 
get the more followers, right?
    But it doesn't really solve anything. So, I feel like the 
majority is playing into that same song and dance, right, and 
not really trying to ask the right questions to the right 
witnesses but just to further their narrative and the agenda 
that they want to push.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Fry for five minutes.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate, Chiefs, 
y'all being here today. You know, I'm a little bit of deja vu, 
Mr. Chairman, because just last week we had a border security 
hearing in Judiciary, and to hear my colleagues on the left in 
there and in here today, we're imagining things that are going 
on, on the southern border, that we're not engaged in actual 
fact-finding missions, that we're not looking at the facts. 
Well, here's some of the facts.
    Fact, over a hundred thousand deaths associated with 
fentanyl just last year. Fact, border crossings are at an all-
time high. Fact, millions of got-aways are in this country, and 
those have been increasing under the last two years than ever 
before. Fact, only 14 percent of those seeking asylum are 
legitimate asylum seekers. That was under Trump administration 
and Obama Administration. Fact, ICE arrests and removals have 
decreased, I think, according to one study, by 90 percent from 
2019 to the present day. And fact, as you testified to, walls 
work.
    Just real quick, for both of you, can you provide me a 
real-world example on how border barrier systems or border 
walls have aided you or your agents in the field?
    Ms. Chavez. Specifically for RGV, in areas where we have 
high number of people crossing, you know, when we have a border 
wall system or border barrier, if it's a full system, it brings 
in all-weather roads. It has lights for the night-time. It has 
technology that assists us, right? So, we don't have to have 20 
agents in one zone or region or area. These agents can be 
mobile in other locations.
    That barrier, well-equipped, well-advanced technology, will 
tell us if there's a detection or an incursion. So, that way 
agents can maximize their coverage area elsewhere, so that way, 
that product, that barrier, will do its job, and we can 
maximize the agents deployed elsewhere.
    Now, aside from that, a barrier is very useful because it 
also manages flow, and it directs flow into other locations 
where we can more effectively make an interdiction and more 
effectively make an arrest.
    Mr. Fry. Chief Modlin, would you agree with that statement 
by Chief Chavez?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir, I would. And what I would say from my 
experience, when I started in San Diego back in 1995, yes, we 
basically had maybe a 6-or 7-foot-tall fence that was made up 
of landing mats, I think they were Vietnam-era landing mats, 
that were put down.
    And, if you were to look at aerial photography of that area 
then versus now, much of that area that was just--it was 
uninhabitable because thousands of people would cross it every 
night and the property crime rates were very high. It was just 
a--if you looked at it now, there's very expensive homes in 
those areas, and the community flourishes in an area that at 
one time was uninhabitable because of the way the border was. 
Currently there's double wall through there----
    Mr. Fry. Thank you.
    Mr. Modlin [continuing]. And plenty of agents to patrol 
that area.
    Mr. Fry. Are other areas of your sector that are currently 
unprotected by a border barrier that would be helpful to you 
and your agents?
    Ms. Chavez. Yes, Congressman. There's locations in my AOR, 
in my area of responsibility, that requires barrier that is 
unprotected at this current time, as well as gates. Gates are 
super important for us, and currently there's gates that are 
not there, that leave us vulnerable.
    Mr. Fry. Chief Modlin?
    Mr. Modlin. So, Congressman, in my sector, the good news 
is, we got about 120 miles of border wall system that we asked 
for. One of the challenges, though, is that it was never meant 
to be just the wall. It was supposed to be the wall system, the 
barrier, and then road as well and fiber optic cable that would 
alert us when things were going on.
    I think one of our biggest challenges related to it now are 
the gaps that exist which are slowly being remediated, just not 
in Tucson Sector yet, but we look forward to those gaps being 
closed.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you. Real quick, I know I have one minute 
left. Y'all seized an unprecedented amount of fentanyl just 
last year, China-sourced fentanyl, at most of the ports of 
entries.
    Wouldn't you agree that record overdose deaths from 
fentanyl among Americans indicate that a significant amount of 
fentanyl is slipping through the cracks of our southern border?
    Mr. Modlin. Sir, again thanks for the question. I would 
say, as a Border Patrol agent, as the chief of the sector, I 
don't, and I don't believe any of my agents care where it comes 
through, as long as it enters the United States, then it's 
certainly a threat to the children of the United States, to 
everyone that--that has the potential ability to overdose. So, 
regardless of where, if it's between the ports or at the ports, 
it's a threat.
    Mr. Fry. But there is undetected, obviously, undetected 
fentanyl that is coming through, it is not being apprehended by 
border agents? Is that correct? Is that fair to say?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
    What forms of fentanyl or fentanyl-like substances are your 
agents encountering?
    Ms. Chavez. To our knowledge, primarily of biggest concern 
is the liquid fentanyl is the latest threat that we have seen, 
especially as we continue to work in partnership with our local 
sheriff's departments, our local task forces.
    They continue to try to exploit our checkpoints, and I 
think Operation Stonegarden and the different types of programs 
that we have, linked up with our task force, have been 
effective, but liquid fentanyl is the latest one that we've 
seen the trend spike up on.
    Mr. Fry. Chief Modlin?
    Mr. Modlin. Sir----
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time is expired, but please 
answer the question.
    Mr. Modlin. Thank you, sir. In my area generally, it's pill 
form. A year or two ago, it was mostly the powder. It has 
certainly transitioned to pill form.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you. Thank you both.
    Chairman Comer. The chair recognizes Mr. Biggs for 
recognition.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some documents 
to submit to the record. One is a piece entitled ``Preliminary 
Border Data: Record Number of Apprehensions, Got-aways, in 
November.''
    Another one: ``Record number of apprehensions, got-aways in 
Fiscal Year 2022 surpassed 3.3 million.''
    And then the third is a letter that I received on January 
10th from the Administration for Children and Families in 
response to my question on their follow-up calls for children 
who were placed with the ORR, where they admitted that they had 
lost contact with 42,577 children placed in their care during 
the Biden administration.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. The chair recognizes Ms. Brown for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairman Comer. I just want to get 
something clarified. It's been said that people have heard the 
border was open during the Biden administration. So, Chief 
Modlin, can you clarify for me, have the laws changed between 
the administrations, yes or no?
