    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                   INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS  AND LAW ENFORCE-
                     MENT SHOULD FIGHT CRIME, NOT FIGHT CON-
                     SERVATIVES

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

                                    HEARING

                                     OF THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                                 March 27, 2025
                                   __________

                                Serial No. 119-9
                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

                   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov, http://docs.house.gov,
                           or http://www.govinfo.gov
                                    ______

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    60-455 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2025

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                        BRIAN J. MAST, Florida, Chairman
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York,
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey       Ranking Member
    JOE WILSON,, South Carolina          BRAD SHERMAN, California
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    DARRELL ISSA, California             WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
    TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              AMI BERA, California
    MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee             JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    ANDY BARR, Kentucky                  DINA TITUS, Nevada
    RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 TED LIEU, California
    YOUNG KIM, California                SARA JACOBS, California
    MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida        SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
    BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan                Florida
    AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       GREG STANTON, Arizona
      American Samoa                     JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
    JIM R. BAIRD, Indiana                SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    THOMAS H. KEAN, JR, New Jersey       JIM COSTA, California
    MICHAEL LAWLER, New York             GABE AMO, Rhode Island
    CORY MILLS, Florida                  KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
    KEITH SELF, Texas                    PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana               GEORGE LATIMER, New York
    JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam                JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI Jr, Maryland
    ANNA PAULINA LUNA, Florida           JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
    JEFFERSON SHREVE, Indiana            SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware
    SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina          BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington      MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
    RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania

                  James Langenderfer, Majority Staff Director
                     Sajit Gandhi, Minority Staff Director

                                     ------

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE

                   MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida, Chairwoman
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas, Ranking
    MARK GREEN, Tennessee                  Member
    MICHAEL LAWLER, New York             DINA TITUS, Nevada
    CORY MILLS, Florida                  SARA JACOBS, California
    JEFFERSON SHREVE, Indiana            GREG STANTON, Arizona
    SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina          JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
    RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania         SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California

                  Maggie Goessler, Subcommittee Staff Director

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------

                                REPRESENTATIVES

                                                                       Page
    Opening Statement of Subcommittee Chairwoman Maria Elvira Salazar     1
    Opening Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Member Joaquin Castro..     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Statement of Chelsa Kenney, Director, International Affairs and
      Trade, United States Government Accountability Office..........     5
      Prepared Statement.............................................     7
    Statement of Andres Martinez-Fernandez, Senior Policy Analyst,
      Latin America, Allison Center for National Security at The
      Heritage Foundation............................................    26
      Prepared Statement.............................................    28
    Statement of Adam Isacson, Director, Defense Oversight,
      Washington Office, on Latin America............................    32
      Prepared Statement.............................................    34

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................    66
    Hearing Minutes..................................................    68
    Hearing Attendance...............................................    69

                            Questions for the Record

    Questions submitted by Rep. Dina Titus to Chelsa Kenney..........    70

                      INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW EN-
                        FORCEMENT SHOULD FIGHT CRIME, NOT
                        FIGHT CONSERVATIVES

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, March 27, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
                Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere,
                                  Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:21 a.m., in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Maria Elvira
    Salazar [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Ms. Salazar. Welcome to all of you. Thank you for staying
    after votes.
        The subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere will come to
    order. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the Bureau of
    International Narcotics and Law Enforcement for the purposes of
    the subcommittee's reauthorization of J family programming at
    the State Department. Now I am going to recognize myself for an
    opening statement.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN MARIA ELVIRA
                               SALAZAR

        Once again, thank you to the witnesses for coming and
    giving us your time and your expertise. Always welcome. So the
    Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs,
    INL, acronym, the motto is security through justice. But,
    unfortunately, for the last 4 years they have been more
    interested in security through ideology, trading fight against
    narcotics for seminars to teach pronouns and workshops on
    gender diversity.
        I believe that the result of this alien ideology has been
    damaging to our national security, especially in a region which
    is very close to my heart, Central America. As some of you
    know, I was the Central American bureau chief for Univision
    Network during the Civil War in El Salvador, I lived in that
    country for many years until 1992 when they signed a peace
    treaty. Central America, don't I know it, has suffered for
    decades, and this was the perfect time to help them.
        Let's go to Guatemala. Almost 9 million migrants passed
    through their territory trying to come to the United States in
    the last 4 years. The Guatemalans needed INL's assistance to
    tackle the human trafficking and narcotics. But, unfortunately,
    the Biden administration refused to work with the attorney
    general of that country because, apparently, she was too
    conservative. They sanctioned her. Her name is Consuelo Porras.
    I don't know her, but I do know that she is the head of
    ministerio publico, which is for us, the United States, the
    attorney generals--the attorney general.
        Unfortunately, the previous administration refused to work
    with her. I believe that if the Guatemalans put her there, the
    Biden's bureaucrats don't have any business in telling her that
    she was not fit for the job and they attacked her over and over
    again.
        This is the perfect definition of putting politics and
    ideology before safety and respect for our neighbors' political
    views. If the Guatemalans are conservative, well, so be it. We
    have got to respect it.
        Let's talk now about El Salvador, the country which has
    been tackling a terrible gang problem for 30 years. I was
    killed--I mean, I was about to be killed in few instances; I
    lived it, I know it and things were terrible in El Salvador
    until President Bukele arrived in the picture.
        El Salvador should have been a perfect partner for the INL
    Bureau--which, by the way, it says that its mandate is to bring
    down transnational criminal organizations like MS-13 and Tren
    de Aragua. But instead of training the Salvadorian police
    forces, INL law enforcement academy taught gender and inclusion
    as one of their main goals for El Salvador. I believe, I am
    sure, that at that moment the Salvadorian were going to be
    saying, the gringos have gone crazy. I am no law enforcement
    expert, but I am fairly confident that getting MS-13 to learn
    how to pronounce correctly pronouns is not going to destroy
    them from committing any crimes.
        I am a witness--I have spoken to him--that Bukele wants to
    work with the United States. But, instead, the Biden
    administration cut funds to the Salvadorian police by 50
    percent. Why? And INL concentrated its budget for El Salvador
    to give it to NGO's that attack his security plan.
        With or without us, Bukele was successful. His strategy
    reduced one of the world's highest homicide rates to nearly
    zero. He presented the strategy to INL, and they said, no, we
    are not going to work with you.
        During the last 4 years, unfortunately, woke ideology has
    replaced common sense. But thankfully, things have changed
    under President Trump, and we are going to return the Bureau of
    International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs to its
    original mission, which is helping allies fight crime,
    dismantling gangs, restoring law and order.
        They have a budget of $2 billion a year, and I think we owe
    it to the American taxpayers to commit and re-establish their
    mandate; finding drugs, stopping human trafficking, training
    police forces worldwide with American-made weapons bought by
    our allies. INL is one of the best tools we have as Americans
    to create a safer, stronger, and more prosperous country, while
    helping our neighbors to do the same, whether it is in Central
    America or anywhere else in the world.
        I believe that we are still the United States. We are the
    point of reference for the rest of the hemisphere at least when
    it comes to good governance, the beacon of hope that there is a
    political system that respects human dignity. Thank God we are
    back on the right side of history.
        I yield back. And now I recognize my dear ranking member,
    the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Castro, for any statements he may
    have.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER JOAQUIN
                                 CASTRO

