[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE EFFECT OF SANCTUARY CITY POLICIES ON THE ABILITY TO COMBAT THE
OPIOID EPIDEMIC
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 15, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-32
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
30-996 WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JERROLD NADLER, New York
Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
DARRELL E. ISSA, California HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
STEVE KING, Iowa Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
JIM JORDAN, Ohio LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia TED LIEU, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
KEN BUCK, Colorado PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama VALDEZ VENITA ``VAL'' DEMINGS,
MATT GAETZ, Florida Florida
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
JOHN RUTHERFORD, Florida
KAREN HANDEL, Florida
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff and General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
RAUL R. LABRADOR, Idaho, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
LAMAR SMITH, Texas PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
STEVE KING, Iowa SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
JIM JORDAN, Ohio JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
KEN BUCK, Colorado
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
C O N T E N T S
----------
FEBRUARY 15, 2018
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Raul Labrador, Idaho, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary.... 1
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, California, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 3
WITNESSES
Detective Nick Rogers, President, Denver Police Protective
Association
Oral Statement............................................... 5
The Honorable A.J. Louderback, Sheriff, Jackson County, Texas
Sheriff's Office
Oral Statement............................................... 7
Ms. Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies, Center for
Immigration Studies
Oral Statement............................................... 8
Dr. Keith Humphreys, Professor, Department of Psychiatry,
Stanford University School of Medicine
Oral Statement............................................... 9
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Letter from Congresswoman DeGette, Statement for the Record from the
City of Denver, Comprehensive Background Document, Copy of Denver's
Public Safety Priorities Act, Overview of efforts to address opioid
epidemic in Denver, Overview of Denver Police Department's Drug
Enforcement Efforts, Q4 Tracker ICE Notification of Release
Requests, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, American Immigration
Council, Tahirih Justice Center, Church World Service (CWS),
Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC), Drug Policy Alliance.
Submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, California, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the
Judiciary. This material is available at the Committee and can be
accessed on the committee Repository at:
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-
115-JU01-20180215-SD007.pdf
DPD Policies regarding Illegal Immigrants slideshow. Submitted by the
Honorable Ken Buck, Colorado, Member, Subcommittee on Immigration
and Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary. This material is
available at the Committee and can be accessed on the Committee
Repository at:
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-
115-JU01-20180215-SD003.pdf
Crackdown on Immigrants undermines public safety, Tukwila officers turn
immigrant over to ICE after he called them for help. Was that
legal? Charge: Child rape suspect threatened to deport victim's
mother. Submitted by the Honorable, Pramila Jayapal, Washington,
Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Committee
on the Judiciary. This material is available at the Committee and
can be accessed on the Committee Repository at:
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-
115-JU01-20180215-SD005.pdf
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, Committee Statement; The
Effects of Sanctuary Policies on Crime and the Economy. Submitted
by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas, Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary. This
material is available at the Committee and can be accessed on the
Committee Repository at:
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-
115-JU01-20180215-SD004.pdf
Letter to the Honorable Bob Goodlatte. Submitted by the Honorable Jamie
Raskin, Maryland, Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border
Security, Committee on the Judiciary. This material is available at
the Committee and can be accessed on the Committee Repository at:
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-
115-JU01-20180215-SD008.pdf
New Denver Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Proposal. Submitted by
the Honorable Raul Labrador, Idaho, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary. This
material is available at the Committee and can be accessed on the
Committee Repository at:
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-
115-JU01-20180215-SD006.pdf
THE EFFECT OF SANCTUARY CITY POLICIES ON THE ABILITY TO COMBAT THE
OPIOID EPIDEMIC
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2018
House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
Washington, DC
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Raul Labrador
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.]
Present: Representatives Labrador, King, Jordan, Buck,
Johnson of Louisiana, Biggs, Lofgren, Gutierrez, Jayapal,
Jackson Lee, and Raskin.
Staff Present: Joseph Edlow, Counsel; Sabrina Hancock,
Clerk; and Maunica Sthanki, Minority Counsel.
Mr. Labrador. The Subcommittee on Border and Immigration
Security will come to order. Without objection, the chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. We
welcome everyone to today's hearing on the effect of sanctuary
city policies on the ability to combat the opioid epidemic. And
now I recognize myself for an opening statement.
One of the more destructive byproducts of irresponsible and
lax immigration enforcement under the Obama administration was
the rise of the sanctuary jurisdiction. Sanctuary jurisdictions
nationwide continually refuse to cooperate with ICE and
actively violate or disregard Federal law. This committee has
repeatedly delved into the complex issues surrounding these
practices, but the problem persists, and it is becoming endemic
among many metropolitan communities.
For several congresses, we have heard countless stories of
sanctuary practices and the havoc they wreak on public safety,
national security, and the sanctity of the rule of law in this
country. Unfortunately, little has changed even with the change
of administrations. Instead of working with the Federal
Government, specifically ICE, to create a framework for
cooperation, these jurisdictions have chosen to dig in deeper.
Last year's announcement by San Francisco that the city
would no longer participate in the Joint Terrorism Task Force
for fear of coming into contact with immigration issues has
only been exacerbated by audacious State policy.
In 2017 the States of Illinois and California passed
legislation that will tremendously limit the ability of State
and local law enforcement agencies from working with or even
contacting ICE. While the long-term effects of the framework
have yet to be truly realized, these laws will absolutely have
far reaching impacts on public safety and ultimately
constitutional law.
While this committee continues to work toward an end to
sanctuary practices and a reinstatement of immigration
enforcement nationwide, we cannot forget or largely ignore
consequence of these ill-conceived policies. In many of these
communities local law enforcement agencies that have
traditionally enjoyed strong professional relationships with
Federal law enforcement partners are being forced, through no
fault of their own, to dissolve those relationships.
This hearing focuses on the continual fight against the
opioid epidemic that is raging in this country. We are not here
to discuss the underlying causes of the epidemic. And to be
sure, this committee is not asserting that sanctuary policies
have caused such an epidemic.
But the fight against opioids at the law enforcement level
has, as asserted by our witnesses' written testimony, greatly
relied on strong Federal partnerships, including partnerships
with ICE. The crimes associated with the opioid crisis,
including drug trafficking and violent felonies, require
coordination, cooperation, and most importantly, communication.
Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in Denver,
Colorado. At a time when drug crimes are soaring in the city,
Denver has made a policy decision to not work with ICE and to
make a poor distinction that immigration enforcement is
unrelated to law enforcement activities.
While the correlation between the two is incontrovertible,
Denver is following the lead of many other cities and
threatening those law-enforcement officers that would violate
such a policy. These practices not only fail to recognize the
benefit of strong cooperation, but also fail to see just how
closely immigration enforcement and drug enforcement are
connected.
With the influx of narcotics smuggling, especially in
opioids, through our porous borders, it is often the tools of
immigration enforcement that provide best practices to
interdict and dismantle those operations. Just this week, Fox
News reported that an alien deported three times was arrested
in Florida for the intent to distribute over $400,000 of
methamphetamine. Our public safety and our public health are
tied to eradicating opioids which can never be accomplished
when the force multiplier that is ICE is sidelined based on
political expediency and grandstanding.
I want to thank Congressman Buck for bringing this issue to
the foreground and for suggesting this important hearing. I
also want to thank all the witnesses for being here today, and
I look forward to this discussion. The time for Congress to act
on sanctuary policies is long overdue, but I am confident that
placing a continued focus on this issue will assist in the
eventual reversal of such dangerous policies and practices.
I now recognize our ranking member, Ms. Lofgren of
California, for her opening statement.
Ms. Lofgren. Today's hearing asks us to examine the nexus
between so-called sanctuary city policies and the opioid
epidemic. I say ``so-called,'' because it is important to note
at the outset that the term sanctuary city has been used to
describe pejoratively a wide variety of community originated
law enforcement policies.