    Mr. Modlin. Thanks for the question, ma'am. There's been no 
change in the law.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you so much. People around the world look 
to the United States as a beacon of hope and freedom. Some of 
those facing poverty, war, and famine seek a better life here 
to make the American Dream their reality.
    I am proud that northeast Ohio has a long tradition of 
welcoming immigrants and refugees, most recently our Afghan 
allies and Ukrainians fleeing Putin's illegal war.
    Instead of talking about our immigration system in the 
abstract, it seems essential to highlight the suffering of 
those seeking refuge. These are real people with real stories 
who we have the power to help.
    Immigrants are also bringing us economic prosperity. In 
2019 alone, immigrant households in northeast Ohio contributed 
$1 billion in Federal taxes and $520 million in local and state 
taxes.
    That same year, 8,300 immigrant entrepreneurs generated an 
amazing $204.8 million in business income in northeast Ohio. 
The fact is immigrants make us stronger.
    Let me say that again: Immigrants make us stronger.
    I want to share just one story from among thousands of 
families who have faced hardships and were determined to seek a 
better life in the United States.
    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a 
collection of immigrant stories from Lutheran Immigration and 
Refugee Services.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you.
    This story is about Lucia, a mother from Venezuela who is 
seeking a better life, safer life, for her four children living 
with physical disabilities. Lucia states, and I quote, her 
husband and four children had been seeking protection for 
almost a year before arriving in the United States. She and her 
family left Venezuela because she faced persecution for 
speaking out against the government, for denying her children 
healthcare based on their class status.
    The antigovernment video she shared circulated throughout 
social media and consequently resulted in government officials 
targeting her and her family.
    Fearing for her and her children's safety, Lucia decided to 
leave her home. Lucia and her family tried to seek asylum in 
the neighboring countries but faced discrimination and 
mistreatment due to her children's disabilities.
    Lucia's only choice was to seek asylum in the United 
States. She finally made it to this country a year after 
fleeing Venezuela. Lucia and her family are still waiting for 
their asylum interview, but they are relieved that their 
children can be properly diagnosed and receive their hearing 
aids. Most importantly, the children can attend a school that 
accommodates their disability.
    This is what our American story is truly about--finding a 
better life in this great country.
    Now, unfortunately, some on the other side block important 
action to secure our border and provide humane pathways to 
immigration while claiming to have strong records on the issue. 
The hypocrisy does not go unnoticed.
    The Biden administration and congressional Democrats are 
here to work hand in hand to fix problems in our immigration 
system, to make our country stronger, better, and more just.
    I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle will 
come to the table and responsibly tackle our immigration 
system. Thank you so much, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you. The lady yields back.
    The chair recognizes Mrs. Luna for five minutes.
    Mrs. Luna. Thank you, Chairman. I would just like to 
correct the record. It was Obama-Biden who built the cages, aka 
chain link partitions used by Border Patrol stations as a 
safety measure to guard against things like sexual assault. I 
know that we had heard earlier that Trump built cages. That is 
simply not true.
    And it is also, as seen behind me, Biden who put kids in 
shipping containers, something that the media wanted to fact-
check. But as you can see, these are shipping containers.
    Now, it is no secret that there's a crisis at our southern 
border. Obviously, Mayorkas was actually caught on a hot mic a 
couple of years ago saying that these numbers were 
unsustainable.
    We have approximately 325,000 children enter the U.S. under 
the Biden administration, and these are unaccompanied minors a 
majority of the time, and it's vastly between these ports of 
entry.
    Now, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for unanimous consent to 
enter these two graphics into the record.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mrs. Luna. The Biden administration does not want to 
acknowledge these facts, and they certainly don't want to know 
who's coming into our country. It has been estimated that a 
shocking 60 percent of Latin American children who cross the 
border are caught by cartels and exploited for child 
pornography and drug trafficking, which would be roughly about 
200,000 kids under this administration.
    As Representative Andy Biggs had stated because of a letter 
that he received, 42,577 children have been lost.
    Just before I go into my next point, Chief Chavez, can you 
tell me the youngest age of a known rape victim that you've 
come across or that you've heard of?
    Ms. Chavez. I don't have the age, ma'am. I know that, when 
we go to the Central Processing Center--and this was in El 
Paso--my intelligence agents, as well as Homeland Security 
investigations agents, they do the debriefs at the center----
    Mrs. Luna. Do you have minors that are raped when crossing 
the border? Has it been an occurrence that has happened? Either 
Chief Chavez or Chief Modlin. A yes or no, please. Sorry, we're 
limited on time.
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Chavez. Yes, on my end.
    Mrs. Luna. Thank you.
    President Trump did expand biometrics collection to include 
DNA testing pilot program and fingerprinted children under the 
age of 14 to crack down on child smuggling and migrants posing 
as fake families.
    Now, I hear a lot of rhetoric saying it was wrong for 
people to separate children, but I, as a Hispanic woman and a 
veteran, think that it is the right thing to do, to separate 
children until you can biologically confirm that they are not 
being handed over into the hands of traffickers.
    And it is grossly irresponsible to hand those children that 
we might not have any idea if they're actually biologically 
related.
    Chief Modlin, would you agree that you would rather have a 
child confirmed to be a known family member than release them 
into the hands of a trafficker?
    Mr. Modlin. Thanks, ma'am. I would agree; anything that 
helps us determine the actual familial bond is positive.
    Mrs. Luna. OK. So, with my follow-up question on this one, 
are children currently having their biometric data being 
collected under this administration?
    Mr. Modlin. Ma'am, it depends on the age of the children. 
But 14 and above, they are. As I testified to earlier, in 
Tucson Sector, the vast majority are 17-year-old Guatemalan 
males. It's fairly rare to see young, unaccompanied females in 
Tucson.
    Mrs. Luna. Are you able to collect in every sector in every 
section of the border?
    Mr. Modlin. I can't speak for the other sectors, ma'am, 
but----
    Ms. Chavez. We do the same in RGV.
    Mrs. Luna. OK. I would just like to also ask one more 
thing. A large part of your job is engaging in catching those 
that are engaging in human smuggling and trafficking. Do you 
believe that, with more funding, that you could do your job 
better?
    Mr. Modlin. Ma'am, I absolutely believe more funding we can 
do our own job--we can do our job better, absolutely.
    Mrs. Luna. Ma'am?