        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairwoman. Good afternoon,
    everyone. Thank you, Chairwoman, for convening this hearing,
    and thank you to our witnesses for testifying at the
    subcommittee's first hearing in Congress--this Congress.
        The topic of this hearing is broadly to discuss the
    reauthorization of the State Department's Bureau of
    International Narcotics and Law Enforcement. This is certainly
    important, and I look forward to the discussion on this issue,
    but I first need to paint a picture of what's going on right
    now.
        In just the last few weeks, we have witnessed a deeply
    troubling pattern of executive overreach and undermining of
    congressional authority. The administration has attempted to
    dismantle congressionally established agencies--USAID, the
    Inter-American Foundation, and the U.S. African Development
    Foundation--all without a single hearing from this committee
    where the administration has defended its actions.
        The Trump administration is trying to shut down the U.S.
    Agency for Global Media, a move cheered by autocrats and
    dictators from Havana to Moscow to Beijing to Caracas. They are
    trying to do this without this committee, the full committee,
    demanding the administration even explain themselves. The
    committee has given up its role of oversight. It has abandoned
    any oversight of the Trump administration, which is astounding
    in the history of Congress.
        The committee has abandoned--I am sorry. We, as a Nation,
    because of the Trump administration, have abandoned brave human
    rights defenders in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and everywhere
    else in the world as we went back on our word and froze
    programs that support them. We left them to get rounded up and
    put in prison. That is what this administration has done.
        The committee has not called Secretary Rubio in or any
    other administration official to explain these actions. That is
    why I say they have abandoned any oversight responsibilities.
        Donald Trump has canceled temporary protected status and
    humanitarian parole for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans,
    Nicaraguans, Haitians, and Cubans who have sought refuge in our
    country as millions of people have over generations. These were
    people who had status to be here. This is after President Trump
    said that he would only go after criminals.
        Masked ICE agents are pulling people off the streets in
    Texas, in Florida, and in cities across our country and sending
    them to prisons in El Salvador without any due process at all.
    President Bukele has become a mercenary for prisoners--to house
    prisoners from the United States and, I imagine, other parts of
    the world.
        Every day we learn of new horrors and innocent people
    brutalized by the administration. To do this, the Trump
    administration has used a wartime authority, the Alien Enemies
    Act, and claimed that we are being invaded by Venezuela. The
    idea that we are currently at war with Venezuela would be news
    to most Americans. In fact, it would be news to almost all
    Americans. If we are truly at war, I certainly--I certainly
    think this committee should be holding a hearing on it.
        Unfortunately, what we are seeing from the Republican
    majority is a total surrender of their power as legislators.
    Why hasn't this committee demanded testimony from Secretary
    Rubio, Pete Marocco, and others on all of this? We need
    answers, we need accountability, and we need this committee to
    do its job.
        We meet at a time when the United States is facing serious,
    complex threats abroad, and the responses from this Congress
    and this administration have too often been silence, confusion,
    or political theater. Across the world vital U.S. foreign
    assistance programs, many of them managed through the INL
    Bureau, have been cut, delayed, or outright canceled.
        We have seen freezes to police academy training in Mexico,
    programs designed to disrupt human trafficking, and efforts to
    equip law enforcement agencies across the globe with the tools
    to fight money laundering, fentanyl production, and organized
    crime. These aren't just line items in a budget. They are
    lifelines to communities here and abroad.
        The impacts of those decisions are not abstract. They
    absolutely make Americans less safe. When you see more fentanyl
    entering this country, when violent cartels operate with
    impunity, this is part of the reason why. These decisions will
    haunt us in the coming years.
        As we turn specifically to the reauthorization of the INL
    Bureau and its programs, we must approach reauthorization with
    clear eyes. INL has been a critical tool in our foreign policy
    toolkit, but I agree that it must evolve. Synthetic drugs like
    fentanyl are not only devastating American families, they are
    destabilizing entire regions. Scam centers and cyber-enabled
    fraud schemes are preying on our most vulnerable citizens. INL
    must be equipped and reoriented to tackle these challenges.
        At the same time, we must resist the impulse to think that
    security means police alone. Sustainable progress requires more
    than just training and equipping security forces. It means
    building robust justice systems, effective prosecutors,
    professional judges, strong defense attorneys, independent
    courts, prisons, and investing in the civil society actors who
    hold their leaders accountable. Funding police while defunding
    anti-corruption and Rule of Law programs is not just
    shortsighted, it is dangerous, and it is counterproductive.
        Today's hearing is an opportunity to begin a serious,
    hopefully sober, conversation about what INL needs to succeed
    and what reforms we need to pursue to ensure its work aligns
    with our values, advances our interest, and keeps our
    communities safe.
        Thank you, Chairwoman, and I yield back.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Castro. Thank you for your
    statement.
        Now we are pleased to have a distinguished panel of
    witnesses before us today on this important topic. Let me
    introduce Ms. Chelsa Kenney. She is the Director, International
    Affairs and Trade, for the U.S. Government Accountability
    Office. Thank you and welcome.
        Mr. Andres Martinez-Fernandez, senior policy analyst, Latin
    America, Allison Center for National Security at the Heritage
    Foundation.
        Mr. Adam Isacson, Director for Defense Oversight,
    Washington office, on Latin America.
        This committee recognizes the importance of the issues
    before us and is grateful to have you here to speak to us
    today. Your full statements will be made part of the record,
    and I will ask each of you to keep your spoken remarks to 5
    minutes in order to allow time for members' questions.
        Now I recognize Ms. Kenney for her opening statement.

                       STATEMENT OF CHELSA KENNEY

        Ms. Kenney. Chairwoman Salazar, Ranking Member Castro, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    discuss our findings and recommendations related to the Bureau
    of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.
        INL contributes to some of the U.S. Government's top
    security priorities. These include combatting the flow of
    illicit narcotics into the U.S., promoting Rule of Law around
    the world, and combatting transnational crime. We have reviewed
    many of INL's programs in recent years and identified successes
    as well as opportunities for improvement in at least 15
    reports, many at the request of this committee.
        Since 2020, we have made 16 recommendations to improve the
    effectiveness of INL programs. I will highlight three key areas
    of improvement related to performance management, program
    monitoring, and program evaluation.
        First, we have made five recommendations to improve how INL
    is managing the performance of its projects. Of these, INL has
    implemented one recommendation on combatting firearms
    trafficking in Mexico, but four related to firearms trafficking
    in the Caribbean and on assistance to Mexico more broadly
    remain unaddressed. Performance management is meant to ensure
    that the U.S. Government is spending taxpayer dollars
    effectively and achieving U.S. goals.
        For example, since 2008, the U.S. has provided over $3
    billion in assistance to Mexico to address crime and violence
    and enhance the country's Rule of Law. However, in 2023, we
    reported that INL could not demonstrate that it was achieving
    its goals because of gaps in its approach to performance
    management.
        Specifically, we found that INL had established goals and
    objectives but had not identified which of its projects were
    key to achieving them. So, for example, under the goal of
    preventing transborder crime, INL had established a joint
    objective with Mexico to disrupt and dismantle narcotics
    production; however, while INL implemented and collected data
    on individual projects, it had not linked which of these
    projects were helping to meet this goal.
        We recommended that INL strengthen its performance
    management approach to determine whether it was achieving its
    goals in Mexico. Considering the importance of the U.S.-Mexico
    relationship and the level of U.S. investment, we have
    identified this to be a priority recommendation for the agency.
        Second, we have made six recommendations to improve INL's
    program monitoring. Of these, INL has implemented three, but
    three related to its wildlife trafficking programs remain
    unaddressed. Consistent program monitoring helps assess
    progress and identify problems that might prevent the Bureau
    from reaching its goals. Wildlife trafficking is a crime that
    fuels corruption and destabilizes communities.
        In recent years, media reports have alleged that park
    rangers trained by U.S.-funded entities had committed human
    rights abuses, including sexual assault and murder. Since 2020,
    State has taken steps to enhance safeguards to prevent these
    abuses; however, we found that INL had not conducted consistent
    program monitoring to ensure that these U.S.-funded entities
    reported on the implementation or effectiveness of these
    safeguards. We also found an alleged incident of sexual abuse
    by a ranger that INL was unaware of.
        INL agreed with our recommendations, including that it
    clarify reporting requirements for human rights abuses.
        Third, we have made two recommendations to INL to conduct
    program evaluations or studies that would determine how well a
    program is working. For example, in 2024 we reported that,
    despite years of support for activities to strengthen the
    security situation in Haiti, including specific efforts to
    improve the capacity of Haiti's national police, INL had no
    formal plans to evaluate the effectiveness of its activities.
    We recommended that INL conduct such an evaluation, and the
    Bureau agreed.
        INL plays a critical role in achieving U.S. security
    priorities, such as combatting transnational crime and
    supporting Rule of Law worldwide. INL's effectiveness depend on
    robust performance management, program monitoring, and program
    evaluation. While INL has made some progress, important gaps
    remain.
        We urge INL to fully implement our recommendations to help
    ensure that it is spending taxpayer dollars effectively and
    achieving U.S. goals.
        Thank you, and I would be pleased to respond to your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Kenney follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Ms. Kenney.
        Now I recognize Mr. Martinez-Fernandez for his opening
    statement.