For example, Dayton, Ohio will honor ICE detainers if an
individual poses a threat to national security or is a suspect
in a felony offense involving violence or trafficking, and
there is reason to believe the person lacks legal status.
In my home State of California, there is State law that
local law enforcement will notify ICE about individuals where
certain criminal offenses allows for transfer to ICE only after
a conviction. And these policies are considered by my local
police department as community trust policies where they can
make sure that community members will continue to cooperate
with the police because they are not perceived as being
immigration agents.
I would note also that although our Attorney General has
been quite vocal in opposition to policies that refuse to
recognize so-called detainers, a court decision in the Central
District of California just last week found that it violates
the Fourth Amendment to do what the Attorney General is asking
local governments to do.
And I will just quote on page 41 of the decision, ``The Los
Angeles Sheriff's Department officers did not have probable
cause that the individuals were involved in criminal activity
but were instead holding these individuals on the basis of
civil immigration detainers. The LASD officers had no authority
to arrest individuals for civil immigration offenses, and thus
detaining individuals beyond their date for release violated
the individuals' Fourth Amendment rights, and likely those
individuals will obtain monetary damages for the violation of
their rights.''
So I think it is important to know that we have to have
respect for the different levels of government; the Federal
Government does one thing; State and local do others. There is
no one-size-fits-all.
I also think that to connect the opioid epidemic with the
community trust policies is rather misplaced. You know, the
Centers for Disease Control indicates that most opioid deaths
have occurred in rural areas with small immigrant populations,
not in large cities. In 2016, for example, West Virginia, a
State with relatively few immigrants and few, if any, so-called
sanctuary cities saw the highest number of opioid deaths per
capita. And States with high immigrant populations and urban
community trust policies, such as California and Texas,
experienced relatively low numbers of opioid deaths.
Now, the opioid crisis is a result of multiple systematic
factors. Nearly all experts agree that it is an American-made
problem that originates with our prescription drug industry. As
Professor Keith Humphreys explains in his testimony, the opioid
epidemic was made in America, not in Mexico, China, or any
other foreign country. And the suggestion that mass deportation
would solve the opioid crisis, I think, is ridiculous. And it
derails a productive bipartisan conversation on the opioid
epidemic.
Now, numerous experts have concluded that we cannot arrest
our way out of the epidemic; we cannot deport our way out of it
either. Even if we were to deport all 11 million undocumented
immigrants from our country, we would still have an opioid
crisis on our hands.
The opioid crisis can only be solved by assembling experts,
medical professionals to assemble policies that will get at the
root of this devastating crisis. But at a time when facts play
a minor role and politics are in the driver's seat, some are
using the immigrant community as a scapegoat, I think, for a
complex societal problem that is, really, unrelated to
immigration policy.
So I would challenge all of us today to take a break from
that pattern and to work together to see if we could not come
to grips with the serious opioid epidemic that is facing our
country.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. Just for the record,
I do not think anybody's suggesting that mass deportation would
solve the opioid crisis. I think you will see from all the
witnesses that not a single one of them suggests that. But I
thank you all for being here.
Without objection, other members' opening statements will
be made part of the record.
Mr. Labrador. We have a distinguished panel here today. The
witnesses' written statements will be entered into the record
in its entirety. I ask that you summarize your testimony in 5
minutes or less. To help you stay within that time, there is a
timing light on your table. When the light switches from green
to yellow, you will have 1 minute to conclude your testimony.
When the light turns red, it signals that your 5 minutes have
expired.
Before I introduce our witnesses, I would like you to stand
and be sworn in.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the
affirmative. Thank you. Please be seated. I would like to yield
to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Buck, to introduce
Detective Rogers.
Mr. Buck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to
introduce a dedicated public servant, Detective Nick Rogers.
Detective Rogers serves as the president of the Denver
Police Protective Association. He is a 32-year veteran of the
City and County of Denver's Police Department, serving as a
detective for the District 4 Narcotics Investigations Unit of
the Denver Police Department for the last 20 years.
He brings a strong understanding of the tactics that
narcotics traffickers use to feed the scourge of opioid
addiction throughout our Nation, especially in my home State of
Colorado.
Detective Rogers will also tell us about the severe
restrictions the City and County of Denver have placed on all
Denver police officers, hampering officers' ability to
communicate with ICE following apprehension of heroin peddlers
who are in this country illegally.
Thank you, Detective Rogers, for agreeing to be here today.
I also want to thank Chairman Goodlatte for bringing attention
to this issue. Finally, I want to thank Chairman Labrador for
holding this important hearing today. With that, I yield back
the balance of my time. Thank you.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. Now I will introduce Sheriff
Louderback. Sheriff Louderback is a 35-year law enforcement
veteran serving his fourth term as Sheriff of Jackson County.
He is currently the Legislative Chairman for the Sheriff's
Association of Texas, and is a past president of SAT. He has
spoken nationally on Federal immigration policies and is a
nationally published author on immigration legislation.
Locally, Sheriff Louderback has led the 287-G program in
the Gulf Bend region. Sheriff Louderback also serves on the
Jail Advisory Committee, TCOLE Advisory Committee, and is a
past board member of the Texas Association of Counties. He is
an active member of the Gulfman Community Collaborative and
serves on the National Sheriff's Association Immigration
Committee and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Ms. Jessica Vaughan has been with the Center for
Immigration Studies since 1992 where she served as director of
policy studies. Prior to joining the Center, Ms. Vaughan was a
Foreign Service Officer with the State Department where she
served in Belgium, Trinidad, and Tobago. She is also an
instructor for senior law enforcement officer training seminars
at Northwestern University's Center for Public Safety in
Illinois.
Ms. Vaughan has a master's degree from Georgetown
University and earned a bachelor's degree in international
studies at Washington College in Maryland.
Professor Keith Humphreys. Dr. Humphreys is a professor and
the section director for mental health policy in the Department
of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University.
He is also a senior research career scientist at the VA Health
Services Research Center, Palo Alto, and an honorary professor
of psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College,
London.
Dr. Humphreys has served as a member of the White House
Commission on Drug-free Communities, the VA National Mental
Health Task Force, and the National Advisory Counsel of the
U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
He also served one year as senior policy advisor at the White
House office of National Drug Control Policy during the Obama
administration.
I now recognize Detective Rogers for his statement.
STATEMENTS OF NICK ROGERS, PRESIDENT, DENVER POLICE PROTECTIVE
ASSOCIATION; A.J. LOUDERBACK, SHERRIFF, JACKSON COUNTY, TEXAS
SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JESSICA VAUGHAN, DIRECTOR OF POLICY STUDIES,
CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES; AND KEITH HUMPHREYS, DEPARTMENT
OF PSYCHIATRY, STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
STATEMENT OF NICK ROGERS
Mr. Rogers. I am new at this. I am sorry. This is my first
time, probably my last. I appreciate it; I really do.
Beginning in 2006, I began to see heroin on the streets of
Denver. As the arrests grew, I was able to interview both
sellers and buyers. It became apparent the source of heroin was
coming from Mexico, and the parties selling it were also from
Mexico and Honduras.
Early on, I found that almost all the buyers of the heroin
were middle-class white young adults from the suburbs. Each one
had a story to tell, but the overwhelming consistent part of
the story was that they started their own opiate addiction by
taking their parents' leftover pain pills, slowly becoming
addicted to them.
Some had been involved in an accident or had a surgery,
with the common thread of taking oxycodone and becoming
addicted to it. Each of these stories wound up on the streets
of Denver because buying pills on the street is too expensive,
and they all turned to the cheaper opiate, heroin.