    Ms. Chavez. I agree the same, ma'am.
    Mrs. Luna. OK. I just want to close out with this because I 
know that we are limited on time here. For any Member of this 
House of Representatives advocating to defund Border Patrol and 
ICE, not only are you complicit in engaging in aiding and 
abetting traffickers, but you are hurting minority children at 
that.
    And, with my final question, can you please tell me, are a 
majority of Border Patrol agents White or Hispanic?
    Mr. Modlin. Ma'am, my understanding is the majority of 
Border Patrol agents are Hispanic, and as I have stated 
earlier, you know, most of them are, either first-generation 
migrants or migrants themselves.
    Mrs. Luna. I will close with this. Clearly, we don't have a 
White supremacy issue in this country. Clearly, it's an illegal 
immigration one. I thank you guys for your service and please 
tell your counterparts, God bless them. Thank you.
    Chairman, I yield my time.
    Chairman Comer. The lady yields back.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Edwards for five minutes.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    To each of our fine officers here, I thank you for your 
service at our border and all of those that are supporting you.
    I've heard from at least one member here this afternoon 
that they felt that they were the only person that represented 
a border district. I just completed a tour of the westernmost 
counties in North Carolina, counties nestled down in the 
mountains, a thousand miles away from the border.
    And every sheriff that I visited said that they felt that 
they were protecting their county from the border, they were a 
border county because they're seeing the influence into what 
was once mountains that seemed impenetrable to these types of 
behaviors, particularly the drugs.
    Mr. Modlin, I know that we have heard reports of how many 
pounds of fentanyl, gallons of fentanyl, have been captured. Do 
we have any method to estimate how much fentanyl has actually 
made it through into the United States?
    Mr. Modlin. Thanks for the question, sir. To my knowledge, 
there is no way to estimate the amount that made it into the 
United States. It certainly--that estimation certainly wouldn't 
come from me.
    Mr. Edwards. I'd like to follow up. When you discover 
fentanyl coming in, can you tell us what that looks like? Is it 
in the back of a truck, a backpack, did somebody swallow it in 
some container? What are the mechanisms that people are using 
to get the Chinese fentanyl into the U.S.?
    Mr. Modlin. Thanks again for the question, sir. So, when we 
uncover fentanyl, usually it is--usually it's in pill form. 
You've probably seen, because it's been widely discussed, some 
of the multicolored pills recently.
    I think my sector had one of the largest seizures of the 
multicolored fentanyl. It sort of looks a lot like candy would 
look like. We see that sometimes at our immigration checkpoints 
and then often between the ports of entry as well or just on a 
traffic stop that Border Patrol agents make.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I'd just like to comment to the committee that 
we heard an argument from the other side earlier this afternoon 
that this--this was an issue of humanity, and I couldn't agree 
more.
    When I listen to the folks in western North Carolina, I 
think that we have to consider the humanity, first of all, of 
those fine officers that are putting their lives at risk to 
deal with drug dealers, to deal with the increase in crime.
    We need to consider the humanity for the children that are 
losing their parents to overdoses or the children that are 
seeing their brothers and sisters incarcerated for dealing with 
drugs, the humanity for young folks that are getting hooked on 
drugs and overdosing and living their lives, the humanity for 
parents that are losing their children to the fentanyl influx 
that we see in this country.
    Mr. Chair, I know we're running out of time. We've got some 
other deadlines, so I yield back. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The ranking 
member and I have agreed, and the votes have been called. I'm 
sure you all need a break. We have a few more people left for 
questions, and then we were going to do a closing comment, 
closing statement. So, at this time, the committee will stand 
in recess until 10 minutes after the last vote.
    There are only two votes, I believe, so this won't last 
very long. So, at this time, we'll be in recess until 10 
minutes after the conclusion of the last vote.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Comer. We'll call the meeting back to order. 
Before we resume questioning, I ask unanimous consent for 
Representative Tony Gonzales from Texas to waive on to the 
committee for the purpose of asking questions.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Welcome the witnesses back, and now the chair recognizes 
Mr. Burlison for five minutes.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to say, 
thank you, Chief Modlin and Chief Chavez, and please extend a 
hearty thank you to your agents who risk their lives for us. 
They're truly patriots and heroes for the United States.
    Sadly, the data has clearly shown that fentanyl seizures 
have gone through the roof since 2020, and you have mentioned 
during committee that criminals tend to follow the path of 
least resistance.
    Chief Chavez, you said, quote/unquote, that at one point 
the Remain in Mexico program has been effective, or at least 
was in El Paso. And then, again during Mr. Fallon's testimony, 
you affirmed that those processes can have an impact on agents' 
ability to enforce the laws of this Nation.
    During Mrs. McClain's testimony, you said that there are 
really four outcomes, right? There's return, remove, transport, 
and then release. And then you said, if you release more 
people, that could create more of an incentive for others to 
also cross illegally which expects more of a likelihood of 
release.
    So, my question is that, while I appreciate government 
efficiencies and processes, and I appreciate that the border is 
efficient, many times processing is leading to release. Is that 
correct?
    Ms. Chavez. Thank you, Congressman, for your question. You 
know, the border situation is a dynamic one, and it's a very 
complex environment, and we deal with all sorts of 
nationalities. Just in the RGV, we've arrested here this Fiscal 
Year over 142 different countries of people, right, coming from 
142 different countries.
    And those four pathways, or those four dispositions that we 
talked about, we still have a different pathway. They're either 
voluntary returns, warrant of arrest, a notice to appear, 
either expedited removal, or parole NTD or NTAs as well.
    The release is the last option, sir, for us. It's not 
something we do easily. It's something that we take very much 
caution with.
    Mr. Burlison. And what percentage of--of the four, what 
percentages is release used?
    Ms. Chavez. I think it's--I don't have the percentage 
amount here with me today, but it's something that we can 
certainly get back to you on with our headquarters.
    Mr. Burlison. My other question is, have we always had this 
approach to release--or the parole policy, have we always had 
this approach that we have today?
    Ms. Chavez. It has always been an option----
    Mr. Burlison. But has it been done the way that it's being 
performed today?
    Ms. Chavez. Not in my experience.
    Mr. Burlison. So, it--so today we're doing things with 
parole and release differently than we have done in years 
passed?
    Ms. Chavez. It's been practiced a little bit more fluidly, 
uh-huh.