                 STATEMENT OF ANDRES MARTINEZ-FERNANDEZ

        Mr. Martinez-Fernandez. Thank you, Chairwoman Salazar,
    Ranking Member Castro, and members for holding this hearing and
    inviting me to participate.
        The Western Hemisphere is experiencing a period of surging
    instability, violence, and criminality, largely driven by
    increasingly powerful criminal organizations. From Haiti's
    collapse at the hands of gangs, newfound narcoviolence in a
    once peaceful Ecuador, increasingly deadly drug cartels in
    Mexico and Colombia, and more, we are constantly confronted by
    evidence of a failed status quo for security in our hemisphere.
        These threats do not stay in Latin America. Instead, they
    drive increasingly deadly and destabilizing consequences to the
    United States and directly to the American people. The absence
    of robust and effective security engagement from the United
    States in Latin America is a key driver of the current State of
    affairs.
        Indeed, the collapse of the hemispheric consensus on
    counternarcotics is due in no small part to decisions on the
    part of Washington to blunt and curb security cooperation in
    the Americas away from the core support from regional security
    forces. This trend is driven, in part, by Washington's focus on
    other foreign conflicts, as well as a series of challenges that
    we continue to focus on in other parts of the world.
        However, the impact and inattention that this has brought
    has exacerbate--been exasperated by mission drift and the
    watering down of critical institutions like the State
    Department's International Narcotics and Law Enforce Bureau.
    Additionally, hemispheric security and stability has suffered
    from the Biden administration's politicization of U.S. security
    engagement and tools in Latin America.
        The so-called expert consensus on Latin America security
    policy has shifted dramatically over the past few decades
    prompting detrimental changes in the nature and magnitude of
    U.S. security cooperation. Vocal leaders and activists have
    successfully framed organized crime in Latin America as
    primarily being an issue of economic development and judicial
    institutions, deemphasizing in particular the role of
    enforcement and security forces.
        Today, at the core of this new conventional wisdom in many
    circles in Washington and in the region, is the increasingly--
    is increasingly the poorly substantiated claim that confronting
    Latin America's powerful criminal organizations only serve to
    exasperate--exacerbate insecurity and criminality.
        One of the key events that provided support for this view
    was the spike in violence in Mexico during the late 2000's
    following President Felipe Calderon's efforts to crack down on
    the cartels. However, notably, today after over a decade during
    which the Mexican government has pulled back from confronting
    the cartels, Mexico's homicide rates now exceed the worst years
    of violence during the Calderon administration. Add to that the
    over 100,000 overdose deaths in the United States due to
    fentanyl and other deadly drugs.
        Indeed, Mexico's disastrous hugs, not bullets strategy on
    the cartels showcases the dire consequences of deemphasizing
    enforcement and security forces in our security policies in the
    Western Hemisphere. When President Andres Manuel Lopez
    Obrador--apology.
        With Mexico, the Merida Initiative drifted away from its
    initial focus of providing training, equipment, and operational
    support to Mexican security forces and, instead, shifted
    support to--instead, U.S. support shifted for reform of the
    Mexican judicial system increasingly.
        Then, when President Lopez Obrador fully abandoned the
    Merida Initiative, the new security cooperation framework
    further de-emphasized security forces and the role of
    enforcement as a core aspect of security policy.
        In both Mexico, Colombia, and elsewhere, the United States
    failed to push back on regional leaders' abandonment of
    security cooperation and commitments. This was particularly
    egregious under the Biden administration where we saw the
    increase of deaths of American people reaching 100,000 each
    year due to fentanyl and other drugs; and yet, we did not
    adequately push the administration in Mexico to address the
    security threat posed by the cartels.
        Even worse, at times the Biden administration leaned into
    its wrongheaded approach within the region to--apologies--
    leaned into this wrongheaded approach on organized crime by
    regional leaders. In the case of Colombia, President Biden
    actively drew attention away from Colombia's deteriorating
    security situation by ending the long-standing program of U.S.
    monitoring of coca cultivation.
        To confront the dire threats posed by organized crime in
    our hemisphere, U.S. security assistance through INL and other
    critical agencies should be bolstered and refocused on the core
    mission of counternarcotics and transnational organized crime.
    Failure to do so urgently will bring increasingly deadly
    consequences for Latin America and for the American people.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez-Fernandez follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Martinez-Fernandez.
        I now recognize Mr. Isacson for his opening statement.