The heroin dealers also had a common story. They were
mostly young 18- to 25-year-old illegal aliens, mostly from
Mexico. But as the years went by, some started coming from
Honduras and Nicaragua. They were all in possession of several
ounces of heroin, had a fake ID from Mexico--Sinaloa most
common.
Some of these arrests led to what was known as ``the
office''; a location, usually a higher end apartment, which is
used only to stash heroin and large amounts of money. Many of
these offices produce tens of thousands, if not hundreds of
thousands of dollars in cash waiting to be sent back to Mexico.
Each office had produced an average of one pound of heroin
located there.
I began to see a disturbing trend. I started to arrest the
same parties twice. For example, working in an undercover
capacity, I bought heroin from an illegal alien, arrested him,
charged him with distribution of a controlled substance and had
an immigration detainer placed on him, believing this would end
that suspect's involvement in the narcotics trade.
Several months to maybe a year or so later I arrested the
same suspect who was now wanted for failing to appear on the
first case, and is now in possession of heroin for a second
time.
The only change was the suspect was now in possession of a
new fake ID with a different name. This became common practice
in my unit, as well as other narcotics units around the city.
Arresting illegal aliens for possession of large amounts of
heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, who are now living under
fake names, all the while being wanted on failing to appear for
charges, appear on other drug charges.
During a typical arrest, as I described above, I would
contact one of two ICE agents, Nick Fowler or Kevin Cruz, both
of whom I worked closely with here in Denver. These two ICE
agents did a fantastic job and were invaluable to us during
those early years. They would respond any time of day or night
to assist us. They would interview the suspects and ultimately
put a detainer on those suspects if they were, indeed, here
illegally. They often found that the person they were
interviewing had been deported before; sometimes they had been
deported several times.
In October, 2017 this all changed. The City and County of
Denver placed several restrictions on all DPD officers,
forbidding them to contact ICE, as we had done so many times
before. The city adopted an ordinance, 17-0940, placing these
restrictions on DPD officers. We were informed that if we
communicated with ICE, we were subject to discipline up to and
including termination. We were also told that if we violated
the ordinance, we were subject to criminal prosecution and
would be fined up to $999 and a term of incarceration not to
exceed 300 days in jail. I have provided an actual ordinance
for you to read.
The individuals I am speaking about did not sell and
distribute narcotics; they committed burglaries--auto thefts
and robberies--just to name a few of their crimes. I think it
should be noted that in all the years I have dealt with ICE, I
cannot remember a single time our coordinated efforts were
targeting minor offenses.
In short, the only parties we ever worked together on were
felons who had committed serious crimes. I also need to
emphasize that illegal aliens are only a small percent of
individuals that I deal with daily. Each day brings a new case,
a new set of suspects, who span the entire gamut of all walks
of life.
The ordinance has had a chilling effect on our daily
operations. We can no longer call and share information with
ICE. They can no longer call and ask us for assistance or ask
for intel on suspects involved in criminal activity. The
ordinance has created, in my opinion, a city that is much less
safe than it was prior to this ordinance.
Detective Roger's written statement is available at the
Committee or on the committee repository at: http://
docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-115-JU01-
Bio-RogersD-20180215.pdf
Mr. Labrador. Twenty more seconds. You are good?
Mr. Rogers. I skipped a little paragraph.
Mr. Labrador. All right.
Mr. Rogers. I will be all right.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Sheriff Louderback.
STATEMENT OF A.J. LOUDERBACK
Mr. Louderback. Chairman Labrador, Ranking Member Lofgren,
and the other distinguished members of the immigration
subcommittee: how can law enforcement be told, instructed, and
ordered to not work together with all law enforcement agencies
in this country? How, as a Nation of laws, can we not cooperate
in the law enforcement field? How can law enforcement protect
our citizens when cities, counties, and States will not partner
against criminality?
Law enforcement officers who have sworn to uphold the law
is being used to undermine the law. Law enforcement faces a
constant flow of opioids, trafficked humans, criminal aliens to
our communities. Nowhere is it clearer than sanctuary cities,
which is creating a safe haven for criminality. Wherever
sanctuary policies exist, your law enforcement is not able or
permitted to cooperate, communicate, or partner to fight crime
as a team, or honor our laws of this country.
This is, and has always been, a serious public safety
issue. Thank you.
Sheriff Louderback's written statement is available at the
Committee or on the committee repository at: http://
docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-115-JU01-
Wstate-LouderbackA-20180215.pdf Mr. Labrador. Thank you very
much. Ms. Vaughan.
STATEMENT OF JESSICA VAUGHAN
Ms. Vaughan. Thank you, Chairman Labrador and Ranking
Member Lofgren, for the opportunity to participate today.
The opioid epidemic has been nothing short of horrific;
tragically destructive to families and potentially to our
communities. And, of course, we must help those who are
struggling with addiction and substance abuse with treatment
and other support, but we will not make progress on this crisis
until we disrupt and dismantle the criminal organizations that
bring these deadly substances into our communities.
Local law enforcement agencies cannot do it on their own.
Neither can the DEA nor the FBI. Because these deadly drugs are
coming in from across our borders, immigration enforcement is a
critical element in that effort. For it to succeed, there must
be robust and unfettered cooperation between all of the local,
State, and Federal law enforcement agencies who are dedicated
to fighting these criminal organizations.
And let's be clear, proponents of sanctuary policies claim
that the policies are necessary either for community trust
reasons or legal reasons. But these are bogus arguments. In
truth, sanctuary policies are purely political and intended to
thwart the enforcement of immigration laws that these political
leaders disagree with, but which were enacted through our
democratic process, and which Americans support.
But there is a human cost to this politicization of law
enforcement, and Congress cannot allow it to continue.
According to the DEA, about 80 percent of the illegal opioids
sold in this country are brought in by foreign criminal
organizations, primarily the Mexico-based drug cartels, and
especially the Sinaloa Cartel.
They have cells in the United States; they work with other
criminal groups to distribute the drugs--sometimes street gangs
like MS-13, which also have a lot of members are noncitizens,
many recently arrived. The fact that these operatives are in
the country illegally is a major vulnerability that law
enforcement agencies must take advantage of.
There are three ways that sanctuary policies are
compromising our ability to win against the foreign drug
traffickers. First, they interfere with communication and block
access to information as we have heard from the officer from
Denver. A common type of sanctuary policy is to prohibit the
questioning of suspects about their immigration status. And
that means they have to look the other way in immigration
violations, missing an opportunity to keep the criminal off the
streets. It also means that they are less likely to detect
imposters, people using aliases, fraudulent documents. That is
all a common occurrence among drug traffickers, especially
those who have been deported once already.
Local officers typically are not trained to recognize
immigration documents or signs of ID theft by foreign
nationals, and they need the discretion to contact the DHS
agencies that can assist in identifying criminal aliens
involved in the drug trade.
Second, sanctuary policies inevitably result in the release
of criminal aliens back to the streets where they can, and do,
reoffend, just like American criminals do. According to ICE,
since January, 2014 there have been 10,000 criminal aliens who
were released by sanctuary policies who were later arrested for
another crime after their release.
These crimes create needless victims. ICE rearrests only
about 40 percent of them. A lot of them were released during
the Obama administration and failed to appear for their
hearings as the officer noted. So there is a lot of cleanup
work that ICE now has to do because of these policies.
Finally, sanctuary policies can act as a magnet for foreign
criminal organizations because they know that immigration
violations will be overlooked, and that their use of fraudulent
documents and aliases is less likely to be detected. Just two
nights ago Fox News ran a story about ICE sanctuary cleanup
operations in California. And they had a criminal alien on
camera saying how disappointed he was to be arrested because he
thought he was safe in California, because it was a sanctuary
State.