    Mr. Burlison. OK. So, with that being said, when you say 
``fluid,'' prior to 2020, was the process of parole, how 
fluid--how much more prevalent was that?
    Ms. Chavez. I think previously it was a little bit more 
restrictive. It required a lot more verifications and approvals 
up the chain of command up to our headquarters level.
    Mr. Burlison. OK. So that, to me--so the process of the 
parole was more restrictive prior to 2020 than it is today?
    Ms. Chavez. It was to a certain extent because even the 
releases today, we still need to make notification to our 
headquarters on releases, but chief patrol agents in the field 
today do have the purview, based on the extent of their 
capacity levels, to react to the ability to coordinate with 
their NGO's to try and have a release of migrants from their 
custody immediately if you see their capacity levels to be 
overwhelming.
    Mr. Burlison. OK. So, then the question is, you know, the 
requirements are, for parole, the path to parole, is basically 
based on an only by case-by-case basis, and you have to provide 
the reason, the specific reason for that individual? Am I 
wrong? Is that not what the law says?
    Ms. Chavez. No, you are not wrong, sir. The thing is, we 
coordinate everything through ICE ERO. It is not directly done 
from CBP, Border Patrol. It is in coordination with the ICE 
ERO. They're at our facilities doing the processing with us 
jointly, and, therefore, it is coordinated with them and then 
the NGO.
    Mr. Burlison. OK. So, who is recording the reason for the 
parole?
    Ms. Chavez. It would be ICE ERO.
    Mr. Burlison. ICE ERO. OK. But that is being documented?
    Ms. Chavez. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Burlison. Because it is required by law that it be 
documented.
    Ms. Chavez. Yes, it is documented. Everything is 
documented.
    Mr. Burlison. So, according to the omnibus appropriations 
bill in March 2022, it required, that within 60 days, that 
there be a quarterly report to Congress, including the number 
of parole requests received and granted, and for those granted, 
the rationale for each grant and its duration.
    Would you be surprised to know that the report that was 
released to Congress did not include any of the rationale for 
each parolee granted?
    Ms. Chavez. I was not aware of that, sir.
    Mr. Burlison. But you agree with me that it would be an 
expectation, if it's in the law, that it should be the 
responsibility to provide that information individually for 
each individual?
    Ms. Chavez. I would think if it's a requirement to record 
and then if it's under law that it's required, that it's 
something that should be submitted.
    Mr. Burlison. OK. Thank you. Thank you.
    Ms. Chavez. Yes, sir. Thank you.
    Mr. Burlison. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Langworthy for five minutes.
    Mr. Langworthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Chief Chavez and Chief Modlin, for all of your testimony here 
today, and please express our thanks to all of the Border 
Patrol agents for all that you do to do your very best to keep 
this Nation safe.
    In the first three months of Fiscal Year 2023, there were 
an estimated 7,000 aliens passing a day illegally. Chief 
Modlin, how has the unprecedented flow of illegal immigration 
impacted U.S. Border Patrol's ability to maintain operational 
control of the southern border?
    Mr. Modlin. Thank you for the question, sir. So, you know, 
when the flow of migrants across the border increases the way 
it does, there's a compounding amount of things that happen.
    One, and certainly in my sector, in the Tucson Sector, 
because of the very extreme terrain we deal with, agents are 
called upon to make rescues. So, an agent literally, in a 
matter of seconds, can go from an enforcement action to now 
rescuing someone, you know, performing, you know, putting 
tourniquets on, whatever that happens to be. So, you have that.
    You have just the great distances within my sector that 
cause us to deal with these large groups and takes away from 
the border security mission. So, it is a challenge, for sure, 
and it absolutely impacts our ability to secure the border.
    Mr. Langworthy. Are you familiar with the phrase a ``got-
away''?
    Mr. Modlin. Absolutely, sir.
    Mr. Langworthy. Are you aware there has been an estimated 
600,000 got-aways in the last year?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir, I'm familiar with the estimate.
    Mr. Langworthy. So, let's now pivot to terrorism. Have the 
both of you heard of the Terrorist Screening Data base?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Langworthy. Can you explain the Terrorist Screening 
Data base broadly?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir. So, broadly, at least the way we come 
into contact with it, is, when we apprehend someone and we 
start running all the checks on them, the biographical checks, 
the biometrics checks, if those checks return a hit that they 
are possibly connected to the data base, then our agents reach 
out to the National Targeting Center, and then in conjunction 
with agencies like the FBI, that person is vetted to see if 
they are, in fact, on the list.
    Mr. Langworthy. Chief Modlin, are you aware that the U.S. 
Border Patrol agents apprehended 98 individuals with derogatory 
information in the Terrorist Screening Data bases in Fiscal 
Year 2022?
    Mr. Modlin. Yes, sir, I'm aware that that number was 
published.
    Mr. Langworthy. Are you aware of whether any of these 
suspected terrorists were released from custody, or were you 
able to maintain detention on them through the lifecycle of the 
immigration case?
    Mr. Modlin. So, again, thank you for the question, sir. So, 
we don't maintain detention on anyone throughout the lifecycle 
of their immigration, regardless of whether it's an 
unaccompanied child, a family group, a single migrant, or 
somebody like that, that would be on the watch list.
    Ours is just very quick and initial processing, and then 
they move on to custody of others.
    Mr. Langworthy. Could you list some of the countries where 
some of these terrorists, known terrorists, are coming from, 
that have entered, some of the 98?
    Mr. Modlin. So, in my experience, I will say this, Tucson 
Sector has not seen very much of this. I believe there may have 
been two last year that were on the list, and I don't know what 
country they came from, sir.
    Mr. Langworthy. Are you aware that some of the terrorists 
that are coming from hostile countries like, for instance, 
Yemen?
    Mr. Modlin. Again, I have not seen the list of where they 
were coming from, sir. I just know that they're on the list.
    Mr. Langworthy. Great. Can you describe to us the tactics 
used at the southern border to evade Federal agents?
    Mr. Modlin. So, there are quite a few tactics in my sector 
particularly, which is fairly unique to Tucson Sector, everyone 
that crosses is head to toe in camouflage. So, literally a 
camouflage hoodie, camouflage boots they pull on over their 
shoes, which have carpet on the bottom of them, which help them 
to evade tracking as well. So, when we try to track someone, 
it's much more difficult if there's carpet on there versus 
that.
