[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]