                       STATEMENT OF ADAM ISACSON

        Mr. Isacson. Chairwoman Salazar, Ranking Member Castro,
    thank you so much for holding this hearing and for inviting me.
        The State Department's Bureau of INL manages the largest
    U.S. aid account for security forces in Latin America and the
    Caribbean, though it pays for other things, too. Worldwide, it
    is about a billion and a half dollars. In our hemisphere, it is
    at least $600 million.
        Now, for years, INL was jokingly known as the drugs and
    thugs bureau. Its success was measured in hectares eradicated
    and kilos seized and kingpins arrested. That narrow focus
    reflects its 1980's-era statute, and it hasn't really worked.
    You don't have to take my word for it. Just look at overdose
    deaths, look at street prices.
        Meanwhile, our understanding of organized crime and how to
    combat it has evolved. Yes, drugs are still a top revenue
    stream for criminal groups, but crime groups also make billions
    from gold mining, migrant smuggling, extortion, and more;
    sometimes at even bigger profits than they are getting from
    drugs. The drug market itself has shifted toward synthetics,
    like fentanyl and meth, which don't involve most of Latin
    America outside Mexico. And mass migration has made the
    question urgent. How can we help people feel safe enough to
    stay in their own communities?
        This reframes success. It is no longer just kilos and
    hectares. It is whether people feel secure, it is whether
    justice works, it is whether officials fear punishment for
    corruption. To its credit, INL has shifted. It no longer tries
    to fight crime the way you would fight a guerilla insurgency.
    While guerillas fight governments, organized crime infiltrates
    them and hollows them out by bribing, threatening, co-opting,
    and corrupting. That makes it a much harder, much more complex
    fight.
        Now, in response, INL has begun putting more emphasis on
    the L, Rule of Law and civilian law enforcement, rather than
    just the N. Funding has increasingly gone to prosecutors,
    judicial institutions, police academies, oversight bodies, and
    independent experts and investigators, a whole comprehensive
    security sector, a table with many legs, and not just the
    people wearing uniforms.
        There is a growing realization that real progress is going
    to take time, and it depends on breaking collusion between
    government and crime. That is why efforts like the Commission
    Against Impunity in Guatemala, the CICIG, mattered so much.
    Brave people made historic anti-corruption gains, and INL was
    there to support them.
        Ironically, de-narcotizing INL's mission may be the best
    way to reduce drug supplies in the long-term. But that shift
    also means we need to rethink some obsolete frameworks, like
    the annual drug certification process. As the 2020 Western
    Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission noted, it is a relic. It
    hasn't been used to seriously cut aid since the 1990's, and
    even then a Republican majority Congress and a Democratic White
    House scrambled in the late 1990's to restore it when security
    began deteriorating in Colombia.
        So, yes, INL needs reform. WOLA supports a serious rethink
    to bring the Bureau and its statutes into the mid-21st century.
    What we don't support is a rushed 90-day review full of abrupt
    freezes and cuts with no input from partners around the world,
    many of whom have been risking their lives to fight corruption
    and crime and really depend on the relationship with us.
        The little we have seen of the proposed cuts so far is
    worrying. Aid to police and military agencies looks mostly
    untouched, but support to civil society, justice institutions,
    U.N. programs, that looks like it is cut by about half. The
    risks turning--that risk is turning INL back into what it once
    was, a little drugs and thugs bureau, and we know where that
    leads; brief dips in violence or drug supplies followed by
    resurgence.
        It is just a constant game of whack-a-mole. Organized crime
    figures get taken down, but organized crime remains strong.
    Corrupt officials keep operating with impunity. People keep
    fleeing their homes, often coming here.
        I am not asking to preserve the status quo. Frankly, I
    can't defend much of it because I can't see it. Public
    reporting on INL aid has become vague, inconsistent, and far
    less quantitative. It is hard to track where the money goes and
    what it achieves. And reporting requirements, if we do
    reauthorize INL, have to improve. Right now, oversight is
    difficult, and it makes the whole program hard to defend when
    an administration comes to power questioning its entire value.
        This committee can help. First, it can urge INL to keep
    expanding its focus on organized crime, corruption, and citizen
    security, not just counternarcotics.
        Second, it can press for much better transparency.
        Third, it can insist that any reform effort be thoughtful,
    inclusive, and deliberate, not a 90-day rollback. There is lots
    of space for bipartisan agreement here, I think.
        I look forward to exploring that here and any other time
    that you would like in the future. Thank you again for
    organizing this discussion.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Isacson follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Isacson. Now--for your
    testimony, I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
        I am delighted to hear, Mr. Isacson, that you believe
    certain quotes here, that INL needs to be modernized and needs
    to be reformed, and that maybe they are just following some of
    the precepts of the 1980's. But, specifically, I agree that
    they are not--that they need to be reorganized, and there needs
    to be some revamped, but let's go to the last 4 years.
        Do you really believe that talking to the Guatemalans and
    to the Salvadorians about gender ideology or the pronouns or
    how you can--there are many genders--do you really think that
    talking to them was going to make the United States and
    themselves safer? I mean, you are going to keep people home? So
    explain how one thing comes linked to the other.
        Mr. Isacson. I would like to know what percentage of the
    program actually was about gender and identity and things like
    that. If it is--we don't have that data.
        Ms. Salazar. Focused, main focus. The Guatemalans were
    complaining.
        Mr. Isacson. In terms of dollar amounts?
        Ms. Salazar. Of course. And in terms of political
    willingness and desire to infiltrate these forces with our
    ideology, the American Biden administration ideology. Don't you
    think that it was--we did a disservice to them and to us?
        Mr. Isacson. If you are fighting human trafficking where
    most victims are women----
        Ms. Salazar. Yes.
        Mr. Isacson [continuing]. you need to ignore the gender----
        Ms. Salazar. How can you be talking about sex, when you are
    trying to find human trafficking?
        Mr. Isacson. If you are fighting gender violence, that is
    true.
        Ms. Salazar. How do you do that?
        Mr. Isacson. I just need to know, you know, how much of the
    programming really did go in that direction instead of--like
    Joint Task Force Alpha in Guatemala----
        Ms. Salazar. Ask the Guatemalans.
        Mr. Isacson [continuing]. which was fighting human
    smugglers----
        Ms. Salazar. The Guatemalans--perfect example. They hated a
    lady by the name of Consuelo Porras. Do I know her? No, I
    don't. But I know that she is the AG of the country. So why
    don't we work with her? Oh, because she is too conservative.
    Who are we to say that--to the Guatemalans. Why?
        Mr. Isacson. I don't know if Consuelo Porras is hated----
        Ms. Salazar. Everything I am saying is quoted. Consuelo
    Porras is detested.
        Mr. Isacson. Oh, I think she is detested, yes.
        Ms. Salazar. It was--OK. But who are we, the Americans, to
    come and say, oh, Consuelo is not the person that you need to
    work with? She is the AG.
        Mr. Isacson. I have never heard that she was held at arm's
    length because of--because she favored free markets or like,
    you know----
        Ms. Salazar. She was too conservative.
        Mr. Isacson [continuing]. because she was too conservative.
    It was because of----
        Ms. Salazar. She was too conservative.
        Mr. Isacson [continuing]. significant corruption, according
    to what I saw.
        Ms. Salazar. You know what I am telling you. So please help
    me understand why the Biden administration wanted to
    concentrate its resources when it talks to reforming and
    securing the Salvadorian-Guatemalan police, concentrated on
    something that had nothing to do with national security for the
    United States.
        Mr. Isacson. My impression was that INL and the justice
    department worked very hard with--not with Consuelo, but with
    the rest of the public ministry in Guatemala on something
    called Joint Task Force Alpha, which was a big effort to get at
    the nodes of the network of migrant smuggling. And they have
    actually taken out a lot of migrant smugglers working with the
    attorney general's office in Guatemala in the last few years.
    And the Trump administration is expanding that.
        Ms. Salazar. INL, did you know this, would give money to
    the NGO's in Guatemala to help the migrants go have a smoother
    ride while they were going to Guatemala and getting to Mexico?
        Mr. Isacson. I think that would have been illegal in
    Guatemala where they actually arrest and deport more than
    20,000, 30,000 migrants a year back into Honduras.
        Ms. Salazar. Nine million went through it.
        Mr. Isacson. Yes. A lot do get through, yes.
        Ms. Salazar. All right. Let's go to El Salvador. Bukele,
    what do you think--what ranking do you give to Bukele from one
    to ten?
        Mr. Isacson. I would give him--I would give him a four,
    perhaps. I think he is a brilliant communicator, but I do worry
    about checks and balances.
        Ms. Salazar. Forget about the communicator. What has he
    done with the country?
        Mr. Isacson. He has put 3 percent of the male population in
    prison, which, yes, by doing so did eradicate for now a lot of
    the gangs.--feature of democracy.
        Ms. Salazar. And you and I agree that if there is one
    innocent guy in the CECOT, I was the first one who told him you
    got to get him out because we don't want innocent people in
    jail. But the thing is that, you know, CECOT, the people who
    are full of tattoos that are revealing who they were and what
    they did, you know, each drop meant one murder. So you think he
    did something right?
        Mr. Isacson. If these people were facing judges and if
    their families knew what was going on with them, it would be
    right. But right now, almost everybody there is pretrial, and
    there is not even dates for most of their trials. So, yes, they
    need a fair shake. I mean, it was right to clean out the
    streets.
        Ms. Salazar. I agree with you, that everyone needs due
    process, yes, sir.
        Mr. Isacson. That is just not happening right now.
        Ms. Salazar. All right. But what about us working with him?
    Maybe if INL would have done its job, then Bukele would have
    been able to really help--we would help him to do a better job,
    don't you think?
        Mr. Isacson. I----
        Ms. Salazar. Talking about diversity and inclusion and
    pronouns.