On this same operation, participants observed how absurdly
time-consuming it has become for ICE in California, because
instead of arresting dozens of criminal aliens at a time in the
jails, ICE offices must stake them out at their homes where the
criminal aliens know ICE cannot enter without consent; and they
sometimes stand in the windows, laughing at the ICE officers.
Eventually they come out and ICE gets them, but this is a very
costly way to go about removing criminal aliens who could be
picked up in the jail if ICE were not blocked by this
irresponsible California law.
Congress can do something about this. Local politicians are
not going to reverse these policies on their own, so Congress
must act to clarify the legal authorities that support
immigration enforcement and to impose consequences on sanctuary
jurisdictions and the officials who are responsible for these
destructive policies.
Also, Congress should update immigration laws to make sure
that criminals who are involved in the drug trade and gang
members are excludable from the country and cannot obtain
visas, work permits, green card citizenship, or any immigration
benefit. Thank you.
Ms. Vaughan's written statement is available at the
Committee or on the committee repository at: http://
docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-115-JU01-
Wstate-VaughanJ-20180215.pdf
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. Dr. Humphreys.
STATEMENT OF KEITH HUMPHREYS
Mr. Humphreys. Thank you, Chairman Labrador and Ranking
Member Lofgren, for having me testify today.
My comments reflect my 30 years of experience as a
clinician and researcher in the addiction field, and also my
service as a White House drug policy advisor in both the Bush
and Obama administrations. And I mention that to say that is
because drug problems affect all of us. I tried to work on them
in a bipartisan fashion.
In the first 15 years of this century more Americans died
of drug overdose than died in World Wars I and II combined.
2016 death toll was 64,000 people, about 80 percent of which
involved opioids, is worse than AIDS in the peak year of that
terrible epidemic. To push back on this epidemic, we have to
analyze it dispassionately and deploy our resources
strategically. In that regard, I think there are many high-
impact policies available to us, but I do not think that
cracking down on sanctuary cities is one of them.
I was born and raised in West Virginia, which is ground
zero of this epidemic. I go back home frequently to help my
home State deal with the ravages of opioid addiction. West
Virginia is emblematic of where this epidemic has taken hold;
in rural areas that do not have sanctuary cities. A lot of
people would say we do not even have cities. Recent immigrants
are rare, yet opioid addiction is rampant. That is because this
epidemic was made in America, not somewhere else.
Beginning in the 1990s, American companies such as Purdue
Pharma produced a generation of doctors and healthcare
regulators to dramatically increase opioid prescribing. As a
result, the U.S. now dwarfs all other nations in opioid
consumption. We are number one in the world. And if we cut our
prescribing by 40 percent, we would still be number one in the
world, not a distinction of which to be proud.
The astonishing increase in providing opioids which at its
apex reached a quarter billion prescriptions a year is what
started and helps maintain our opioid epidemic. And again,
prescription opioids come from American companies, prescribed
by American doctors, overseen by American regulators.
Immigrants have no part in it.
It is absolutely true that some criminals from other
countries deal heroin in the United States. But as documented
in journalist Sam Quinones' excellent book, ``Dreamland,''
those dealers came here to capitalize on people already
addicted to prescription opioids, as Detective Rogers said as
well.
Few people decide to spontaneously use heroin laced with
fentanyl. But many people get pushed to that point after first
becoming addicted to prescription opioids. Arresting heroin
dealers from other nations will thus never eliminate the root
of our problem.
Similarly, President Trump's proposal to build a wall on
the Rio Grande is ill-directed when the healthcare system puts
out enough opioids each year for every American adult to be
medicated around the clock for a month.
There are, however, other policy options that would make a
much bigger difference, and because Congress has very wisely
appropriated $6 billion to fight the opioid epidemic, we now
have the resources to begin putting them into place.
Two sources of good ideas are the Surgeon General's report
on facing addiction that was released 14 months ago, and the
President's Commission on Combating Addiction and the Opioid
Crisis, which began offering proposals beginning last summer.
Here are some of their good ideas. We should enhance
prescription drug monitoring programs which help prescribers
identify doctors/shoppers who are addicted, diverting pills to
sell, or both. These programs also help law enforcement
identify pill mills. We should ensure that non-opioid pain
treatments are adequately reimbursed by insurance. As a major
purchaser of healthcare, the Federal Government has a lot of
leverage in this area.
Congress should direct the Department of Labor to actively
enforce the provisions of the 2008 Mental Health Parity and
Addiction Equity Act. This law, which was passed by
overwhelming bipartisan majorities in Congress, says that
insurers of large companies have to cover employees' addiction
care at the same level they do other care. Many insurers have
violated the regulations and denied life-saving addiction
treatment to people who need it and to which they are entitled
to it.
We need to get naloxone, the life-saving overdose reversal
drug into the hands of every first responder in this country.
As a major purchaser, the Federal Government should in this
emergency situation waive its rule forbidding negotiation of
drug prices and purchase the medication on a massive scale for
distribution to our Nation's first responders.
And last, but not least, we should augment Medicaid's role
as a payer for addiction treatment. We have unfortunately been
moving in the opposite direction with efforts to curtail
Medicaid expansion, impose work requirements, and cut funds
from the program. Instead, we should be increasing the number
of people covered so that opioid addicted individuals can
receive the treatment they need to restore them to health.
I hope this sampling of effective policies gives a flavor
of how we can best focus our energies responding to an epidemic
that was made in America, and to which the solutions are within
America as well. Thank you again for the opportunity to
testify. I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Humphreys' written statement is available at the
Committee or on the committee repository at: http://
docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-115-JU01-
Wstate-HumphreysP-20180215.pdf.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you very much. We will now proceed
under the 5-minute rule with questions. I will begin by
recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Detective Rogers, in your opinion and in your experience,
what, if any, will be the consequences of continued policies
that limit the Denver Police Department from working with or
communicating with ICE?
Mr. Rogers. I truly believe the fact that we are allowing
the same people to just be recycled and continue to sell the
heroin to profit the cartels--I am a realist. I realize that if
you take someone off the streets, they are going to replace
them with someone else. But you have to disrupt the trade. You
cannot allow them to just sell it without the consequences.
And I truly believe that if we do not come up with a way to
enforce not only our laws, but the Federal laws and have the
people that are here illegally selling these drugs deported, we
are never going to get a hold of that side of the problem. Does
that make sense?
Mr. Labrador. Yeah. So in your capacity as the president of
the DPPA, what has been the response to the ordinance from your
membership?
Mr. Rogers. Well, that is why I am here, sir.
Mr. Labrador. Yeah.
Mr. Rogers. My membership is not happy. They feel that they
are being handcuffed; they are being not allowed to do their
jobs. We represent almost 1,500 officers, and----
Mr. Labrador. You mentioned that it would have a chilling
effect. What did you mean by that?
Mr. Rogers. Well, to me, this ordinance has taken that
component of my job away. As I testified to, I would call these
two ICE agents. And I knew that if I contacted them and they
showed up, that I would probably never see that specific heroin
dealer on the streets of Denver again; that they would take
charge and have them deported.
Mr. Labrador. To your knowledge, has the Denver Police
Department taken any action in the form of discipline,
termination, other sanctions against officers who have
continued to work with ICE?
Mr. Rogers. Not yet. I do not think anybody wants to be the
test case, to be perfectly honest with you, sir.
Mr. Labrador. Okay. Sheriff Louderback, do you believe
sanctuary policies allow for narcotics to flow more efficiently
across our borders?
Mr. Louderback. Chairman, one of the key aspects of law
enforcement, one of the fundamentals that we have is
cooperation. You lessen our ability to communicate, operate,
work together on any of these issues, then you have handcuffed
law enforcement unnecessarily. It is one of the fundamental
issues that we face as law enforcement. We work together.
Sheriffs stand together on this issue nationwide.