    And then they also get up into incredibly high elevations, 
so they get 8-, 9,000 feet up into the mountains to avoid 
detection.
    Mr. Langworthy. Because we don't have an official number of 
got-aways, is it possible that there could be more terrorists 
who have entered the United States that the Border Patrol is 
unaware of, or they were able to be evaded?
    Mr. Modlin. As I said before, sir, I don't think it's 
appropriate for me to take a guess at anyone that might've 
evaded us. All I can say is that the got-away numbers are 
incredibly important, and that is--there's two parts to that as 
well as I testified earlier, is that there are the known got-
aways, and then there's what we don't know as well.
    All of it is a concern to the Border Patrol. I can tell you 
that it affects every agent to know that we don't have the 
border--or that people are getting past us at points.
    Mr. Langworthy. Chief Chavez, have you seen this number of 
terrorists enter the U.S. with such ease in your entire career?
    Ms. Chavez. Sir, thank you for the question. I'll add to 
Chief Modlin's response. You know, for the RGV, I know that CBP 
has also published that they're monitoring certain types of 
countries--migrants from certain types of countries. I know 25 
countries as well, plus China.
    And what's of concern to me in RGV, and the agents that 
work every day on that border, is that we have seen a 176-
percent increase of Chinese nationals in the RGV sector, 
between those ports of entry. So, for us, I mean, it's a 
difference of 309 this Fiscal Year compared to 112 previously, 
and it's something that we're keeping a close eye on, as well 
as an increase of Albanian nationals this year. I think it's a 
314-increase of Albanian nationals which is really a number of 
29 versus 7 from last year.
    But, you know, more so than that, the got-away situation is 
something that not only concerns every Border Patrol agent on 
that front line but certainly us as chiefs, because the field 
commanders, we know that there are got-aways that we can verify 
and have fidelity because of the technology and the agents' 
ability to verify that there was a person that crossed through 
that zone or that area.
    But then the ones that concern us are the unknowns, the 
people that we just don't know about actually, you know, 
actually crossing and those got-aways taking place.
    Mr. Langworthy. Thank you both very much for your testimony 
today, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Sessions for five minutes.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thanks 
to both of you chiefs for being here.
    We don't need to rough you up. You know we're not happy. 
I'm concerned about the agents. I'm concerned about their 
lives. I'm concerned about them being spread out individually. 
I'm concerned about the rules and regulations put on them about 
picking up people and bringing them back. I'm concerned about 
the amount of drugs flowing in. I'm concerned about the got-
aways that you just spoke about.
    What I don't understand is why some positive response to 
deter these problems is not under way. And I'm going to say 
``under way'' because you could be doing something that we 
don't know about.
    But I think you should immediately take action to stop the 
things that are your biggest problems. For instance, got-aways, 
I think you ought to pick them up, put them on the next plane, 
fly them back well south of the border.
    They chose to intentionally violate you knowing who they 
were. I think they're an immediate threat to the security of 
this country. I would, if I were within that management, talk 
about how endangered your agents are, women especially.
    When I was in the sector down in Tucson, we were several 
Members of Congress, and there was one woman out there at the 
gap with a hundred people from Cuba. I think it's dangerous. I 
think your people are being endangered.
    And I just think that your entire organization up to the 
Secretary are neutered from attempting to take care of your 
people and to take care of these terrible problems of the got-
aways.
    They're got-aways for a reason. They're got-aways because 
they're part of drug cartels, because they've got contraband, 
because they're doing something. And I think you should take a 
very negative and dim view of these people and arm your 
organization to support the American people differently.
    And so, these are the kinds of problems that a Member like 
me, I'm from Waco, Texas, a couple hundred miles up, but we've 
got problems all over the congressional district that I 
represent. And I don't see where there's anything other than a 
demand to go help these immigrants that have come here 
illegally and leave alone the got-aways.
    And I think they're dangerous. I think it's a national 
priority, and so I know I've spoken for three minutes about my 
problems, but I would like to see there be real action instead 
of it being bigger than you are.
    And, if it's bigger than you are, like I think it is for 
the Secretary, I think he's an embarrassment and should step 
down. This, protecting this country, if you were in the United 
States military--and I'll never forget watching Admiral Harris 
out in Pearl Harbor, a long way away from here but in the 
United States, and he said: Our number 1 goal that we in the 
United States military is there for is to protect this country.
    You are not protecting this country. You're allowing a bad 
situation to get worse. You're allowing it to continue to get 
worse, and you have no real action to plug that with an 
offense.
    And I think it's embarrassing. I think that you should go 
back within your organization and support your people more. I 
think it's embarrassing to have one woman out there by herself.
    And so, I want to thank you for your service, but at the 
same time comes a responsibility of serious talk within the 
administration about this breaking the law and doing nothing 
about it.
    So, I've left you defenseless. I didn't allow you time to 
respond. I did not yell or scream, but I think that you need to 
hear it when you come up here on the Hill. We do not have 
confidence in the Department, and we have complete confidence 
in the men and women who want and need their property 
protected. We have complete confidence in the families that 
need you to support them, and that's called the Border Patrol 
and Federal law enforcement.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    If you all wanted to respond, I'll give you time to 
respond. If not, we'll go to the next question.
    Mr. Modlin. Thank you, Chairman. My response will be very 
short. What I'll say is that, you know, I recognize where the 
Member's--the Member's points, but what I will say is that, you 
know, the men and women of the United States Border Patrol, 
I've never worked with an organization that was more dedicated 
to what they do, more able to switch immediately from an 
enforcement posture to a humanitarian posture.
    These are agents that risk their lives every day they go 
out there, and, you know, when things are said about agents 
publicly, you know, whether it's this forum or others, it has 
an impact, it has an impact on the morale of the organization, 
and I just think we need to be careful about that. Thank you, 
sir.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I'll respond back then. At no 
point did I take it out on the men and women. I took it out on 
the leadership of the organization that is placing those men 
and women in harm's way. And so, if you took it that I was 
talking about anyone that wears a green uniform, wrong. If you 
take it that I am talking about the circumstances that they're 
placed under, dead on.
    Chairman Comer. Ma'am?