        Mr. Isacson. I think one of INL's biggest obstacles
    actually there is--and I actually support it--is language that
    both Republicans and Democrats put in the foreign aid bill
    saying that half of aid--I believe it is half--to El Salvador
    is cut until they can certify that the human rights situation
    is good and is improving.
        Right now more than 300 people dying in the jails in the
    last 3 years and widespread allegations of torture, it has been
    hard to certify that.
        Ms. Salazar. What happens to the human rights of the people
    who were outside being killed by those gang members, which is
    why he got 90 percent of transparency----
        Mr. Isacson. Oh, yes.
        Ms. Salazar [continuing]. internationally observed
    elections; we agree with that, right?
        Mr. Isacson. Oh, yes. If I was a shopkeeper being
    extorted----
        Ms. Salazar. Why do we have to hate him? Who are we to say
    to this guy, don't do it that way?
        Mr. Isacson. I think we are just worried about what it is
    going to look like in 5 years. But, yes, right now if I am a
    shopkeeper who had to pay----
        Ms. Salazar. That is--don't you think that they should be
    concerned about what they are going to be looking like 5 years
    from now? That is their concern, not ours. We are here to help
    them have a better police force.
        All right. You agree with that, right?
        Mr. Isacson. We are certainly here to help them have a
    better police force, but we don't want to be funding abuses in
    the short-term.
        Ms. Salazar. I think that I am exceeding my time. I yield
    back.
        Now I am going to recognize the ranking member for 5
    minutes. Thank you.
        Mr. Isacson. Thank you.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairwoman. I want to take up this
    issue really quickly because, you know, we disagree, Maria, on
    this. I don't think there has ever been a bias of the United
    States in--against conservative leaders and in favor of leftist
    leaders.
        In fact, when you look at the history of the U.S.
    involvement in Latin America, Latin America has often--I mean,
    the United States, unfortunately, in decades past worked to
    undermine the leadership of leaders on the left and treated
    leaders on the right as friends; and, in fact, supported what
    were some of the most brutal dictatorships, like the Pinochet
    ruling in Chile.
        When we think about how we--how we provide U.S. assistance,
    how we provide taxpayer money, the way we should be thinking
    about it is, who is operating consistent with U.S. values and
    what we stand for? So democracy, freedom, respect for human
    rights.
        Really, regardless of where you are in the political
    spectrum, whether you are on the left or the right as a leader,
    we ought to support leaders who are pursuing those things.
        Consuelo Porras, as I understand, had been sanctioned for
    severe corruption. That is why we are not working with her, not
    because she has got a certain ideology. And Bukele also, I
    think it is true--I mean, he has gotten a lot of crime off the
    streets and has scared a lot of people, especially young men,
    but so has Xi Jinping in China.
        So, you know, if the question is, well, why don't we just
    let people do what they are going to do, OK, I get that. But
    the question for us is, are we going to back them up with money
    to commit human rights abuses and other things that we would
    never allow for in the United States ourselves?
        Now, bear in mind, in the last few weeks we have seen some
    disturbing instances of people literally being picked off the
    street for having exercised their First Amendment rights by
    government agents who don't identify themselves, who aren't
    dressed in uniform, and who barely present credentials, if at
    all. Those are the kinds of activities that you are used to
    seeing in countries that violate people's rights.
        So just with that disagreement, let me get into a question
    really quick.
        Ms. Kenney, as you know, the administration is conducting
    multiple reviews of foreign assistance programs. And I believe
    those programs have been incredibly disruptive and that the
    review has not been done in good faith.
        In 2019, the first Trump administration did something
    similar on a smaller scale. They unilaterally froze $400
    million in foreign assistance funding in Central America for
    over 14 months. At the time I, along with other colleagues,
    requested the GAO assess the impacts of that freeze. The GAO
    determined that many programs, including State Department INL
    Bureau programs, had been adversely affected.
        Based on your experience with the 2019 freeze, do you
    expect adverse effects from the ongoing freeze on many INL
    programs?
        Ms. Kenney. Thank you for that question. Yes. Where we
    reviewed the freeze in 2019, we found that there were a number
    of adverse effects.
        To the State Department, we found that about 65 or 39
    percent of INL programs actually suffered adverse effects where
    they had to reduce the geographical region in which they were
    implementing programs, they had to reduce the number of
    beneficiaries who could participate in trainings, they had to
    reduce the quality of programs. And programs that relied on
    implementing partners suffered even more consequences because
    they had to lay people off, and they were unable to pick up
    those programs when the funding resumed.
        However, that funding was really just a freeze of 1-year
    funding. In a lot of ways those programs were able to continue
    because the funding that was still available in the pipeline
    from prior year's funding.
        We haven't had an opportunity to review the funding freeze
    that is occurring right now, but my understanding is that those
    programs aren't able to access prior year funding either, and
    so my understanding is that they are not continuing at all. We
    haven't had--I am sorry.
        Mr. Castro. Sure. Thank you for that. And let me ask a
    followup really quick.
        Will the GAO be willing to conduct a review of the ongoing
    freeze and cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars in
    foreign assistance programs?
        Ms. Kenney. Yes, we would be happy to do that work.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you so much.
        With that, I yield back, Chairwoman.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Ranking Member Castro.
        I now give the opportunity to Representative Lawler from
    the State of New York.
        Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Chairwoman. It is common practice
    for transnational criminal organizations in South and Central
    America to source precursor chemicals from China and synthesize
    illicit substances like fentanyl. These criminal organizations
    then traffic them into the United States where they have
    infiltrated far too many communities and led to unimaginable
    tragedies for a lot of families across our Nation. 70,000
    Americans are dying on an annual basis from fentanyl overdose.
        Mr. Martinez-Fernandez, how do you assess INL's role in
    stopping the influx of deadly fentanyl into the United States?
        Mr. Martinez-Fernandez. Well, clearly, INL and the U.S.
    Government is not adequately acting either on resources or
    focus to stop the flow of fentanyl. As you mentioned, over
    70,000 just--overdose deaths just from fentanyl; when you add
    in all the other illicit drugs, 100,000. And I think there is a
    very real resource question that has to be addressed.
        There is also a partnership and cooperation side to that
    where our relationship with Mexico, particularly over the past
    4 years under the Biden administration, the cooperation,
    security cooperation was almost nonexistent. Even offers to
    support port security to identify fentanyl precursors coming in
    were rejected by the Mexican government.
        The challenges of migration, which grew out of control
    under the Biden administration as well, led to a de-
    prioritization, in my opinion, of the fentanyl threat with dire
    consequences.
        Now, President Trump has, obviously, rallied significant
    resources, particularly from the Department of Defense, to the
    border. I think that is an important aspect of the--confronting
    this threat, but we also need to press the Mexican government
    to take action.
        There is also--certainly, the administration is making
    progress on that front and bringing to bear some economic
    tools. I think INL is going to play an important role because
    at some point we need to restore the security relationship with
    Mexico to a functional arrangement with actually targeting the
    cartels rather than just having symbolic actions by the Mexican
    government be the sum total of the relationship, which is
    essentially what we have seen for the past 4 years.
        Mr. Lawler. So what can INL do to address China's role
    related to the precursor chemicals that are exported into
    Mexico and other parts of the Western Hemisphere?
        Mr. Martinez-Fernandez. So I think certainly with the
    Chinese presence in Mexico is also significant. So there is
    action to go after some of the brokers, as well as some of the
    trade infrastructure, which is utilized by the Chinese in
    Mexico to facilitate the--the flow of illicit precursors.
        I think more action also needs to be done in Asia on this
    front. We have seen movement of illicit fentanyl supply chains
    even out of China. Unfortunately, we don't have a cooperative
    relationship on this issue with the government in China. So
    there are significant limitations on INL's ability to act
    there.
        But I think ensuring that, in Mexico in particular, we are
    confronting the presence of Chinese criminal organizations, as
    well as further south, we have already seen countries like
    Guatemala the movement of these illicit supply chains of
    fentanyl to new countries, and we need to make sure that we are
    reinforcing border security, port security, and those security
    relationships to make sure that it doesn't just migrate to
    another country.
        Mr. Lawler. What--in what way is the INL working with other
    entities within the U.S. Government, like the DEA, on this
    particular issue, and how can they improve upon that to really
    crack down on this?
        Obviously, we have a demand issue in this country that is
    part of the problem of the deadly flow of fentanyl.
        Mr. Martinez-Fernandez. Yes. So I think there is some
    important cooperation with other agencies, particularly the
    Department of Homeland Security, on the issue of border
    security within the region and ensuring that regional partners
    can have those capacities to ensure that those flows don't move
    through their country without their ability to intercept them.
        And on the U.S. side and the side that you referred to, I
    think there--as I understand it, there is some conversations
    happening here in Congress about potential changes as far as
    consequences, judicial consequences in the United States
    where--that are going to align, I think, the reality of the
    threats and the deadliness of this drug with the consequences
    that people face.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Representative Lawler.
        Now I give the word to Representative Stanton of the State
    of Arizona. You have five--been recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        The fentanyl crisis is especially acute in my home State of