Mr. Labrador. So, how can ICE be a positive force in
combating the opioid epidemic at the State and local level?
Mr. Louderback. By cooperation and by removal. There has to
be a handshake between all law enforcement agencies in this
country in order for us to accomplish our goal of protecting
the public. If we are not able to do that, if we cannot work
together and cooperate across this Nation and figure out a way
to do that effectively, then that is a serious public safety
issue.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. Ms. Vaughan, do you believe that
law enforcement can cut off a large segment of the illegal
opioid market through Federal and local immigration
cooperation?
Ms. Vaughan. Yes, indeed. Since the vast majority of the
illicit opioids that are being trafficked are brought in by
foreign organizations, if we could improve border security in a
variety of ways, and also importantly, interior immigration
enforcement, and go after them where they are doing the
distribution, which is all over the country. By taking out
these organizations and the people who staff them, that would
make a big dent in the availability of opioids in our
communities, and it would deter a lot of this illicit activity.
Mr. Labrador. Our sanctuary policies allowing illegal
immigrants with drug charges to avoid ICE detainers?
Ms. Vaughan. Sometimes, yes. If they have a policy in place
that does not permit any cooperation with ICE, if they are
forced to release criminal aliens that ICE has issued a
detainer for, absolutely. That sends that criminal alien back
to the streets to keep working for the drug trafficking
organizations. And they feel enabled to go about their illegal
business.
Mr. Labrador. Dr. Humphreys, I do not think I disagree with
much of what you said, and I think we may be having two
different hearings today, because we are not claiming that this
is not an American-made problem. But you claim in your
testimony that immigration, by extension immigration policy,
has no part in the ongoing opioid epidemic. How do you respond
to Detective Rogers and Sheriff Louderback about their
experiences in dealing with illegal opioid trade and drug
smuggling into the United States from Mexico?
Mr. Humphreys. So all of the heroin that is sent from
Mexico to the United States each year would fit in 2,000 pieces
of luggage. Fentanyl is even more potent and more compact. It
is come through the mail. So, that shows how incredibly
difficult it is to stop things at the border. We have to have
some border security. We do have some border security.
The question, as you know, about where you want to invest
your resources. So, if pouring, you know, billions of dollars
into border security that we could spend on I think far more
productive things in terms of the opioid epidemic, in terms of
treatment, in terms of changing how prescribing works, and
getting police officers, and Naloxone, all those things, I
think that is where we are going to get the benefit, and not
from border investment.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Humphreys,
Detective Rogers has expressed his concern about Denver's
policies. The city of Denver provided a two-page document
explaining their efforts to combat the opioid epidemic. Did you
have a chance to review their document, and what do you think
about it?
Mr. Humphreys. Yes, I did review the document. And it
seemed to me they were doing a lot of intelligent things. They
are expanding treatment; they are trying to use law enforcement
in a productive way; they are trying to build relationships in
the community so they can respond in an intelligent fashion to
opioids; and they are also doing work around distributing
naloxone. I am not an expert on Denver by any means, but based
on that document, I think they have got some very smart people
focused on this problem.
Ms. Lofgren. You mentioned, and we know from our own
reports, and in some cases our own districts, that the opioid
crisis is disproportionately impacting rural America as opposed
to urban centers; not to say that there is no problem in urban
centers. Can you give us any insight into why that is
happening, and what specific solution should be implemented in
those areas of rural America where this crisis is overwhelming
our society?
Mr. Humphreys. So, you know, where I am from in Appalachia,
you know, we have an incredible disinvestment. I mean there
just are not the kind of jobs there were when I was a kid. You
know, the mines do not employ as many people as they used to;
families are under more strain; more and more people are
working in low-wage jobs. That creates an environment, you
know, where people under a lot of stress, where drugs are more
rewarding because daily life is so tough. And it also creates a
temptation to enter the illegal economy.
And what happened where we were was people started taking--
they called it the OxyContin express--a flight from Charleston
down to Florida, get a couple of garbage bags full of pills
from a pill mill, fly back, and then sell them. It is the kind
of thing I think people would not do if they were not
economically stressed, but they get to that point.
So we have two things meet. You know, really difficult
economic times, and just an explosion of pills like no country
on earth had ever seen before. And that is why I think we got
hit so hard and why we are still being hit so hard in
Appalachia and in also rural areas in New England and Northern
California as well.
Ms. Lofgren. In terms of drugs coming in--you addressed
this briefly--but we have got as a source obviously there is
heroin that comes in across our borders, our southern border,
our northern border through ports. There is fentanyl, which is
I think primarily coming from China, but tell me if that is
correct.
Mr. Humphreys. That is right.
Ms. Lofgren. How would we deal with the fentanyl issue,
which is I do not know how many times more powerful than other
opioids?
Mr. Humphreys. So, I mean, part of this is a foreign-policy
problem. I mean, engaging China, it is terrifically important.
They can do more about this than we ever can from over here.
And there has been some engagement, and China did ban some of
these. Fentanyl has a whole class of analogs, and they are all,
you know, 50, 100 times more potent than heroin. They can be
helpful there.
There is some work being done by Senator Portman on also
trying to get packages registered before they come to the
United States, which may help in terms of interdiction at
efforts abroad. We should try to do those things.
But fundamentally, this comes down to demand. Nobody will
sell us drugs if we do not want to buy them. And that is always
been the case. We are a wealthy country. If we want to buy
drugs, someone will sell them. You know, people start making
fentanyl in their garage.
So that means you come back to, you know, doing prevention
in the United States, persuading people not to use them,
getting doctors to prescribe rationally and carefully again,
and providing treatment to those people who are addicted so
that they get out of this situation and stop being massive
consumers of these illegal dangerous products.
Ms. Lofgren. I was fascinated. I did not realize, before
your testimony, the amount of legal opioids that we have
rolling around, swashing around our country. That is a shocking
piece of information, and I appreciate your testimony. I think
it certainly enlightens us as to what needs to be done.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to ask unanimous consent. I
have just received a letter from our colleague, Diana DeGette,
with a statement from the City and County of Denver, where just
to quote some of it, they say that ``ICE, along with the FBI,
has access to biometric data fingerprints on every individual
booked into the Denver County Jail.
And to the extent Federal law enforcement officials have
probable cause to arrest any individual housed in the jail,
whether it be for a civil or a criminal matter arising under
Federal law, they may do so by obtaining a warrant.''
And that Denver's choice was to limit its involvement in
civil enforcement of Federal immigration laws. But that that
should not be confused with their ongoing commitment to enforce
criminal drug laws if such individuals commit crimes including
drug crimes while present in the United States.
And I would ask unanimous consent to put Ms. DeGette's
letter, this statement, and a background document, Denver's
Public Safety Priorities Act, the overview of their efforts to
address the opioid epidemic, the overview of the Denver Police
Department's drug enforcement efforts, the Q4 Tracker ICE
Notification Release Documents; as well as statements from the
Law Enforcement Action Partnership, the American Immigration
Council, the Tahirih Justice Center, Church World Service,
Immigrant Legal Resource Center, and the Drug Policy Alliance
into the record.
Mr. Labrador. Without objection.
This material is available at the Committee or on the
Committee repository at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/
JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-115-JU01-20180215-SD007.pdf.
Mr. Labrador. I now recognize Mr. Buck.
Mr. Buck. Detective Rogers, you just heard the statement
from Congresswoman DeGette, and I think that you probably read
some of the news accounts yesterday from some of the leadership
at the Denver Police Department about the access that Federal
officials have to fingerprints.
Do you want to respond to that and just tell us? Obviously
not every American has fingerprints in the system that the
Federal Government has access to. So, does that tell a Federal
agency whether the person whose fingerprints are there is in
this country legally or illegally? Does that help the Federal
Government in enforcing immigration laws in any way?