    Ms. Chavez. Thank you, sir. Congressman, thank you so much 
for your words as well. And, in addition to what Chief Modlin 
has stated, I also want to recognize our partner agencies. You 
know, Congressman, this last Fiscal Year has been a very 
difficult one for the rest of the partner agencies on the 
border.
    I'm talking about ICE, ERO. I'm talking about CIS, HHS, all 
the partner agencies that have been out there helping us; 
they're embedded with us at our Central Processing Centers. The 
sheriff's department, our local law enforcement, have been 
phenomenal. So, I just want to make sure I give some kudos 
their way because, without them, I don't know how the Border 
Patrol would've been able to survive this last type of year 
that we've had. Thank you.
    Mr. Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Timmons for five minutes.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chiefs, welcome, 
thank you for being here.
    I understand that DHS has emphasized processing 
efficiencies and partnerships with community groups and outside 
organizations over the last couple years as the flow of illegal 
immigration reached historical proportion.
    But cutting through the haze of technical terminology, 
processing efficiencies really just boiled down to processing 
illegal aliens faster for release from custody, where they are 
free to travel into the interior of the United States.
    Chief Chavez, would you agree that a significant portion of 
the illegal aliens encountered by Border Patrol agents in your 
sector over the last few months have ultimately been released 
from DHS custody?
    Ms. Chavez. In the RGV sector, actually, we've been able to 
process individuals and remove them. I think that we've been 
able to remove them to other countries. See, RGV Sector 
primarily encounters migrants from Central America, and these 
are from countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, we're 
getting many from Nicaragua right now as well, and Mexico.
    Mr. Timmons. So, what percent are released into the 
interior?
    Ms. Chavez. We haven't actually been releasing here anyone 
here in a while. For us, they've been expelled to the countries 
via flights, via removal flights.
    Mr. Timmons. So, none of them are requesting asylum because 
they have a credible fear of threat in their country?
    Ms. Chavez. There have been some. There are numbers of 
people that have requested asylum between the ports of entry, 
and they've been set up for their CIS interview, a little bit 
quite different situation than when I was the chief of El Paso. 
Those numbers were a little bit different, right?
    In El Paso, there was a lot of coordination with local 
NGO's and local faith-based organizations to work some sort of 
a release with ICE ERO for the community releases. Varied types 
of different demographics, different types of populations that 
we dealt with at the time back in El Paso.
    Mr. Timmons. OK. Of the individuals that are being released 
into the country, what's the average processing time?
    Ms. Chavez. The average processing time?
    Mr. Timmons. Yes.
    Ms. Chavez. Well, for those, it was within hours. It 
wasn't--it wasn't days. It was a coordinated, I want to say, 
there would be an estimated--nowadays I wouldn't have an 
accurate number.
    Mr. Timmons. How do you differentiate between the 
individuals that are alleging credible threat and requesting 
asylum versus ones that you're putting on planes and flying 
back?
    Ms. Chavez. It is, sir, it's a very different type of 
process. So, as where one could take, I want to say, eight 
hours to process, another one could take a day or two to 
process, depending on the type of pathway that they're going to 
be taking.
    Mr. Timmons. OK. Again, based just on the last few months, 
what percent of illegal border crossers would you say are 
released from your sector to travel onward to their ultimate 
destination in the U.S., what percent?
    Ms. Chavez. I don't have a percent for you, sir, on the 
number.
    Mr. Timmons. Ten, 20, 50, I mean, ballpark?
    Ms. Chavez. I would be guessing, sir.
    Mr. Timmons. OK. Well, so the individuals that are released 
ultimately, they're free to go anywhere they want to in the 
United States. Is that correct?
    Ms. Chavez. When we work with ICE ERO and we do the process 
complete and turn them over to ICE ERO and they work the 
release, after that, we have no contact with that migrant. So, 
they are pretty much released into the interior of the United 
States, and they determine where they want to go in the United 
States.
    Mr. Timmons. So, I was in McAllen a few years ago, and I 
was leaving at the airport, and there were people with manila 
envelopes getting on flights. They had just been processed and 
the manila envelope is what is their ultimate court date. Is 
that correct?
    Ms. Chavez. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Timmons. And how do they get on a plane if they don't 
have ID? How do they go through security.
    Ms. Chavez. That would be a question for ICE ERO, sir, 
because they make all those arrangements with the airlines.
    Mr. Timmons. OK. But, I mean, these individuals very likely 
do not have ID, but they're allowed to use their paperwork, 
their court date as their ID to get through security in 
McAllen. That's my understanding.
    Ms. Chavez. They have certain documents with them, and they 
use those documents to get their travel documents----
    Mr. Timmons. I have a Federal--I either have a driver's 
license or a military ID that gets me through security. But 
these individuals who have just come into the country illegally 
requesting asylum are allowed to not show ID to get on planes. 
Is that right.
    Ms. Chavez. I'm not aware of what they would do, sir.
    Mr. Timmons. OK. So, I heard this foundation's oversight 
project did a study of illegal aliens that were released from 
DHS custody. And just in January 2022, they traced the 
individuals that were released to 431 separate congressional 
districts. You know, all but four congressional districts are 
receiving individuals that had been processed from the southern 
border and are here illegally awaiting their hearing. I just 
find that to be pretty shocking. But, again, I'm out of time. 
Thank you so much for being here. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The chair 
recognizes Mr. Gonzales for five minutes.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman Comer, for hosting me 
today. I represent 42 percent of the southern border, places 
like Uvalde, Eagle Pass, Del Rio, El Paso County that are in 
the news every single day. As a Representative of the largest 
border district in the country, I share frustrations with my 
colleagues. And it's long time for Congress and the 
administration to stop playing political games and do 
something.
    I want to first start by thanking you. Thank you both 
chiefs for everything that you do. Thank you for the men and 
women in green that every day roll up their sleeves and go to 
work.
    My first question is to Chief Chavez. Yes or no, please. Do 
you think repatriation flights work?
    Ms. Chavez. Yes, sir, they do for us.
    Mr. Gonzales. You're damn right they do. A repatriation 
flight is someone that does not qualify for asylum, gets put on 
a plane--and they don't get flown to New York or Chicago or 
Washington, DC, they get flown to Haiti, to El Salvador, or 
Guatemala. They absolutely work. When there were 15,000 
Haitians under a bridge in Del Rio, what stopped that was 
literally around 2,000--it wasn't the whole 15,000--local 
people were released into the country. But it was about 2,000 
people that were flown back to Haiti, and all of a sudden it 
stopped.