    Arizona where thousands of Arizonans die from opioid overdose
    every single year. I know my colleagues and I across the aisle
    agree, we need to do more to stop the flow of fentanyl and
    other deadly narcotics into the United States of America.
        That is why I am at a loss to understand why the Trump
    administration has moved to cut funding for the State
    Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
    Enforcement Affairs' work in Mexico. Drastic cuts. INL works
    across law enforcement agencies, intergovernmental agencies,
    and with the courts in our partner countries to disrupt the
    illicit drug trafficking and bring criminals to justice.
        Under previous administrations and with funding approved in
    a bipartisan manner, Mexico has been the third largest
    recipient of INL funds. INL supports more than a hundred
    projects working to combat fentanyl trafficking and
    transnational crime by providing services, training, and much-
    needed equipment.
        One project that has benefited from the INL has deployed
    cargo scanners and drug testing equipment to Mexico's Port of
    Manzanillo, critical technology to detect and interdict
    precursor chemicals from the People's Republic of China.
        Another INL project supported a recent operation in Tucson,
    Arizona, that led to the arrests of drug trafficking leader and
    six other operatives, a good return on taxpayer investment.
        Since the Trump administration's freeze on foreign aid,
    only 15 percent of INL's programs in Mexico have received
    waivers to resume their work, and many of those have not yet
    received payment. As former Ambassador marine helicopter pilot
    John Feeley phrased it recently, quote, ``They shot the golden
    goose right in the leg,'' unquote.
        Make no mistake about it, the Trump administration is
    hamstringing our response to fentanyl in the region, and while
    the--while using this crisis as a justification to raise taxes
    on working families through the misguided across-the-board
    tariffs on Mexico.
        Mr. Isacson, how does this massive cut to INL program
    hamper our ability to stem the flow of fentanyl into the United
    States?
        Mr. Isacson. It definitely deals a blow to our efforts
    against fentanyl. This is the hardest drug challenge we have
    ever faced. All pure fentanyl that is consumed in the United
    States in a year can fit in the beds of two or three pickup
    trucks spread out across a 2,000-mile border, unfortunately,
    about two-thirds of it coming right to your State right now.
        In order to fight this, it is not just a matter of scanners
    at the border. You need cooperation from Mexico on everything
    you named, investigators, prosecutors, ports, intelligence, all
    capital letters, and you cut that off in 90 days and then maybe
    restart it? You have to restart everything all over again. It
    is incredibly disruptive.
        Mr. Stanton. I appreciate that. Now, I have--in my time in
    public life both here in Congress and formerly as mayor of
    Phoenix, Arizona, I have been a friend to Mexico, making the
    case that we need to have a stronger economic unit between
    United States, Mexico, Canada, and that is how we are going to
    win this economic battle with China.
        As a result, I have been a critic of the recent judicial
    reforms in Mexico, which I think is a step backward in terms of
    promoting U.S. investment in Mexico. INL has helped to train
    Mexican institutions to build and present strong legal cases
    against organized crime. Mexico's forensic labs and prisons are
    accredited to reach higher standards for forensic testing due
    to INL support. U.S. officials help to train police
    investigators in Mexico City, reducing violent crime in Mexico
    City by 58 percent, in partnership with now President
    Sheinbaum. And INL's support helped Mexico law schools update
    their curriculums to include Mexico's criminal law reform.
        These offices that train police and prosecutors and relied
    on INL funds are now cut drastically by the dismantling of
    foreign assistance.
        So another question for Mr. Isacson. You hosted a podcast
    last October about Mexico's constitutional reforms where you
    open by saying, quote, ``There promise to be serious setbacks
    in the struggle to hold powerful people and institutions
    accountable for corruption.''
        How do Mexico's constitutional changes, including
    reorganization of National Guard and judicial reforms concern
    you? Maybe you could go on a little bit--for those who haven't
    listened to your podcast, go on a little bit more about the
    threat of the constitutional reforms.
        Mr. Isacson. Sure. And I hope you call in my colleague who
    runs our Mexico program, Stephanie Brewer, who really knows
    this stuff.
        But Mexico, they just changed their judiciary so that
    judges are now popularly elected, like people are going to come
    and vote for a long list of judges. A justice system,
    especially when they are working on these very complicated,
    very dangerous cases against these networks of corruption and
    powerful people who are ready to kill them need to be free of
    political pressures and need to be--need to be autonomous. And
    this just dealt a strong blow to that.
        As well, substituting police and detectives and people who
    are in the community with National Guard troops who rotate in
    and out, that also makes it harder to actually--you can find
    crimes when they are happening, but you can't really get to the
    root of who is behind them.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. Madam chair, I yield
    back.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you. I now recognize Representative
    Shreve of the State of Arizona.
        Mr. Shreve. Representative Shreve, Madam Chairwoman, is
    from the State of Indiana and is happy to be here.
        Ms. Salazar. State of Indiana. I am sorry. Indiana is one
    of----
        Mr. Shreve. Madam Chair, we agree. I thank the witnesses
    for being here.
        I have a question that, in fairness, I will address to Ms.
    Kenney because I wasn't in the room to hear the testimony from
    our other witnesses, but I appreciate all of you sharing time
    and expertise with us.
        Of course, INL defines its core mission as keeping America
    safe by countering crime, illegal drugs, and instability
    abroad. We recognize America is vulnerable to external threats,
    certainly including narcotics. We recognize that on both sides
    of the aisle.
        In my view, the Trump administration is demonstrably making
    headway in securing our border and curbing some of the
    trafficking that was making its way up I-65 and across I-70 in
    Indiana, particularly on the fentanyl trafficking, we are
    seeing headway palpably within the district that I represent.
        The most pressing drug-related threats in my part of the
    country would stem from the trafficking efforts of the Sinaloa
    cartel and the Jalisco cartel. These organizations, I am
    informed in part by some of the county sheriffs that I
    represent, dominate the wholesale supply of illicit opioids,
    particularly fentanyl and heroin in through my district.
        The crisis is personal to me. I have friends and
    constituents who have lost loved ones to fentanyl poisoning,
    and this must continue to be a part--bipartisan priority. And
    Mr. Stanton had to step out, but I do think this is a
    bipartisan priority.
        Since 2008, INL has overseen some 3 billion in funding for
    security counternarcotics and Rule of Law programs in Mexico.
    And, Mr. Isacson, you talked about the abrupt curtailing of
    some of that.
        There were a few GAO reports of late highlighting gaps in
    INL's metrics in monitoring, raising concerns about the
    effectiveness of these programs. Certainly, the administration
    is attuned to those.
        The GAO report concluded, without fully addressing the key
    elements for assessing progress, the U.S. Government cannot be
    assured that it is achieving its security goals in Mexico and
    that its investments at over 3 billion since 2008 are being
    spent effectively.
        So I will direct my question to the witness that I heard
    from in her testimony, though invite anyone else that may have
    expertise to respond. Ms. Kenney, what lessons should INL pull
    from, take away from the GAO evaluation of its programs in
    Mexico that can be used to inform our future initiatives, our
    future investment in this cause?
        Ms. Kenney. Thank you for this question. We reviewed the
    effectiveness, the results of the Merida Initiative and the
    Bicentennial Framework. We did our work sort of at a time
    period that straddled both of these strategies. And we looked
    to see what were the results of the $3 billion plus investment
    that the U.S. had made in Mexico.
        What we found is that there were key elements of INL's
    performance management approach, if you will, that limited our
    ability to really evaluate its effectiveness. So in these
    strategies, both Merida and the Framework, the Bicentennial
    Framework, we found that they had established those top-level
    goals and objectives and that they had a number of individual
    projects and activities that address things like
    counternarcotics flows, fentanyl flows, and they are tracking
    data on the implementation of all of these activities.
        They had not identified which of these activities were
    critical, which were the ones that were really critical to
    being able to assess the effectiveness of these top-line goals.
    They just hadn't identified the indicators and then monitored
    to align them to be able to say this suite of activities is
    going to demonstrate our progress in achieving this goal.
        When we talked to the State Department about what were the
    challenges in being able to complete this--because this went
    back to the Merida Initiative which started in 2008--they said
    that they--that the U.S. Government was working with the
    Mexican government to come up with some shared set of
    indicators. These strategies are designed to be sort of shared
    approaches, both for the U.S. and Mexican government to be able
    to address these shared issues, shared challenges.
        And that there were some challenges in being able to
    develop a common set of indicators. And some of the
    complicating factors were at the time, you know, new
    administrations both in Mexico and the United States. However,
    we would point out that, given the level of investment and
    given the continuity of these challenges, it is really
    important that the State Department figure out what these
    indicators are, figure out what these suite of activities
    should be to be able to support those top-line goals and be
    able to measure and share the effectiveness of those efforts
    going forward.
        So that is really our recommendation. Our recommendation
    should be identified as a priority recommendation for the State
    Department. Of all of the recommendations that we make, we
    believe this is one of the most critical ones to be able to
    really make progress on the individual activities and efforts
    to be able to address this critical issue between U.S. and
    Mexico.
        Mr. Shreve. Ms. Kenney, I appreciate it very much. My time
    has expired. Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Representative Shreve, of the State
    of Indiana. Appreciate your time with us.
        Now I am going to recognize Representative Jackson of the