Mr. Rogers. No. I call it the three Ls. Lawyers taking
liberties with language. Basically they----
Mr. Buck. Do not belittle lawyers now, because you have got
a lot of them on that Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Rogers. I apologize to any attorneys here. They like to
spin things. And God bless them, they do a great job of it. But
at the end of the day, your fingerprint, if you get booked into
the Denver City Jail, there is not a magic switch that goes to
the FBI that says, `Hey, Nick Rogers is in jail right now.' Now
if Nick Rogers has a warrant for his arrest and my fingerprint
is associated with that warrant, absolutely there will be a hit
that comes back. That is what they talk about biometrics. That
is a fantastic word.
But at the end of the day, when you arrest someone on the
street that is selling heroin and has never been through the
system before, there is no biometric feed to ICE or the FBI or
anybody. The sheriffs take their fingerprints and they become
part of a file at that moment. But they are not magically sent
across the country, you know, claiming you are illegal or not
legal. Does that make sense?
Mr. Buck. It does. Let me ask you some other questions. Are
you familiar with the slideshow that was prepared by the Denver
Police Department to explain the new ordinance that was passed
by the Denver City Council?
Mr. Rogers. Yes. I believe that is the training that we all
went through. All officers had to go through that training.
Mr. Buck. That is correct. And I do not have page numbers
on this, but I am going to offer this, Mr. Chairman, to be part
of the record.
Mr. Labrador. Without objection, it will be made part of
the record.
This material is available at the Committee or on the
Committee repository at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/
JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-115-JU01-20180215-SD003.pdf
Mr. Buck. Thank you. Detective Rogers, one of the
statements in this slideshow says the act of being present in
the United States in violation of Federal immigration laws is
not, standing alone, a crime. Do you recall that slide?
Mr. Rogers. I do.
Mr. Buck. And are you aware of the fact that if you enter
this country illegally, it is a Federal crime, and if you
overstay a visa in this country, it is not a Federal crime?
Mr. Rogers. Correct.
Mr. Buck. And do you also understand that until ICE
inquires of an individual, they do not know whether that
individual received a visa or legal status to enter this
country, so they have no way of knowing until there is
cooperation among law enforcement agencies whether this
particular individual committed a crime or is in violation of
Federal civil law? Is that fair?
Mr. Rogers. Absolutely.
Mr. Buck. And also in this slideshow it talks about--I do
not know if it is meant to be sarcastic or affirming in some
way--but it says, this sounds similar to what we have always
done, with a question mark, as if the ordinance did not really
change policy.
And what I want to ask you is there is a paragraph in here
that reads, `No access for ICE to city-owned law enforcement
facilities beyond access granted to the general public.' Is
that a change in policy as a result of the ordinance that was
passed by the Denver City Council?
Mr. Rogers. Yes.
Mr. Buck. And in fact is it not true that ICE worked
alongside Denver narcotics officers--and I think it was in
District 3, not necessarily your district--on a heroin
distribution gang out of Honduras that resulted in 59
deportations. Is that correct?
Mr. Rogers. I am not familiar with that case, but I have
had similar cases that I have worked with ICE where we would
all brief in my office. And we would sit in our conference room
and, you know, we would put together our tactical plans for
that day for those arrests. So, those ICE agents were welcome
in the front door. They are no longer able to even come through
the security door. They do not even come in the parking lot
anymore.
Mr. Buck. And what is the effect of that on the enforcement
of narcotics laws in Denver?
Mr. Rogers. It is made it more difficult for us on the
street, because they have information that we do not; we have
information that they do not. And when we get together and we
start talking about who is doing what in certain neighborhoods,
it is amazing how many narcotics we can get off the street when
we cooperate with those individuals.
Mr. Buck. Sheriff Louderback, any comments on that?
Mr. Louderback. Sanctuary policies reduce the risk of
criminality. And we cannot cooperate, there is your public
safety nexus.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. And I will recognize the
gentlelady from Washington.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
being here to testify before us.
Mr. Chairman, I am confused about why our House Immigration
Subcommittee is having a hearing on something that has no
factual basis in connecting so-called sanctuary city policies
with the opioid crisis when there is a massive debate raging on
immigration issues on the Senate floor; when 800,000 DREAMers
face deportation in 3 weeks, and when this Committee has yet to
raise any bill related to protecting DREAMers, something that
is supported by 90 percent of the American people across
Republican and Democratic districts. I am confused, frankly,
about why we are having this hearing.
And it would be laughable if it were not so serious; if it
were not so hurtful to the characterization of immigrants
across this country, that somehow immigrants are responsible
for all these terrible things, including now, apparently, the
opioid crisis. And by the way, hurtful to those who are
suffering from the opioid crisis. I have great respect for Dr.
Humphreys and the work that you have done to, in a bipartisan
way, combat what is truly a terrible crisis in this country.
But I forgot that there are some people in this body on the
other side, and some people outside of this body on the other
side who really delight in scapegoating immigrants and do not
want to recognize that immigrants contribute to the economy
every day. And to blame one person who is an immigrant for the
crimes of everybody else, and to somehow pin responsibility for
some of these terrible things that are happening in our country
is a good tactic for dividing and scapegoating and driving up
fear and hatred.
Mr. Chairman, the latest falsehood is outrageous.
Immigrants are certainly not making the opioid crisis worse.
And alleging that deporting or cracking down on immigrants is
somehow actually going to fix this very real situation is a
falsehood. Here are the facts. We know we cannot arrest or----
Mr. Labrador. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Jayapal. No.
Mr. Labrador. No one has said that. Everything you have
said, not a single person----
Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is my time, and I
am not yielding.
Mr. Labrador. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. We know
we cannot arrest our way out of the opioid crisis. And what we
should really focus on are the underlying causes. And we do
need to make sure that law enforcement, because we appreciate
what you do in your jobs, has the tools in the first place to
help keep people off their addictions.
One example of that is the Law Enforcement Assisted
Diversion Program, the LEAD program, that we pioneered in
Seattle that Representative Jim Sensenbrenner and I have worked
in a bipartisan way to continue to get funding so that you all
have the resources that you need. But we know that community
trust does matter in combating crime in local cities and
counties across the country.
Last year, our King County prosecutor wrote in an op-ed
that, ``We are not safer when victims of crime fear being
deported if they call 911, talk to the police, or come to a
courthouse to get protection. We are not safer when a victim of
abuse thinks that she must choose between deportation or
suffering more violence at the hands of her abuser. An
unpunished violent crime threatens us all.''
And then, he goes on to say, ``My alarm is not theoretical.
Last year our office--'' again, this is a Republican King
County prosecutor--``our office worked with 67 undocumented
immigrants, more than 300 in the last 5 years, to prosecute
crimes ranging from murder and rape to domestic violence.
Without that cooperation and trust of undocumented immigrants,
we would not have been able to get some dangerous offenders off
the street.''
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit this op-ed
for the record.
Mr. Labrador. Without objection.
This material is available at the Committee or on the
Committee repository at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/
JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-115-JU01-20180215-SD005.pdf
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just recently we saw
another terrible example of what this fear is doing in our
communities. We learned that a 14-year-old girl in Bellevue,
Washington, my home State, suffered molestation for nearly 2
years. The reason that she did not come forward to seek safety
is because her abuser threatened to have her mother deported.
And in another case, a man in Tukwila, Washington called
911 to report a person that he suspected of breaking into cars
on his block. The local police took him to ICE because he had
an ICE administrative document that popped up in the system.
And ICE calls this a warrant, but it is misleading because
there is no oversight by a third-party like the judge. Now, the
local police are bending over backwards to try and win back the
trust of immigrants and their family and friends.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record two news stories on these cases.
Mr. Labrador. Without objection.