    My next question, also, for Chief Chavez. I have a bill, 
the Security First Act, that labels cartels as terrorist 
organizations. Would you agree that cartels terrorize the 
people they smuggle and deserve to be prosecuted with higher 
penalties?
    Ms. Chavez. I do agree that they do terrorize the migrants 
that they smuggle. Just from statements and debriefs that we 
receive when we interview migrants in our custody.
    Mr. Gonzales. Of course. These are evil people that don't 
even view these migrants as cattle. They're really treated--
mistreated in every single way.
    The next question also for Chief Chavez. Does the Border 
Patrol currently have the capacity to permanently house all 
migrants for the entire length of their asylum process?
    Ms. Chavez. Absolutely not, Congressman. We do not have 
that level of capacity in our facilities.
    Mr. Gonzales. It currently takes around five years for an 
asylum case to be heard. Sometimes longer, depending on what 
part of the country that you take. This is the danger of 
turning an agency like yours that is meant to catch terrorists, 
fentanyl, real-time situations, and putting you in the 
processing centers.
    My next question is for Chief Modlin. Would banning all 
asylum claims, including people in legitimate life-or-death 
situations make the border more or less secure?
    Mr. Modlin. Thank you for your question, sir. I don't know 
that banning any asylum claims would make the border any more 
secure.
    Mr. Gonzales. Yes, I think your sector, in particular, were 
the bulk of your--the bulk of people coming over are got-aways, 
are essentially trying to flee and escape. That's what I worry 
with the rhetoric. If you divide the two, you won't solve the 
root of the problem, which is essentially catching bad people 
from entering our country.
    I want to go back to Chief Chavez, would manpower and 
technology, would that help start to secure the border?
    Ms. Chavez. Yes, sir. Absolutely. Manpower and technology 
makes a huge difference in order for us to secure that border.
    Mr. Gonzales. Can you give me some examples of where 
manpower and technology have been successful?
    Ms. Chavez. If we go back a 27-year career back in the mid-
nineties, we had a 5-mile piece of border in San Diego from the 
beach just to Interstate 5. Five miles of border, we were 
encountering over half a million people. And in those 5 miles, 
we increased the amount of personnel, and we tripled the amount 
of technology. And within a couple of years, we were able to 
gain operational control of those 5 miles of border. So, it was 
effective. It was really effective, but it also added barrier. 
So, with infrastructure, we were able to gain a significant 
amount of enforcement there.
    Mr. Gonzales. You know, a little over a year ago last 
Christmas, I visited Del Rio. I spent 20 years in the military. 
I've spent a lot of Christmases abroad. I wanted to spend this 
Christmas on the border. So, I visited Del Rio at 7 o'clock in 
the morning. And there was over 100 migrants waiting to be 
processed. And I'll never forget that day, there was one Border 
Patrol agent that was exhausted. You could see it in the man's 
eyes. It was 7 a.m. His shift had just started, and he was 
already tired. And so, you can tell that the work force is 
under an incredible amount of pressure.
    In the same lens, I see a young woman in her mid-twenties 
with a four or five-year-old little boy, and that him boy is 
gripping her hand as tight as can be. And all I can think of is 
what kind of journey had they had gotten to get to that point. 
And so, you know, speaking with her a little later, her husband 
was killed, in the country that they were fleeing. What I'm 
getting at is there are moments where there are people 
legitimately fleeing persecution all across the world, and we 
got to be respectful of that. We also have to stop the 
terrorism and the fentanyl from coming into our country and 
killing our children. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. That concludes 
the questions. Now, we're going to move to closing statements. 
At this time, I yield to Ranking Member Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. Before I close, 
may I seek unanimous consent to submit several letters from 
immigrants, stakeholder groups, and two articles?
    Chairman Comer. Without objection. So ordered.
    Mr. Raskin. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's been a 
long day, but very productive day. And I want to start by 
thanking Chief Modlin and Chief Chavez for your really 
exceptional testimony today.
    I wanted to close with just a few points, Mr. Chairman. 
There was a point about the language that we use and the logic 
of our arguments, because over the course of the day, I've 
followed as people have made arguments about noticing an 
increase in the number of arrests and apprehensions. And 
sometimes it's said, well, there have been a lot more arrests 
and apprehensions under the Biden administration, therefore, 
the situation is getting worse. Of course, our side says, 
there's more arrests and apprehensions under the Biden 
administration, so things are getting better, because the 
officers have been given more funding and support and they're 
able to do enforcement better. But, in any event, whatever we 
think about it, we should be consistent with it. If we think 
that the number of apprehensions and arrests going down means 
that that's good news because the problem is less, it should be 
good news under both Trump and Biden. If we think it's good 
news if the number of arrests and apprehensions are going up, 
it should be good news under both. This should not be a 
rhetorical exercise. But all of that to me underscores the 
importance of our actually working together to try to solve 
these problems. And I think what we've learned from our 
witnesses today is that we need to be listening to the people 
on the ground. We need to be avoiding the ideological polemics 
as much as possible in responding to what people on the ground 
actually say is needed in order to improve the situation.
    With respect to that, in the omnibus last year, there was 
$7.2 billion for Border Patrol operations. And I just want to 
say, Washington is known as a place where there is a lot of 
rhetoric. There's a lot of oratory. There's a lot of fancy 
language. But then there's also votes. And votes really is the 
lowest common denominator where the rubber hits the road. And I 
was proud to have supported the $7.2 billion for Border Patrol 
operations for hiring and for southern border reinforcements; 
$65 million for 300 new Border Patrol agents; $60 million for 
new CBP personnel at ports of entry, where 90 percent of the 
fentanyl is coming in, and so on.
    So, I think that speaks volumes about our seriousness about 
being willing to work together and to put the needs of the 
country and the possibility of consensus about immigration 
above pure politics.
    And the final point I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman, is 
about a point that several members, including yourself made, 
taking umbrage at the invocation of the great replacement 
theory. The central dogma of extreme White nationalism in 
America today. And I'm not sure if the members took umbrage at 
the suggestion that the great replacement theory is the central 
dogma of extreme White nationalism, or they took umbrage of the 
fact that they were being associated with it. And I would love 
to get to the bottom of that.