    State of Illinois for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Representative Salazar. Thank you,
    Ranking Member.
        Colombia is a regional leader in coordinating the
    multinational operation Campaign Orion, a Naval campaign
    focused on dismantling the transnational network of drug
    trafficking and related crimes.
        During the 13th Edition of the Orion Naval Campaign last
    year, operations in which 125 institutions and 62 countries
    from Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, and for the first time
    Oceana-participating forces seized more than 400 tons of drugs
    thanks to the exchange of intelligence and the culmination of
    capabilities to counter the illicit trafficking of drugs and
    other illegal activities linked to narcotrafficking.
        I must say that was a very diverse network. It had a high
    level of intelligence being interchanged, and they had shared
    interests. They had equity amongst all participants. DEI does
    work. I don't know where we get off on this tangent that makes
    no sense to me on diversity is bad. Diversity and equity is in
    quite a few constitutions around the world. We are going
    through a temporary period of some insanity to act as if E
    Pluribus Unum, out of many we are one, in the Americas.
        I would like to let it be for the record that two-thirds of
    our hemisphere and population is not in the United States, and
    we are one contiguous land mass.
        The operations reach record figures in narcotics seized,
    reducing the supply worldwide and dealing significant blows to
    the finances of multicrime organizations, preventing them from
    receiving more than $18.7 billion, according to the Colombian
    military forces. Authorities seized a total of 402 tons of
    solid chemical precursors and 1.6 million liters of liquid
    chemical precursors and destroyed 302 illegal infrastructures
    used for the extraction and processing of drugs.
        The Colombian navy reported 112 boats seized and 211
    vehicles and on and on. Since this program started about 7
    years ago, with only narco trafficking the Orion 12 have
    included other crimes that are present in the maritime land
    domain as well, such as arms and migrant smuggling,
    trafficking, money laundering and the like.
        The 13 addition of the Orion Naval Campaigns have
    consolidated it as the most important and influential
    international cooperation strategy in the global fight against
    narco trafficking. And it has also managed to transcend in time
    thanks to innovation and rapid adaptation to respond to this
    highly complex and changing phenomenon.
        Once again I want to thank each of you for coming. And this
    question will go to you, Mr. Isacson. Thank you for your
    outstanding service as well. Was is the impact of aid cuts in
    this program such as Orion Naval Campaigns.
        Mr. Isacson. Well, the main impact has been that the
    Colombian national police and it is part of the effort to
    interdict cocaine has had some real disruptions, even many of
    their Black Hawk helicopters were grounded for a while because
    they didn't have money for maintenance or fuel. Trainings have
    been disrupted and the intelligence that you need in order to
    maintain this level of interdictions has been disrupted.
        I don't know for how long because I just don't have the
    information for how long it has been cutoff and whether
    decisions have been made to give waivers. And if so, is that
    going to be mean a few blank months this year where the level
    of interdiction dips which has been at record levels or whether
    they are going to be able to recover that. But we will find out
    soon.
        Mr. Jackson. Do you think that the money that might have
    been saved theoretically will come back to be a penny saved and
    a dollar foolish?
        Mr. Isacson. I think so, because it's just not good
    government practice to stop all of your programs for 90 days
    and then to selectively restart them. Your partners just don't
    work like that. And it may cost them months and months, if not
    a couple of years to really recover from that, even if they do
    get to keep the level of funding they had before.
        Mr. Jackson. Well, thanks so much.
        Are you saying the whiplash, the backlash, the frenetic,
    the hectic pace, the capitulation, this erratic behavior is bad
    for a long-term goal of reducing the drug trafficking in our
    region?
        Mr. Isacson. It was definitely good for the organized crime
    groups who wanted to evade the police and the navy and others
    in Colombia.
        Mr. Jackson. I yield back. I thank you so much.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Representative Jackson.
        I now am going to recognize Representative Titus of the
    State of Nevada for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you madam chairman, ranking member.
        Mr. Isacson, will you go over this for me just again very
    simply, what was the justification given by President Trump for
    levying tariffs against Mexico.
        Mr. Isacson. The main justification was that Mexico wasn't
    cooperating enough in stopping Fentanyl coming into the United
    States.
        Ms. Titus. And now the President has threatened a trade war
    with Mexico, has that compelled greater cooperation from their
    authorities on this issue?
        Mr. Isacson. I guess that Mexico thinks they can stop the
    tariffs then they will come up with some seizures and they will
    bomb some labs and things like that, but it won't help with
    things like complex investigations and intelligence, no.
        Ms. Titus. So it really hasn't moved----
        Mr. Isacson. No, if the tariffs happened, then what
    incentive does Mexico have once their economy is cratering to
    keep cooperating.
        Ms. Titus. That is part of the problem. Will they happen,
    will they not, from what products, how much, what percent, that
    sort of thing.
        Will, cuts to it the INL programs in Mexico help or hurt
    our ability to stem the flow of Fentanyl into the country.
        Mr. Isacson. Yes, we have seen this before, you can't just
    have better scanners at the border and hope--or bomb a few
    labs. It costs $60,000 to start a new Fentanyl lab. You need a
    lot of things that INL does, which is building intelligence,
    building core security programs, canine, courts. All this other
    stuff so that you can stop the whole network that is doing this
    rather than just trying to stop it at a scanner on the border.
    And if you disrupt INL programs, you are disrupting that very,
    very, very important ingredient in the fight.
        Ms. Titus. So it is working counter to what you claim is
    the purpose of tariffs and other dealings with Mexico.
        Mr. Isacson. Yes, threatening your partners, really taking
    away their incentive to cooperate, while freezing and
    restarting and halting and putting waivers and confusing the
    programs that you are running is obviously not going to be
    helpful. It is going to be helpful maybe to the people
    producing Fentanyl.
        Ms. Titus. So in the meantime, in addition to the tariffs,
    can you talk about the effect of the Trump administration's
    prioritizing arbitrary mass deportations over things like root
    causes of terrorism, transnational crime, drug trafficking,
    human trafficking, weapons trafficking, et cetera?
        Mr. Isacson. The Trump administration is trying to do mass
    deportation with the existing people they have, right? Like,
    5,500 ICE enforcement removal officers, which means where do
    they get the manpower? They are taking it from DEA, they are
    taking it from DOJ, everything, Bureau of Prisons. His,
    Homeland Security Investigations, these are the agencies that
    are supposed to be working on these drugs cases, as well as
    cases everything from child pornography to human trafficking.
    They are all be devoted to rounding up migrants now, often even
    migrants without criminal records. And it is a really, really
    disastrous diversion of our law enforcement resources.
        Ms. Titus. So could you sum that up by saying that it has
    made us less safe not more safe?
        Mr. Isacson. Put it this way, if you are a Fentanyl
    trafficker or a child pornographer or something like that, you
    are feeling less pressure from the Federal law enforcement
    since January 20th because of this diversion of resources.
        Ms. Titus. Because you know they are focused somewhere else
    and you can get away----
        Mr. Isacson. Yes, they are focusing on migrants. And if you
    are not in the migrant smuggling business, you have less to
    worry about.
        Ms. Titus. So if we are going to impose tariffs on Mexico,
    that is going to be attacks on families in my district. People
    in Nevada are going it pay more out-of-pocket. If you don't
    have money in your pocket, you can't go on holiday, people
    won't be coming to Las Vegas for a holiday. Certainly if you
    are from Canada or Mexico you are not going to be as likely to
    come as a tourist and that is our main source of tourism. And
    at the same time, what we are doing is undercutting our
    response to the flow of Fentanyl. Does that pretty much
    summarize the problem?
        Mr. Isacson. There is--the arguments against tariffs are
    pretty strong economically here at home. But also yes, I mean,
    if you are a Mexican government official who even one who
    really believes in this fight, what is your incentive to
    cooperate if you're being punished without even any clear
    benchmarks or guidelines about how to stop the punishment. And
    the same goes for Fentanyl as well as working against migrant
    smuggling through Mexico too. What is going to push you to work
    harder to do the Americans a favor and work harder and together
    on this if you already have a 25 percent tariff on all of your
    goods.
        Ms. Titus. Well, thank you. I yield back.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Representative Titus.
        Now we have--we are going to start a second round of
    questioning, not too long. And I am going to recognize myself
    for 5 minutes.
        We all agree that we want to revamp and make INL a better
    agency, we all agree with that. And I was--just wanted to tell
    my respected ranking member that what the Trump administration
    is doing is trying to cut waste on important programs like INL
    because INL funded hip-hop classes in Guatemala. I go back to
    things that they should not be doing. We all agree that we have
    to cooperate with Mexico and that we have to help to help the
    Guatemalan police force and El Salvador. And by the way, one of
    the things I also wanted to--and I want to talk to three of
    you, I am not going to just hone in on Mr. Isacson. We
    decertified El Salvador, INL decertified El Salvador as a
    partner which led to the cuts in funds. These are the things I
    don't understand why, because you think Bukele may not be
    ideologically aligned with the State Department. Why are you
    going to do that? And the same thing with Guatemala. I am just
    stating what I think is commonsense.
        Right now, in Latin America projects that prove to be
    effective are back online. For instance, targeting systems in
    Mexico and Peru that provide intelligence on foreign passengers
    and cargo. Dogs in Costa Rica.
        So my question to Mrs. Kenney. Since you are an impartial
    force in this hearing, tell me in very simple terms for those
    people who are at home that do not want to spend taxpayers'
    money on things that are futile like hip-hop classes in
    Guatemala in which way that $2 billion that we give INL every