This material is available at the Committee or on the
Committee repository at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/
JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-115-JU01-20180215-SD005.pdf
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now I would like to
ask--and this is a yes or no question for Sheriff Louderback--
is it your contention that so-called sanctuary city policies
have a substantial impact on your ability to counter the opioid
crisis?
Mr. Louderback. Yes.
Ms. Jayapal. And have you read, Sheriff Louderback, the
recommendations of the bipartisan Opioid Task Force? Just a yes
or no.
Mr. Louderback. No.
Ms. Jayapal. Because if you had, you would see--because I
am a member of that bipartisan task force and it has been
working for several years on this very serious issue of the
opioid crisis--nowhere in those recommendations is there any
reference to sanctuary city policies as being critical.
Dr. Humphreys, can you tell us more--Mr. Chairman, I ask
for an additional 30 seconds since the other side had an
additional 30 seconds on the last round?
Mr. Labrador. Forty-five seconds.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. You are better than I even asked
for.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you.
Ms. Jayapal. I thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Labrador. Okay. I already gave you an additional 45
seconds, so your time has expired.
Ms. Jayapal. I appreciate it very much.
Mr. Labrador. Yeah.
Ms. Jayapal. Dr. Humphreys----
Mr. Labrador. No. No. Your time has----
Ms. Jayapal. Oh, you did. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Labrador. I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just going to do
the previous presenter. I turn to Ms. Vaughan. This morning I
wrote a couple of numbers on my hand; $116 billion and another
one is $38 billion, and I added them up and it is $154 billion.
This is out of an article written by FAIR just recently. Do you
recognize those numbers, Ms. Vaughan?
Ms. Vaughan. Perhaps the cost of illegal immigration to
State and local taxpayers and the Federal taxpayers?
Mr. King. Exactly. And I wonder if you would care to
comment to the remarks made by the gentlelady previous to me.
Ms. Vaughan. Yeah. I mean with respect to this so-called
chilling effect that cooperation is supposed to have on crime
reporting, what is important is that everyone needs to get the
message; the victims and witnesses are not targeted for
immigration enforcement, unless they also are criminals and are
an appropriate priority.
And this notion that immigrants in the community have
something to be afraid of in going forward to report crimes is
put out there primarily by these advocacy groups that advocate
against enforcement. It is a complete myth and completely
unsubstantiated in either government statistics, academic
research, or the real-life experience of law enforcement
agencies.
Mr. King. Thank you, Ms. Vaughan. Just an observation. As I
am listening to this testimony about sanctuary cities, it makes
me think of ``Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid'' and the Hole
in the Wall Gang, where the criminals all went into that place
in the canyon where there was a narrow notch that they could
guard, and they lived in there happily ever after protecting
themselves and each other from the impact of law enforcement.
And I would ask Sheriff Louderback, do you see any
similarities in that with regard to our sanctuary jurisdictions
across this country? Have they become something similar to the
Hole in the Wall Gang?
Mr. Louderback. Respectfully, sir, that is a very good
analogy.
Mr. King. I thank you, and I appreciate your testimony
about the cooperation required between every level of law
enforcement. I grew up in a law-enforcement family, and I
watched as every level of law enforcement reached out and
helped each other. Wherever they had a skill set or a knowledge
base, they shared information, they worked together.
Can you name another subject of law enforcement anywhere
currently or in the history of this country where it is been a
carve-out, where our local law enforcement declared they would
not cooperate with any other level of law enforcement?
Mr. Louderback. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. King. Detective Rogers, are you aware of any other
circumstances similar to this with regard to immigration law?
Mr. Rogers. No, sir.
Mr. King. And I turn back to Ms. Vaughan because I remember
you said the numbers 80 to 90 percent, and I just missed the
definition of what that was and did not see it in your written
testimony.
Ms. Vaughan. Of the opioids that are distributed in our
communities, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration.
And I think it is important to emphasize that----
Mr. King. They come from where?
Ms. Vaughan [continuing]. This distribution is carried out
by people. And many of those people are in this country without
authorization. And those people are the subject of ICE and
local law enforcement agencies. And that is how they disrupt
the trafficking of these deadly drugs, and that is what keeps
them off the streets.
Mr. King. And that is why that number rung my bell, because
probably as far back as 10 years ago I sat down with DEA, and
they said to me that day that 80 to 90 percent of the illegal
drugs consumed in America come from or through Mexico.
Ms. Vaughan. That is right. Even the fentanyl. It might
originate in China, but it is processed and imported by way of
Mexico.
Mr. King. And another statement that they made was in every
illegal drug distribution chain in this country, at least one
link goes through an illegal alien. Would that be consistent
with what you know, Ms. Vaughan?
Ms. Vaughan. I am not familiar with that, but it is
definitely true in certain parts of the country. Especially New
England, that is certainly true.
Mr. King. I would turn to Sheriff Louderback. Is that
contrary to any of your knowledge, Sheriff?
Mr. Louderback. No. I think it is accurate.
Mr. King. And Detective Rogers?
Mr. Rogers. Yes. I agree.
Mr. King. So, we can understand on this left side, doctor,
because this is our law enforcement side of this thing, but I
am hearing a consensus here that 80 to 90 percent of the
illegal drugs consumed in America come from or through Mexico,
and at least one link in the illegal distribution chain is an
illegal alien. And I heard the gentlelady from Washington say
that that is got nothing to do with immigration.
It would seem to me that if tomorrow morning everybody
magically woke up in their home country where they could
legally reside, it would instantly stop all of the illegal drug
distribution in America. I do not doubt that there would be a
reform of those drug distribution chains, because Dr. Humphreys
does make the point that this is a demand on this side that we
have to address as well.
And when I talk to the Mexicans about this in particular, I
have to confess at the beginning, it is an American demand that
is bringing about these drug deaths. But it is a distribution
that comes across the Rio Grande River to us; needs to be
addressed both ways. And in this Committee, we address it from
the immigration side.
So I thank the chairman for holding the hearing and the
witnesses for the testimony. And I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. I now recognize the gentlelady
from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and to the
ranking member for her persistent leadership on these issues.
Frankly, to the witnesses, let me thank you for being here,
but I would rather be talking about how we save the lives of
children who have been murdered and slaughtered by assault
weapons, of which this Congress and this Judiciary Committee
has failed to act. I would imagine maybe if I would ask the
Sheriff in a meeting of law enforcement officers--I am not sure
if he is willing to speak to that here. Everyone is so afraid
of organizations who oppose common sense, as to whether or not
he would want a 19-year-old to have an assault weapon, and AR-
15.
Not that I am interested in the issue of what gun you may
have, since the Second Amendment is a constitutional right, but
I would imagine that if the individual had a plain handgun
that, although tragic, we might not have had that enormous loss
of life. That is what we need to be discussing here this
morning. Saving lives, saving lives. Rather than trying to mix
apples and oranges.
Sheriff, what are the sanctuary cities in Texas? I see that
you are from Texas. Welcome; fellow Texan. We are proud of each
other and proud of your service, sir.
Mr. Louderback. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. What are the sanctuary cities in Texas?
Mr. Louderback. Respectfully, ma'am, we do not have that
issue. Senate Bill 4 was passed by the Texas Legislature in
2017. But we have a consistent application of law and
cooperation with law enforcement with all law enforcement
agencies at every level in the State of Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, let me just say that all of us
living in Texas for more than 10 years, I assume, I know that
bill was passed with a lot of hoopla, but there were no
sanctuary cities even before that. And I have been on the
Judiciary Committee for a very long time here in Washington,
and that never came up about any sanctuary cities in Texas. So,
I appreciate State law and that is probably where it should
stay because there really is no consistency between the
sanctuary cities and this opioid crisis.