    But just to be clear, I can say to you, chapter and verse, 
from numerous mass murderers who attacked racial minorities and 
cited the great replacement theory as their justification for 
doing it. Starting with Payton Gendron, who assassinated 10 
people at the Top Supermarket in Buffalo and repeatedly cited 
the great replacement theory as his motive for engaging in the 
shooting.
    We can also look to Robert Bowers, who was the mass 
murderer who killed 11 Jewish worshippers at the Tree of Life 
Synagogue in Cleveland, who also posted online before his crime 
that he was objecting to a Jewish non prophet, which he said 
likes to bring invaders in that kill our people, and then 
echoed numerous claims of the great replacement theory.
    The Walmart mass murderer, who assassinated 23 people in El 
Paso said, I am simply defending my country from cultural and 
ethnic replacement, and so on. And so, I think it's beyond 
question that this is becoming an article of White extremism 
and violent White national extremism in the country.
    Now, you can hear about this in more mainstream context, 
like Fox News. And you do hear very distinct echoes of the 
great replacement theory being uttered by politicians. But if 
what our side heard today was that people who don't want to be 
associated with the great replacement theory, then we say 
Hallelujah to that. And all we need is a word renouncing or 
denouncing the great replacement theory. And you will never 
hear from us again any implication that people on that side 
support it. But all we have to go on otherwise are prior 
statements that people have made. But I would love nothing more 
than to have every member of this committee together, you and I 
could issue a statement together on behalf of the entire 
committee, denouncing the great replacement theory, which has 
proven to be such a danger to our people, and such a poisonous 
intoxicant for people who are going out and acting on it in 
lethal ways.
    With that, I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 
putting together a good hearing here. And, again, I thank the 
witnesses for their participation. I yield back to you.
    Chairman Comer. The ranking member yields back. I don't 
even know how to comment on a lot of that. I mean, I assume you 
stand by the tweet. We just thought it was some lowly staffer 
that tweeted something out and made a mistake, but I assume you 
stand by the statement, on your official statement that today's 
hearing was to amplify White nationalist conspiracy theories?
    Mr. Raskin. It actually--that's not what it says, Mr. 
Chairman. I'm happy to read it.
    Chairman Comer. I just read it off, the tweet.
    Ms. Raskin. It says: Good morning to everyone, except 
Oversight members who are using today's hearing to amplify 
White nationalist conspiracy theories instead of a 
comprehensive solution. So, it specifically excludes everybody 
who doesn't participate in that. There are members on this 
committee who have indulged in that kind of rhetoric. But if 
they are willing to say now that they renounce the great 
replacement theory, they don't want to be associated with it, 
then I am very happy to say we will withdraw that tweet, and 
you will never see a tweet like that again.
    Chairman Comer. It appears to me that the two sides 
couldn't be any different on border security. We believe border 
security's National Security. It's my analysis of my friends on 
the other side's defense of an open border is that anyone who 
would suggest we need to secure our border is a racist or a 
White supremacist.
    Mr. Raskin. No one has said that. And I disavow and 
renounce and denounce that sentiment. There are legitimate 
differences that people have about this, but my only point 
about it, Mr. Chairman, and with your indulgence, is that 
people are getting killed because of the great replacement 
theory. And I gave you several examples of that. There are 
people loaded up on hate who go in and who actually believe 
that there's a deliberate effort to replace the native 
population of the United States, and that there's an effort to 
bring people in to replace them. That's what people were 
chanting in Charlottesville: Jews will not replace us. That's 
what it's meaning is. And so, it would be great if people will 
just say we don't believe that, and we would like to turn down 
the temperature on this and work together for meaningful 
solutions.
    Chairman Comer. Well, we believe that people are getting 
killed because of the fentanyl that's coming across the border 
every day. We believe that crime rates are increasing. We 
believe that human trafficking is increasing because of the 
lack of security on the southern border. This hearing was a 
fact-finding mission to hear from chief patrol agents on the 
front lines of Biden's border crisis. This wasn't another--I 
forget what the White House said it was this morning--trying to 
politicize. This was, I think, a substantive committee hearing, 
gathering facts from people on the front line. I don't know why 
Secretary Mayorkas was so hesitant to allow people to come 
forward.
    Committees of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives 
are going to continue to invite people on front lines of the 
Border Patrol to come and testify because we want to support 
you all. We appreciate your service to our country. Those of us 
on the Republican side, we've made many trips to the border. 
There's no telling how many meetings the members that represent 
the border states have had with Border Patrol agents. And 
they're begging us for help. They're begging us to change the 
policy; to force this administration to change the policy to 
make their jobs easier and their lives safer.
    We heard testimony from two great law enforcement 
professionals today that the cartels are taking advantage of 
the crisis at the southern border, leveraging chaos by 
overwhelming Border Patrol agents with large groups and task 
saturation tactics. That's what I saw when I went to the 
border. We knew they were utilizing drones. They were sending 
large groups in. The Border Patrol would apprehend them and 
take them to process. And knowing that no one was left in that 
area, they would send drug runners across the border with the 
fentanyl. It happens every day.
    We heard testimony that the number of encounters of illegal 
border crossers went from unprecedented to a situation so bad 
that the situation is now indescribable. We learned that many 
migrants decided to illegally enter the United States because 
they believed that President Biden would let them in; they 
believed that the law had changed. We've heard testimony that 
President Trump's remain in Mexico policy was effective in El 
Paso. We heard testimony that Border Patrol has had to divert 
resources to respond to cartel tactics, crossing large groups, 
or putting migrants in peril, leading other parts of our border 
unguarded. What I just mentioned earlier. And we learned that 
the Tucson Section, 52 percent of 700 pounds of fentanyl seized 
in the field was backpacked across the border by smugglers in 
between ports of entry. These are just a few of the facts that 
we learned today.
    And I want to thank the witnesses again for appearing. We 
appreciate your service. We want to work with you. If there's 
ever anything that we can do to make your jobs easier, make 
your lives safer, and secure our southern border, to help 
secure our southern border, we want to do that. This is a 
priority for the majority in this House of Representatives. And 
I appreciate the substantive testimony today and look forward 
to working with you in the future. With that, I now declare 
this committee hearing adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                         [all]