    year where do you think should be spent? Give it to me in 30
    seconds like a good television sound bite so people back at
    home will say, OK, INL should be back on track. Tell me.
        Ms. Kenney. So based on our review of the INL programs what
    we have found is that there are some consistent patterns in
    terms of implementation. GAO would not identify the policy
    choices that INL should make but we are happy to talk to you
    about the effectiveness of the implementation. And what we have
    found consistently is that there are opportunities to improve
    performance management, ensuring that the activities that you
    are funding are meeting your strategic goals. We saw it in
    Mexico, we saw it in firearms trafficking, we saw it in efforts
    in the Caribbean, making sure that the specific activities that
    you are funding are linking up and actually helping you achieve
    your goal.
        Ms. Salazar. Why do you think that happens? So what you are
    telling me basically is that I am going to do this, but I am
    not sure if it is being effective or not, but I am going to put
    the money behind it anyway. Is that what you are telling me? So
    why do you think that happened? And how can it be changed? Why
    did it happen?
        Ms. Kenney. Well, I think our recommendation is that the
    State Department figure out how to create that alignment that
    these activities should be funded to the overall strategic
    goals.
        I think in Mexico what we found, what we heard is that
    there was some effort to coordinate with the Mexican government
    which is a good idea. However, we have been funding the Merida
    Initiative since 2008 and the administrations were going to
    change so that needed to be done.
        I think when we looked at firearms trafficking we found
    similar programs or similar issues. We found that everyone
    would tell us of firearm trafficking in the Caribbean and in
    Central America and Mexico that these were important U.S.
    goals. But when we asked about where the metrics were, how they
    were measuring effectiveness, it didn't show up. They didn't
    have firearms trafficking as one of their performance measures
    so they weren't able to track it and demonstrate progress. It
    didn't show up in their strategies. So it is just important
    that whatever it is you decide your strategy, whatever your
    goal is you need to be sure that your activities are aligned
    with it and that you are able to track and line those ups to be
    sure that you are achieving the goals that you want to achieve.
        Ms. Salazar. So I am sure the State Department is listening
    to you.
        Now let me ask you, lets go to Mexico, maybe we can talk to
    Mr. Fernandez or Mr. Isacson. Mexico is a very important ally.
    It is our next door neighbor. We have got to work with them
    because no one is going to move, right? So we are going to stay
    where we are and so are they.
        I remember that under AMLO, Mexico, President Trump had a
    very good relationship with President AMLO who had a completely
    different ideology than President Trump and that AMLO sent
    37,000 troops to the southern borders with Guatemala. That
    worked very well. All of a sudden, they cooperated. So why did
    that stop? And what incentives are we giving now Sheinbaum who
    comes from that same Morena party. I hear that relationships
    are good between both governments. So what can they really do
    and in which way we could help them do it? And do they have the
    political willingness to receive money from the United States?
    We know that it is like we are neighbors but we are not
    necessarily love each other, but we have got to live with each
    other, correct? Am I right in my assessment? Let me start with
    you, Mr. Fernandez. What can we do?
        Mr. Martinez-Fernandez. I think it is important to your
    question about whether they will receive that assistance. I
    think it goes to the core of the issue.
        Ms. Salazar. Will they receive the assistance?
        Mr. Martinez-Fernandez. They have rejected significant----
        Ms. Salazar. What with they rejected?
        Mr. Martinez-Fernandez. I think because there are issues
    with corruption, there is issues with nationalism as well. I
    mean, we tried, I think very clearly under the Biden
    administration, to not pressure and do----
        Ms. Salazar. Irrespectful.
        Mr. Martinez-Fernandez.--positive engagement as was alluded
    to here. It obviously didn't result in anything substantive as
    far as countering the Fentanyl threat. It only expanded more
    greatly an d----
        Ms. Salazar [continuing]. simply what happened during those
    4 years once--why so much Fentanyl was able to come through?
    What did the Mexican government should have done that didn't
    do? And what can they do now under Sheinbaum, simple?
        Mr. Martinez-Fernandez. What happened over the past 4 years
    is we stopped pressuring them.
        Ms. Salazar. We stopped pressuring them?
        Mr. Martinez-Fernandez. Yes.
        Ms. Salazar. What pressures we should have implemented.
        Mr. Martinez-Fernandez. Economic pressure I think is
    certainly the most potent that we have in the bilateral
    relationship with trade and the USMCA.
        Ms. Salazar. Stop right there. You see Mr. Isacson, so I
    agree that tariffs are bad for our constituents, I get it. But
    then what other tool do we have as a country to send the
    message to our neighbors that we need help because we don't
    want any more American kids dying.
        Mr. Isacson. Prosecutorial cooperation. From 2023 to 2024
    there was a 22 percent decrease in Fentanyl seizures at the
    border. So far this year it is down another 23 percent. Less
    seems to being produced in Mexico, I think because of better
    cooperation. This may be premature but no one is declaring
    victory but there has actually been progress in the last 2
    years.
        Ms. Salazar. Very little, very little progress. We had
    100,000 kids dying every year.
        Mr. Isacson. And deaths, thank goodness, are down about 30
    percent.
        Ms. Salazar. And the concoction of the chemicals are put
    together in Mexico.
        Mr. Isacson. Yes, I agree.
        Ms. Salazar. Right? And we just passed legislation that the
    Congress voted for where we are giving money so we can destroy
    those precursors before they get composed into a little pill
    and our kids die. So I am saying, what I am trying--political
    do we have political lenience as Sheinbaum, does she have
    political willingness to really work with us. We want to work
    with her.
        Mr. Isacson. I think Sheinbaum does. I would be worried at
    about people at the State level in Mexico. I would be worried
    about corrupt military and police people.
        Ms. Salazar. She had her own swamp.
        Mr. Isacson. Yes, she does have a swamp that she has to
    clean up, as does their judicial system. The INL can help.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you. All right. I yield back.
        Now I recognize Ranking Member Castro from the wonderful
    State of Texas for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Castro. With respect to effective and serious and
    thoughtful cutting of waste, fraud, and abuse in government, I
    don't think it is going to be carried out by this DOGE
    committee that is being lead by folks who have absolutely no
    expertise in this area, by 22-year olds and 20-year olds with a
    nickname of Big Balls. They are not going to accomplish what we
    are trying to accomplish here. They have no background in any
    of this. Hardly any life experience, quite honestly. And more
    than that, they are keeping all of their work secretive.
        In fact, Elon Musk, as I recall, threatened the press that
    he would file suit or said that it was illegal if they just
    identified who these people were, that are making these massive
    decisions about how our government operates. And that is not
    fair to the American people. It is not fair to American
    taxpayers to have a secret group in charge of what is going on
    in government that won't show its face at the United States
    Capitol.
        Even more than that, a majority party in Congress that sent
    even asking them to show up, isn't even demanding that they
    show up and account for the work that they are doing. That is
    where we are right now. I hope that everybody in the full
    committee on this dais when we have our full committee meetings
    will join me and others in asking Elon Musk and those
    responsible for cuts to INL, cuts at the State Department,
    USAID to come here and present to us their work.
        We can't even get a clear answer of what percent of INL,
    for example, is being cut. And that applies to other agencies
    and bureaus as well. So why doesn't this full committee ask
    Elon Musk to come and sit in these chairs as our three
    witnesses have today and explain the cuts that have been made
    and why they have been made?
        The one person we had come as I recall Pete Marocco, whose
    job title has now changed, he came and I don't know who
    insisted, I don't know if the committee insisted or he and his
    people insisted that it not be a public hearing, that it be a
    closed door private briefing and instead of having 5 minutes to
    ask questions we had 2 or 3 minutes to ask questions. Just
    bizarre.
        This is the U.S. Government and we are running our country
    right now or the country is being run like these countries that
    we have been critiquing for decades and decades, by people who
    are doing secretive things, not transparent. And so look, I
    agree that that is why you have a GAO, that is why you have
    inspectors general. Yes, can we do more than that? Yes, I think
    that we could do more than that. I think we should do more than
    that. And we do need to make adjustments because things do get
    stale and, you know, need to change and money.
        Maria Elvira, I was your Democratic colead on that Fentanyl
    bill on precursors. I thought that was a good piece of
    legislation.
        Remember, I have been presented now I think at least twice
    we have been told in this committee and then in my other
    committee in unclassified information that, you know, 70 to 90
    percent of the precursors or the original source material for
    Fentanyl comes to the United States first and then goes over to
    Mexico and it ends up coming back.
        So these are serious problems, but they demand serious
    approaches and they demand people with expertise who actually
    know what they are doing, you know, really nothing against
    people in their early twenties, I wish I was still in my early
    twenties. But the people who have been put in charge of
    overseeing this have absolutely no background or no expertise
    to do it.
        With that, I yield back, chairman.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, ranking member. I thank the
    witnesses for their valuable testimony and the members for
    their questions. The members of the subcommittee may have some
    additional questions for the witnesses. We will ask you to
    respond to these in writing.
        Pursuant to committee rules, all members may have 5 days to
    submit statements, questions and other materials for the record
    subject to the length limitations.
        Without objection, this committee stands adjourned. Once
    again thank you for your participation.
        [Whereupon, at 12:41 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                   APPENDIX

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]