The three Republican witnesses, have you read the report
that my colleague from Washington State mentioned? The Opioid
Task Force of the House report. The three witnesses? Sheriff,
have you read it? And I am a member of that task force, so
nowhere in that report did they indicate that there was any
correlation between sanctuary cities and the devastation of
opioid. I think it is devastating.
Are you aware, Ms. Vaughn, of the $1.3 trillion cut to
Medicaid by the budget offered by the President and the
Republicans?
Ms. Vaughan. I am not an expert on those kind of
entitlement programs, but----
Ms. Jackson Lee. You mean those life-saving programs. And
so, I assume you know that the cure or the treatment of
individuals with opioid has been heavily reliant on Medicaid.
Are you aware of that?
Ms. Vaughan. I am not.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, let me just put into the record that
it is.
Dr. Humphreys, would you help us? Coming from an
administration of another fellow Texan that you worked with and
a great admirer of the Bush family. But in any event, is this
an accurate correlation? We have heard our colleague talk about
demand. We have had demand when it was cocaine, when it was
crack, and we did not have the treatment protocols. So, how
would sanctuary cities have any correlation? Demand is
treatment protocols.
And when we speak of the issue of opioid crisis, we think
of the New England, Northeast corridor, Midwest areas that have
devastating poverty. And you look at some of the urban symptoms
or cities, they may be engaged in drug activity, but we are
talking about the crisis of opioids. Would you respond to that,
please, sir?
Mr. Humphreys. Well, Congresswoman, you described the
situation extremely well. We, in the end, buy these drugs. We
choose to do that. And that means we need to invest on the
demand side. Prevention programs for kids, support for
families, treatment for the addicted.
And then, we also need to control our own healthcare
system, which is here--it does not come from anywhere else; it
does not matter if it is a sanctuary city--that is spreading so
many of these opioids out that people are getting addicted.
And, you know, this problem started, you know, what, 20 years
ago almost. I do not see any connection with sanctuary cities,
and I do not think cracking down on them will affect our opioid
problem at all. I think there are more productive things we
could do.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Just a quick question. You do not profess
to be an immigration specialist, but my understanding of
sanctuary cities may mean moms and dads, DREAMers, landscapers,
people working in restaurants. That is just people who are
undocumented. Do you understand that concept?
Mr. Humphreys. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Is that you would have people that are
undocumented, and you are not just raiding them and arresting
them, which is going on now under this administration. Is that
your understanding, sir?
Mr. Humphreys. Yes, ma'am, with the stipulation I am not an
immigration expert.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Thank you so much all the
witnesses who came. We appreciate you.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer into the record that my
colleague and I join together, the gentlelady from Washington,
is ``The Center for American Progress, the Effects of Sanctuary
Policies on Crime and the Economy.'' I would like to offer that
into the record as unanimous consent.
Mr. Labrador. Without objection.
This material is available at the Committee or on the
Committee repository at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/
JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-115-JU01-20180215-SD004.pdf
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I yield, and again, I thank the
witnesses for their service.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. I recognize the gentleman from
Arizona.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing today. I think it is very important, and I
appreciate the witnesses, all four of you being here today. And
I think you get a flavor of somehow we manage to turn every
issue that we hear into some kind of political grandstand. So I
will try not to do that, but it is a political place.
So, I want to just start with you, Ms. Vaughan. Are you
familiar with the Arizona Immigration Law of SB-1070?
Ms. Vaughan. Yes, I am.
Mr. Biggs. And do you recall the Supreme Court holding that
basically repealed or set aside much of that State law on the
basis that the jurisdiction of immigration was solely held by
Federal Government?
Ms. Vaughan. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. And I guess my question, initially, to go with
this is do you think that sanctuary cities and States are
consistent with that ruling in SB-1070?
Ms. Vaughan. No, they are not, because what sanctuary
policies are is an attempt to nullify Federal law because local
jurisdictions disagree with it. And if this happened in any
other area of the law, whether it is environmental laws, or tax
laws, or, you know, other laws that you can think of, it simply
would not be tolerated.
Immigration officers and the immigration enforcement
agencies are singled out for interference and obstruction based
on political differences over what our immigration laws should
be. But these laws are passed by you folks, by Congress, and
they are overwhelmingly supported by Americans.
Immigration law is not some obsolete law that nobody thinks
is important to enforce anymore. There are important public
safety consequences that result from that cooperation. And that
is why the Federal Government needs to take action and impose
consequences on sanctuary policies, because they are not going
to change on their own.
Some of the sanctuary defenders are happy to be martyrs, or
have their taxpayers be martyrs for the sanctuary cause. But
they are putting everyone in the community at risk through
these policies because the result is the release of criminal
aliens who go back to the streets to reoffend. And that is
especially the case when these individuals are opioid dealers
and traffickers. These are people who could be sent home but
are instead sent back to sell more drugs to people.
Mr. Biggs. And so with that in mind, let's talk about the
opioids for a second. And I do appreciate all the testimony
with regard to opioids that we have heard today.
In particular, I am intrigued by the statement that you
could fit all the heroin that comes across here in 2,000
suitcases. But fentanyl is really what is loose and rampant in
our streets. And there was some intimation by some who were
asking questions that maybe fentanyl is not coming across the
southern border. I find that a dubious comment, and so I am
going to ask Dr. Humphreys, origins of fentanyl. And we
recognize that China is a large purveyor of that, but they have
trade routes basically. And are any of those coming from the
southern border?
Mr. Humphreys. No. You are correct about that. Fentanyl is
primarily produced in China. Some of it is shipped directly
here through our mail system; some of it is shipped to Mexico
to trafficking groups who mix it with heroin to basically
extend the strength of heroin for cheap and then make more
money. So some of it does come in that way as well.
Mr. Biggs. Right. So when we look at it coming across the
border, and Detective Rogers, in your experience, have you seen
fentanyl distribution in the Denver area that originated across
our southern border?
Mr. Rogers. We really do not have a lot of fentanyl in
Denver right now. We are not seeing the fentanyl. One of the
issues that you have is when I take heroin off the streets, it
is tested by our lab, and it comes back positive as heroin. It
does not come back positive for heroin and fentanyl.
So there is a chance there is a lot of fentanyl in Denver,
but I can tell you that we just deal with heroin. So, it is
kind of hard for me to answer that any differently than I just
did.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Detective. I am just going to
conclude by just making this observation here. It appears to me
that there are those who tacitly support criminal sanctions on
officers for cooperating with ICE, as we have seen in the
Denver area, while seeking only treatment options and no
criminal deterrence on distribution and use of opioids, which
will perpetuate this problem in my opinion. And so, with that,
Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Labrador. This concludes----
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Labrador. Yes?
Ms. Lofgren. May I ask unanimous consent to put a letter
into the record at the request of Mr. Raskin, who was unable to
be here today?
Mr. Labrador. What does the letter say?
Ms. Lofgren. It is a letter to Mr. Goodlatte, signed by
several members of the committee, about the opioid crisis.
Mr. Labrador. Okay. Without objection.
This material is available at the Committee or on the
Committee repository at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/
JU01/20180215/106864/HHRG-115-JU01-20180215-SD008.pdf
Mr. Labrador. Yes. And just to make clear, we are planning
on having a hearing on the fuller opioid crisis epidemic. Like
I said earlier, I do not necessarily disagree with many of the
things that Dr. Humphreys said today. We have a much larger
problem, and the full committee will be holding a hearing on
this. This is the immigration subcommittee, and our job is to
figure out what the immigration implications are of some of the
policies and some of the issues that we are dealing with in the
United States.
So thank you all very much for being here today. This
concludes today's hearing. Thanks for all of our witnesses for
attending. Without objection, all members will have 5
legislative days to submit additional written questions for the
witnesses or additional materials for the record. And this
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:18 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]